* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Religious engagement in the interface between ethics, policy and
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz ResearchSpace@Auckland Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: • • • Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of this thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from their thesis. To request permissions please use the Feedback form on our webpage. http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/feedback General copyright and disclaimer In addition to the above conditions, authors give their consent for the digital copy of their work to be used subject to the conditions specified on the Library Thesis Consent Form and Deposit Licence. Combating Climate Change: Religious engagement in the interface between ethics, policy and law Angela Jean Thomson A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law, the University of Auckland, 2014. ii Abstract This dissertation is an explorative research paper with a central aim of exploring the potential for religious voice to become a leading moral authority within the international climate change arena. The thesis begins by reviewing the current climate change regime, noting that an ethical and/or moral response is urgently required but largely absent. The paper suggests religion has the required ethical/moral basis and capacity to carry ethical values more prominently into the international climate change arena. The proactive viewpoints of the world’s five major religions and the numerous interreligious partnerships on climate change issues indicate an increasing trend by religions to actively participate in climate change initiatives. Secularisation theory and the assumption held by many that religion does not belong in the public sphere is slowly dissipating, paving the way for active collaboration between secular and religious institutions. Evaluation of the current influence and relevance of religion within the international law arena indicates that UN bodies are increasingly amenable to religious participation. The thesis proposes that religious voice can improve the quality of decision-making within the climate change regime and this can be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms via the UNFCCC or directly through the United Nations system. The research intersects with both religion and law and thus necessitates an interdisciplinary approach. This involves drawing appropriate information from both law and theology in order to redefine problems outside of normal climate change governance boundaries and to reach solutions based on these new understandings. iii iv Acknowledgements I would like to express much gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Klaus Bosselmann, who has allowed me to work at my own speed and under my own steam throughout the entire doctoral process, but has always been readily available whenever I required help or a general catch-up. I would also like to express gratitude to my co-supervisor, Professor Elaine Wainwright. I extend my appreciation to the staff members of the University of Auckland Law Faculty and the Postgraduate Centre for all their support and helpfulness. Much love and thanks to Phil for supporting my research and holding the fort at home on many occasions. Without his support, my journey would have been much more difficult. Also much love to my nine children - Jeremy (now embarking on his own PhD journey), Christopher, Benjamin, Mathew, Brittany, Sara-Jane, Samuel, Thomas, and Katie. My apologies to you all for more often than not being too busy to spend the quality time we should have enjoyed over the past eleven years of my student life! I love you all very much and you now have my undivided attention! Sam – my special boy who has cerebral palsy – you never complain and are always full of smiles and giggles – you are truly an inspiration to everyone who knows you. To all my friends, especially Annie McFadyen, Anne Napier, Kirsty Millett, and Professor Ravi Prakash (India) - thank you for your love, patience, understanding, and encouragement throughout the past four years. To my law school colleagues (undergraduate and post-graduate) who are now working in many parts of the world – I thank you all for allowing me to be a part of your academic journey and thank you for being a part of my own journey. Special thanks go to Dr. David Griffiths and Dr. An Hertogen who were my first real contacts in the world of independent PhD research. Fellow candidates at the time, they made me feel at home on the 7th floor and are living proof that we can achieve our dreams with much hard work! A very special acknowledgement goes to Deborah (Debbie) Hineikauia AmoamoSmart, who sadly passed away near completion of her final undergraduate law year. She was awarded her degree posthumously and made all that knew her very proud. Debbie, you were one smart cookie and I miss our lunchtime debates in the cafeteria! v vi If you don’t like the way the world is, you change it. You have an obligation to change it. You just do it one step at a time. Marian Wright Edelman vii viii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... ix Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1. Background to the research study ....................................................................................1 1.2. Holistic worldview ..............................................................................................................1 1.3. Research area of study .....................................................................................................3 1.4. Research questions and intended contribution ................................................................4 1.5. Research methodology .....................................................................................................5 1.5.1. Secularisation Theory ................................................................................................5 1.5.2. Empirical data .............................................................................................................6 1.6. Thesis structure.................................................................................................................7 The Climate Change Regime and Options for Reform ...........................................11 2.