The Second Annual Distinguished Lecture Florida A&M Environmental Law and Justice Symposium, November 3-4, 2011
Vol.
The S econd Annual Distinguished Lecture Florida A&M Environmental Law and Justice Symposium, November 3-4, 2011
Comparative Dimensions of Environmental Justice 0
Albert Mumma 0
0 Thi s Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida A & M University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information , please contact , USA
DISTINGUISHED
LECTURE
FLORIDA
A&M
ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW
AND JUSTICE SYMPOSIUM
NOVEMBER 3-4, 2011
Dr.Albert Mumma
Associate Professor,University of Nairobi Faculty of Law
Thank you all for being here today for this symposium. The title
of this symposium is on the question of environmental justice. The
question of environmental justice today must be considered in the
context of sustainable development, which is the governing philosophy for
the management of environmental resources at this point in time.
Sustainable development is about using resources of today
without compromising the ability of future generations to use those
resources. This concept has been particularly strong when we think
about the future. It has not been too strong when we think about
questions of justice in the context of the generations of today. In fact, one of
the biggest criticisms of sustainable development is with respect to
justice and equity among present generations. So for today, I would like to
address the issue of equity in the context of climate change
governance. As you know the international community has been striving for
consensus on a protocol to manage climate change issues after 2012
when the Kyoto Protocol expires.
The concept of intergenerational equity must be considered in
this regard. Implicit in the concept of intergenerational equity is the
need for justice and the need to distribute benefits that arise out the
use of Earth's resources in society today. But along with the concept of
distribution of benefits is the question of responsibility for the
management of these resources. What we have not been able to find is a
formula that balances both the benefits and the responsibilities for
stewardship in regard to the management of those resources. And that
is what I would like to focus on today: the principle of common but
differentiated responsibility.
The history of the climate change convention is well known. In
1979, the first international climate conference identified climate
change as an international environmental problem. Considerable
research went into this problem and by 1988 there was sufficient
consensus about the need for international action and the UN declared
climate change as a common concern of mankind. In 1990, under the
auspices of the UN General Assembly, a negotiation text for the
convention of climate change was drafted. The text was presented to the
parties that attended the Rio Conference on Environment and
Development in June 1992 for adoption, and it entered into force in 1994
having received the required number of ratifications. Building on that
international consensus, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December
of 1997.
The objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change is to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Article 2 states that
the ultimate objective of the convention is to achieve the stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system. Based on this objective, the Kyoto Protocol imposed certain
obligations on states. Many of these obligations relate to development of
national inventories, formulations of programs, and technology
transfer. But the key objective that the Kyoto Protocol introduced was the
reduction commitments articulated in Article 3 of the Protocol. What
Article 3 provides is that certain countries are required to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions by 5% below 1990 levels by the year of 2012.
In my view, the ability to introduce these gases into the
atmosphere represents activity that uses the atmosphere's capacity to absorb
these gases. That capability is the global resource that is available to
all of human society. One objective that the Kyoto Protocol has sought
to achieve is to apportion that resource only to the industrialized
countries. The Kyoto Protocol has provided developing countries unlimited
rights of access to the global commons. What this means in regards to
developing countries is that there is no emissions reduction obligation.
Therefore, this design is flawed because it regulates the use of a global
resource for some countries but not for others.
The Kyoto Protocol regime is designed to give effect to the
principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which is relatively
new to international environmental law. The targets and timetables to
achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions for industrialized
countries are much more stringent as compared to those for developi (...truncated)