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................11 2.2. Brief history of climate change science ..........................................................................12 2.3. Evolution of the climate change regime .........................................................................14 2.3.1. Timeline of climate change action ...........................................................................15 2.3.2. International climate change action – (1970-1990 era) ...........................................23 2.3.3. International climate change action – (1991-present time) .....................................31 2.4. The challenges of climate change for existing governance mechanisms .....................42 2.5. Options for reform ...........................................................................................................45 2.5.1. The “compliance model”...........................................................................................46 2.5.2. The “new agency model”..........................................................................................46 2.5.3. The “upgrading UNEP model”..................................................................................47 2.5.4. The “organizational streamlining model” .................................................................47 2.5.5. The “multiple actors’ model” .....................................................................................48 2.6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................48 The Ethical Implications of Climate Change ...........................................................51 3.1. 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................51 3.2. Defining Ethics ................................................................................................................51 3.3. The importance of an ethical viewpoint to climate change dialogue .............................53 3.3.1. The marginalisation of ethics in climate change discussions ..................................55 3.3.2. Specific climate change ethical issues ....................................................................57 3.3.2.1. Responsibility for damages ...............................................................................58 3.3.2.2. Atmospheric targets...........................................................................................59 ix 3.3.2.3. Allocating greenhouse gas emissions reductions .............................................60 3.3.2.4. Scientific uncertainty .........................................................................................62 3.3.2.5. Cost to national economies ...............................................................................63 3.3.2.6. Independent responsibility to act ......................................................................65 3.3.2.7. Potential new technologies ...............................................................................65 3.3.2.8. Procedural fairness ...........................................................................................66 3.4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................67 Religious Perspectives on Climate Change ............................................................69 4.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................69 4.2. Defining religion ..............................................................................................................69 4.3. Religion as a source of political morality ........................................................................75 4.3.1. Numbers of adherents..............................................................................................77 4.3.2. Unity of purpose .......................................................................................................80 4.3.3. Sustainable practices ...............................................................................................82 4.3.4. Notions of justice ......................................................................................................84 4.3.5. Reverence for nature ...............................................................................................84 4.3.6. Key leadership roles in environmental issues .........................................................86 4.3.7. Story-telling as an environmental awareness teaching tool ....................................88 4.3.8. Physical and financial resources .............................................................................89 4.3.9. A Case Study - World Council of Churches ............................................................90 4.4. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu and Buddhist Perspectives on climate change .........96 4.4.1. Christianity ................................................................................................................96 4.4.2. Islam .......................................................................................................................102 4.4.3. Judaism ..................................................................................................................107 4.4.4. Hinduism.................................................................................................................111 4.4.5. Buddhism................................................................................................................114 4.5. Interfaith partnerships for climate change ....................................................................118 4.5.1. The United Nations World Charter for Nature .......................................................125 4.5.2. The Assisi Declarations .........................................................................................126 4.5.3. Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) ......................................................129 4.5.4. The Forum on Religion and Ecology (FORE) ........................................................131 4.5.5. Parliament of World Religions and Declaration towards a Global Ethic ...............133 4.5.6. The Earth Charter ..................................................................................................138 4.6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................142 The Nexus between Religion and Law .................................................................143 5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................143 5.2. History of secularisation ................................................................................................144 x 5.2.1. Concepts of the secular ........................................................................................ 147 5.2.2. Rejecting secularist theories ................................................................................. 151 5.2.3. Dualism .................................................................................................................. 156 5.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 158 Placing Religion within the International Arena ................................................... 161 6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 161 6.2. The extent of current interactions with religious organisations at the UN .................. 163 6.3. The Religion Counts Report ........................................................................................ 164 6.4. Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy ................................. 168 6.5. The World Bank and the World Faiths Development Dialogue .................................. 170 6.6. Obstacles facing religious engagement in the international arena ............................. 177 6.7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 179 Proposals for the Establishment of a Religious Body at the UN ......................... 181 7.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 181 7.2. Establishment of an interreligious organisation under UNFCCC ................................ 181 7.2.1. Current structure of the UNFCCC ......................................................................... 181 7.2.2. Articles 2 and 3 of the UNFCCC (objective and principles) ................................. 184 7.2.3. Establishment of an Ethical Panel for Climate Change under UNFCCC ............. 184 7.3. Establishment of Interreligious Council at the UN ....................................................... 187 7.3.1. Function and mandate .......................................................................................... 190 7.3.2. Covenant/Charter .................................................................................................. 190 7.3.3. Structure and representation ................................................................................ 191 7.3.4. Incorporation into the UN system ......................................................................... 193 7.4. Obstacles to the proposal for a religious/civil society organisation at the UN ............ 197 7.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 203 Thesis Summary ................................................................................................... 205 8.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 205 8.2. Contribution of my research......................................................................................... 205 8.3. Research objectives and research outcomes ............................................................. 206 8.4. Recommendations for future research ........................................................................ 209 8.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 210 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 213 APPENDIX A: The Evangelical Climate Initiative .................................................................. 215 APPENDIX B: World Scientists' Warning to Humanity .......................................................... 219 APPENDIX C: Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration ................................................ 222 APPENDIX D: World Charter for Nature ................................................................................ 233 APPENDIX E: The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders .... 240 xi APPENDIX F: The Earth Charter ............................................................................................242 APPENDIX G: Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change & Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action ..........................................................................................................................248 APPENDIX H: High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace ........................................................251 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................259 xii Introduction 1.1. Background to the research study The background to this research study proceeds from the assumption that it is not currently possible to find a single, comprehensive legal response to the problems associated with anthropogenic climate change. Although the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol have played key roles in driving and guiding the development of global climate change law, the real challenge lies in the realisation that it is not simply about reforming the current state-centred regime. Ethical considerations are also imperative to configuring a climate change response strategy that will prevent a catastrophic outcome. However, these considerations are largely absent from policy reform options. From within this context the dissertation will pursue practical solutions to the ‘ethics and morality’ challenge. It will develop a reform option that utilises the wisdom of the world’s religions and their common interest of protecting the global environment. The dissertation proposes active collaboration between religious organisations and the United Nations in order to provide the mechanisms required for more ethical decision-making. This introductory chapter will provide the necessary background material for the subsequent chapters. It will begin with a brief explanation of the author’s holistic worldview which informs the overall approach and argument of the thesis. It will then describe the research area of study before introducing the research questions and intended contributions. A brief description of the applied methodology will follow. A structural overview of the thesis will complete the chapter. 1.2. Holistic worldview The author of this dissertation is an advocate for the holistic worldview and it is this perspective that underlies the thesis research. Presently, much of humanity views life through a mechanistic lens.1 This worldview is based on four central grounds. First, scientific knowledge can achieve absolute and final certainty. Second, the dynamic of the whole can be understood from the property of the parts. Third, the world is dualistic – in which mind is superior to body, humans are superior to nature, the rational is superior to the non-rational, and objectivity is superior to subjectivity. Fourth, the common good is intensified when the potential and material wealth of Adrian Villasenor Galarza “Holistic Worldview: Towards an Integral Understanding of the Personal and the Scientific” Ludis Vitalis, vol XVI, num 30, 2008, pp 197-203. 1 1 the individual is maximised.2 This emphasis on rationality, the individual, freedom, science, progress and technology has resulted in the placement of the supernatural and the symbolical to the private sphere.3 It has also resulted in the regulation and exploitation of nature; and in the ‘myth of progress’ which contends that technology, capitalist industry, and science will lead to happiness.4 By viewing the world in this reductionist way, humanity has lost all sense of belonging to nature, and an overall feeling of emptiness and loss of value has ensued. 5 Conversely, the holistic worldview understands reality in terms of relationships and appeals to the subjective, feelings, values and consciousness. 6 This worldview observes the world as a community of subjects that includes all living beings which share the planet with humankind. It is based on interconnectedness and oneness – everything exists in relationship to everything else.7 It emphasises the need to rebuild communities in which people take responsibility for the ecosystem of which they are a part; it focuses on development of just relations between humans and an equitable distribution of resources; it also stresses the importance of forming compassionate solidarity between peoples instead of competitive individualism. It accepts the mechanistic vision of measurement and quantities (facts and figures), but it also accords the same weight to qualities (the values-base that underpins this thesis). In relation to climate change and other environmental issues – facts and figures alone cannot solve the problem – values, morals, and ethics must also be incorporated into discussions and policy-making. Therefore, the question posed at the very beginning of this thesis journey was how to make the connection between ethics and law and ultimately how to infuse this into the climate change regime. The common belief that religious traditions are ethical by nature with approximately 85% of the world’s population relating to them in some form was the primary reason for focusing on religious voice as a way to connect and infuse the regime with a desperately needed ethical dimension. 8 The most valuable feature is the abundance of ethical environmental principles that are now beginning to be translated and promulgated much more widely and publicly than ever before. Perhaps even more importantly is the realisation that religious traditions are prepared to unite in this global endeavour. Patricia Marlette Black The New is Elsewhere: Women’s Leadership in Community-Profit Organisations Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 1999, p 25. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Adrian Villasenor Galarza “Holistic Worldview: Towards an Integral Understanding of the Personal and the Scientific” Ludis Vitalis, vol XVI, num 30, 2008, pp 197-203. 6 Patricia Marlette Black, The New is Elsewhere: Women’s Leadership in Community-Profit Organisations, Doctoral Thesis , Queensland University of Technology, 1999, p 25. 7 Ibid. 8 Although the author is not a religious person, she understands religion to be an organised body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. The author is thus interested in how this major part of global civil society articulates itself ethically (re climate change) through official activities of religious representatives. 2 2 1.3. Research area of study The research area of study will focus predominantly on religious engagement in global climate change policymaking and law. It will examine the potential for religious voice to develop as a leading political moral authority within the climate change arena by drawing on the values-based perspective of religion. It will also focus on the proactive viewpoints of world faiths on climate change issues. Systematic neglect of a religious contribution has blinded policymakers to the importance of religious voice in the international arena. The reasons for neglect are generally attributed to a strong secular bias that has prevailed in leading academic institutions. It has been widely assumed that religion belongs in the private sphere. It has likewise been assumed that with the modernisation of societies, religion as a major factor in global politics has diminished in importance. The thesis argues that these presumptions are erroneous. It challenges those dominant theories by positing that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere. It has instead become increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental field, and contains a veritable wealth of knowledge. Perhaps religions can even be seen as naturally progressing toward a more enlightened position. Watling suggests religious environmentalism is a growing phenomenon challenging modern secular assumptions about nature and humanity and exploring/promoting religious ones.9 He contends religions see themselves as effective ways of evoking new appreciations of nature and for inspiring environmentally friendly behaviour.10 The result, he writes, “may be a field that in effect constitutes a new environmentally based religious movement in which different traditions express diverse and/or syncretized environmental views”. 11 Tucker and Grim likewise suggest that an alliance of religion and ecology is emerging around the planet.12 They state that as scholars and theologians begin to explore culturally diverse environmental ethics, religions are starting to find their voices regarding the environment.13 For example, the monotheistic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are developing original eco-theologies and eco-justice practices regarding stewardship and care for creation.14 Hinduism and Jainism in South Asia, and Buddhism in both Asia and the West, have established projects of ecological restoration. 15 Indigenous peoples from all over the world possess wisdom of knowing and engaging the natural 9 Tony Watling Ecological Imaginations in the World Religions: An Ethnographic Analysis (Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, 2009). 10 Ibid. 11 Tony Watling “The Field of Religion and Ecology: Addressing the Environmental Crisis and Challenging Faiths” in Religion: Beyond a Concept H de Vries (ed) (Fordham Press, New York, 2008). 12 Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim “The Greening of the World’s Religions” The Chronical Review, Feb 9, 2007. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 3 world.16 All of these religious traditions are active in seeking the language, symbols, rituals, and ethics for encouraging protection of the environment.17 Tucker and Grim perceive this as is a new moment for the world’s religions, with a vital role to play in the development of a more comprehensive environmental ethics. 18 Environmental concerns and the religious thought and action they elicit might, therefore, be challenging concepts of religious identity and pressing for reassessment and change. They may also be bestowing a new context in which religious traditions (or individuals and groups within them) may interpret their beliefs, challenge dominant views, and regain legitimacy and public relevance.19 The aim of the dissertation therefore, is to provide viable options for religious voice to become an active ethical partner in climate change policymaking and law. Although there are still many voices who would wholly reject religion’s right to a place in the international arena, these do appear to be less prominent than those who extol religion’s role and those who simply do not know what the role should be. Although the United Nations has taken a step in the right direction by including religious organisations in the Millennium Goals, still more needs to be done to institutionalise and broaden links between the United Nations and religious institutions. This dissertation thus proposes several options. The first option places an ethical organisation (Ethical Panel for Climate Change (EPCC)) within the current UNFCCC framework, set up as a separate body parallel to the IPCC, with a Secretariat administered through the COP. This civil society body would comprise religious membership, in addition to other members of civil society with expertise in global ethical concerns. The second option places a religious organisation directly within the United Nations system either as a traditional NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ via the General Assembly or the Security Council. 1.4. Research questions and intended contribution Religion has unique features enabling it to accord with important ethical aims for climate change policymaking that neither the international arena nor national governments can fulfill adeptly. Given the importance of ethics in the climate change setting, it is surprising how little attention religion, as a values-based entity, has received in the legal literature. Academics and policymakers have tended to overlook religious voice as a topic worthy of theoretical or empirical investigation. 16 Ibid. Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Tony Watling “The Field of Religion and Ecology: Addressing the Environmental Crisis and Challenging Faiths” in Religion: Beyond a Concept H de Vries (ed) (Fordham Press, New York, 2008) p 474. 17 4 The aim of this dissertation is to fill that gap. Therefore, the primary research question herein is: Can religious voice improve the quality of decision-making within the climate change regime and if so, how can this be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms? In order to answer this question and address relevant theoretical considerations, this exploratory study considers the following subsidiary question: How is religion important for combating climate change? By answering the above primary and subsidiary research questions, I aim to contribute to current scholarship in three ways. First, I highlight the importance of religion for the climate change arena as a source of political morality, a topic that has been largely neglected by mainstream environmental law scholarship. Second, I aim to dispel secularisation theories which suggest that religion does not belong in the public sphere. Third, although the importance of an ethical dimension of climate change has drawn extensive attention from academia in recent years, scholars and policymakers have yet to realise a concrete role for civil society organisations. By illustrating the potential role of religion within the international regime, this study provides a new lens through which we can understand and improve upon the climate change regime. 1.5. Research methodology This research is largely characterized by its exploratory nature. It investigates the evolution, development and effectiveness of climate change policymaking and law in order to provide insights toward possible future ethical solutions utilising the wisdom of the world’s religions. The research intersects with ethics, religion and law and thus necessitates an interdisciplinary approach. This involves drawing appropriate information from the respective disciplines of law, political sociology and theology in order to redefine problems outside of normal climate change governance boundaries and to seek solutions based on these new understandings. This research is grounded in secularisation theory as the primary theoretical framework. Empirical data is obtained from both primary and secondary sources. 1.5.1. Secularisation Theory Secularisation theory originates from the seminal social thinkers of the nineteenth century – Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud – who all believed that religion would gradually fade in 5 importance and cease to be significant with the advent of industrial society. 20 As C. Wright Mills summarised this process: “Once the world was filled with the sacred – in thought, practice, and institutional form. After the Reformation and the Renaissance, the forces of modernisation swept across the globe and secularisation, a corollary historical process, loosened the dominance of the sacred. In due course, the sacred shall disappear altogether except, possibly, in the private realm.”21 However, by the late 1980’s/early 1990’s sociologists began to reassess secularisation theory. Events including the rise of the religious right in the United States and the Iranian revolution had a profound influence that simply could not be ignored. Similarly, it could not be ignored that people continued to be religious, and religion continued to influence social institutions and behaviour. 22 Ironically, this reassessment of the role of religion in society has resulted in an argument that is nearly exactly opposite to the argument made by modernisation and secularisation theory: modernisation, rather than causing religion’s demise, is responsible for its resurgence.23 This means in practice it represents a complete reversal in the role religion is believed to play in modern political society. A significant part of this dissertation rests on this claim. It provides a powerful lens for analysing the potential influence of religious environmental organisations in contexts where governments and international agencies fail to provide the impetus and ethical perspective required for effective climate change solutions. 1.5.2. Empirical data The essential data in this research derives from differing primary and secondary sources. All are publicly available. I have reviewed the existing climate change literature with a focus on building an extensive timeline of climate change policymaking and law. Legal databases have been utilised in my search for relevant general environmental law and specific climate change law material. I have read a broad range of books, book chapters, journal articles and intergovernmental papers concerning the ethical implications of climate change and the religious initiatives taking place in this field. Similarly, academic material pertaining to secularisation theory and its related discussions has been collated. I have also browsed information provided on the internet - including websites, electronic newspaper 20 For detailed discussion see Steve Bruce (ed) Religion and Modernisation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992) p 170-94; Alan Aldridge Religion in the Contemporary World (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2000) Chapter 4. See also Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Scribner, New York, 1930; Max Weber Sociology of Religion (Beacon Press, Boston, 1993 [1922]; Mathieu M W Lemmen Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion (UPT-Katernen 10, Heerlen, 1990). 21 C Wright Mills The Sociological Imagination (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1959) p 32-33. 22 Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 11-12. 23 Ibid 12. 6 articles, and organisation research papers pertaining specifically to the research topic. 1.6. Thesis structure Although the general theory of global anthropogenic climate change has been a part of scientific research and debate since the end of the nineteenth century, it was really only in the late 1980s that an international legal regime was formally developed to address the issue. Chapter 2 will discuss this evolutionary process, highlighting the policies created, and the reasons why the system remains predominantly ineffective - with collective action by nation-states (with disparate socio-economic and environmental circumstances) remaining largely unattainable. Potentially irreversible damages or costs, long-planning horizons, regional variations, time lags between cause and effect, scientific uncertainties inherent to climate change, and geographical discrepancies between those who pollute and those subject to climate impacts make collective action more challenging still. As these issues are essentially about rights and responsibilities, fairness and equity – engaging humanity to deal in a more ethical manner is imperative. Chapter 3 discusses the ethical implications of climate change and particularly focuses on why ethics is not yet seen as an important factor in international policymaking. One explanation as to why ethical issues are not being more explicitly analysed lies in the confusion as to what is meant by ‘ethics’ in a climate change context. To act ethically means that in deciding what is the right or wrong thing to do in a given situation, we go beyond self-interest and give consideration to the consequences of our actions (or non-actions) for the well-being of others. From this perspective, ethics is a personal matter and not central to international affairs. However, when obligations are created for governments that require them to go beyond consideration of self-interest alone in making decisions and to consider their duties and responsibilities towards others; including people in other countries, future generations of people, and even other species – then ethics is central to international negotiations. Regrettably, the influence of the conventional paradigm still reigns such that climate change negotiating positions of many industrialised nations, and many of the powerful developing nations, are dominated by national self-interest largely defined by standard measures of short-term economic costs and benefits. The divergence between the influences in decision-making of ‘national self-interest’ versus considering ‘responsibilities for others’ is perhaps the most important ethical issue when considering the current state of international climate change negotiations. While national self-interest is the overarching reason for 7 ignoring or downplaying ethical issues, there are several other closely related explanations why ethics is not upheld as a key player in climate change discussions. These reasons include the disclaimers of economic harm, lack of scientific certainty, lack of global consensuses, and the wait for better technologies. Chapter 4 introduces religion as a foundation for ethical discourse on climate change. After providing a notional definition of religion for the purposes of the dissertation, attributes that bestow religion as a source of (ethical) political morality for combating climate change are explored. Religion has a vast array of constructive qualities that signify its importance. Religion’s most important aspect is the sheer number of followers, with approximately 85 per cent of the world’s population adhering to one or other of the world’s faiths and traditions. Unity of purpose, sustainable practices, notions of justice and reverence for nature are other important aspects – along with leadership roles taken by religious principals, story-telling as an environmental awareness teaching tool, and the responsible handling of physical and financial resources. Many of these attributes are employed by the World Council of Churches and a brief case study of this particular organisation ensues. The five major world religions (Christianity, Islamism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) and their respective perspectives on climate change are subsequently discussed. Each of these religions (and many of the smaller, lesser known faiths) is showing increased activism toward protection of the global environment. Several prime examples of interreligious partnerships, imperative for unified action, are also discussed in this chapter. Systematic neglect of religious factors in law has blinded policymakers to the importance of religious voice in the international arena. Chapter 5 thereby analyses the nexus between religion and law. The reasons for neglect are generally attributed to a strong secular bias that has prevailed in leading academic institutions. It has been widely assumed that religion belongs in the private sphere. It has also been assumed that with the modernisation of societies, religion as a major factor in global politics has diminished in importance. Chapter 5 gives regard to secularisation theory and its various concepts. It challenges those dominant theories by positing that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere. It has instead become increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental field, and is a veritable source of knowledge. Chapter 6 continues with this line of thinking by exploring current religious influence and relevance in international law, particularly at the UN. Although there are still many voices who would wholly reject religion’s right to a place at the UN, these do appear to be less prominent than those who extol religion’s role and those who simply do not know what the role should be. Accordingly, the various actors 8 composing the UN system hold broadly varying views of religion and religious actors. Chapter 6 also examines three valuable accounts regarding religion’s role in the public sphere. (1) Religion Counts, composed in 2002 by an internationally recognised group of scholars and experts, sought to broaden constructive religious participation in the international arena by explaining how religion operates. The paper analysed the relationship between religious and secular actors, and highlighted ‘best practices’ among religious groups. The central aim was to positively enhance religion’s voice in the public realm by providing valuable practical information for religious groups and their secular partners in dialogue. (2) In 2008, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs sponsored an independent Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy to advance understanding of the role of religion in world affairs and to develop a framework to appropriately integrate religion into U.S. foreign policy. The Executive Summary states that although religion has been a major force in the daily lives of individuals and communities for millennia, recent data indicates that the salience of religion is increasing the world over. Once considered a “private” matter by Western policymakers, religion is now playing an increasingly influential role – both positive and negative – in the public sphere on many different levels. The report avers that although it is clear religious actors will continue to present major challenges to security issues, there will also be enormous opportunities to create new alliances and forge new paths. The United States government will need to develop a far greater understanding of religion’s role in politics and society around the globe, including a detailed knowledge of religious communities, leaders, and trends. It must also move beyond traditional state-tostate relations to develop effective policies for engaging religious communities within and across nations. (3) The World Bank has considered its relationship with civil society, including faith institutions, as an important and long-standing area of concern. The result of this consideration was the formation of the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD) in 1998. This small, autonomous institution engages in dialogue and action on poverty, culture and diversity, services to the poor, and equity. Established by James D. Wolfensohn, then President of the World Bank, and Lord George Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, the purpose of the organisation was to bridge the gap between the worlds of faith and secular development. Wolfensohn particularly had increasingly recognised the limits of state and government-centred development approaches. He had a sense that the religious community and the Bank shared many interests but were continually at loggerheads over numerous issues. This realisation inspired Wolfensohn to openly engage and discuss issues of opposition. 9 Chapter 6 concludes with a brief discussion of the various obstacles facing religious engagement in the UN, including: attitudes and biases over the potentially divisive and political nature of faith-based groups; the ‘dangerousness’ of religion; the idea that religion is defunct or not very relevant in the public sphere; and a theologically-inferred perspective that faiths maintain over an evidence-based practical perspective. Chapter 7 draws the ethical, religious and legal components together by proposing several options for a religious organisation at the United Nations. The first option places an ethical organisation (Ethical Panel for Climate Change - EPCC) within the current UNFCCC framework, set up as a separate body parallel to the IPCC, with a Secretariat administered through the COP. This civil society body would comprise religious membership, in addition to other members of civil society with expertise in global ethical concerns. The second option places a religious organisation directly within the United Nations system either as a traditional NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ via the General Assembly or the Security Council. The key objective would be to transform the UN from the traditional “diplomatic club” and arena of national governments’ transactions into an inclusive international body representing different nations, ethnic, social and professional groups with a direct influence on the decision-making process. The final chapter summarises the dissertation. It considers the contributions that my research makes to scholarship regarding the engagement of religion and its interface between ethics, policy and law within the climate change arena. The research objectives and the argument developed throughout the thesis are discussed, along with the research outcomes. Finally recommendations for further research are considered. 10 The Climate Change Regime and Options for Reform “To a patient scientist, the unfolding greenhouse mystery is far more exciting than the plot of the best mystery novel. But it is slow reading, with new clues sometimes not appearing for several years. Impatience increases when one realizes that it is not the fate of some fictional character, but of our planet and species, which hangs in the balance as the great carbon mystery unfolds at a seemingly glacial pace.” 24 2.1. Introduction The aim of this chapter is to provide the contextual background to the dissertation. First, the chapter offers a brief summary of climate change science. Second, it examines the evolution of the current climate change regime. Because of the overlapping ecological, economic and social variables within which the current regime is associated, the vast range of adaptation and mitigation methods applied by myriad fragmented entities have become jumbled and mismatched and governments have struggled to build a strong, integrated and comprehensive regulatory system for managing climate change. Although some progress has been made - such as international agreements, increased resources for scientific research (leading to stronger evidence), some policy advances, a change in industry rhetoric, and an increase in public awareness - it still falls far short of what is actually required. The timeline of climate action tabled in section 2.3.1 offers a comprehensive list of the advances and policies. It likewise illustrates the lethargy and lack of momentum behind the initiatives. Third, the chapter discusses the challenges climate change presents for existing governance mechanisms – including matters such as societal reach, scientific uncertainty, distributional and equity linkages, long time frames, and global implications. Fourth, it reflects briefly on the prevalent options for reform, noting that these options may still suffer the same inherent flaws of the current regime. Although the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol have performed key roles in driving and guiding the development of climate change law, the real challenge lies in the realisation that it is not simply about reforming the current statecentred regime – it is imperative that ethics performs a much larger role. The chapter concludes by briefly introducing the central argument of the dissertation – utilising religion as a means to bring ethics squarely into the international climate change arena. 24 David W Schindler “The Mysterious Missing Sink” (1999) Nature 398: 105-106. 11 2.2. Brief history of climate change science It was John Tyndall, in 1859, who first proposed that greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, played a role in regulating the temperature of the earth. 25 In 1938, G S Callendar maintained that fossil fuel burning was raising atmospheric carbon dioxide and that this had warmed the planet by one degree Fahrenheit. 26 And from a dataset commenced in the 1950’s at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, Charles Keeling demonstrated that atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was indeed rising.27 Data from thousands of weather stations and satellites have since indicated that the planet has warmed by an average of 0.8 degrees Celsius since the industrial revolution, and that rate of warming has increased since the 1950’s with the rapid growth in carbon dioxide pollution. 28 The overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrates unequivocally that the earth is warming. 29 Climate change is occurring, caused in large part by human activity. The impacts are beginning to be experienced and these damaging effects will only increase in the decades ahead. 30 Greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, and other human activities are the primary cause. Due largely to the combustion of fossil fuels, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (the principal human-produced greenhouse gas) are at a level unequalled for at least 800,000 years 31 . The greenhouse gases from human activities are trapping more of the sun’s heat in the earth’s atmosphere, resulting in warming (refer Figure 1 below). Over the last century, the global average temperatures rose by almost 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit and the Arctic warmed about twice as much. The oceans have also warmed, especially within 1,000 feet of the surface.32 25 S. R. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming: Revised and Expanded Edition (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008). Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf. 30 Climate Change 101 Overview Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Available online at <http://www.pewclimate.org/climatechange-101/overview>. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 26 12 Figure 1: The Greenhouse Effect33 Although carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have always been present in the atmosphere, emissions of these gases from human activity have increased steadily since the industrial revolution, thus trapping more heat and amplifying the greenhouse effect. 34 Avoiding more severe impacts in the future requires large reductions in human-induced greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades. Accordingly, many governments have committed to reduce their countries’ emissions by between fifty and eighty-five per cent below 2000 levels by 2050.35 While committing to and achieving such reductions must be a high priority, adapting to climate change that is now unavoidable is also important. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for decades to many centuries after they are emitted. Thus today’s emissions will affect the climate far into the future. As a result, the Earth is committed to additional warming no matter what actions are taken to reduce emissions now. With global emissions on the rise, adaptation efforts are necessary to reduce the cost and severity of climate change impacts for the next several decades. 36 Recent scientific research has also concluded that many aspects of climate change are happening earlier or more rapidly than climate models and experts initially predicted. The rate of change 33 Source: UNEP GRID Arendal: Environmental Knowledge for Change. Available online at www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2684.aspx. 34 Climate Change 101 Overview Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Available online at http://www.pewclimate.org/climatechange-101/overview. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 13 projected for global surface temperatures and related impacts, such as ice melt and sea level rise is unprecedented in human history. Adapting to climate change will become much more difficult and more expensive as changes happen faster or on a larger scale than expected.37 2.3. Evolution of the climate change regime Although environmental issues had been recognised much earlier, it was not until the 1960’s that the idea developed that the more than seventy per cent of the biosphere lying outside national boundaries – the oceans, the polar regions, the atmosphere, outer space – were not res nullius, to be abused at will, but rather res communis, a ‘commons’ of mankind requiring protection. 38 The effects of unrestrained industrialisation was clearly obvious across the United States and Europe in burning rivers, dying lakes, dead forests, and toxic chemicals that were being ingested by animals and humans. 39 Many people consider 1962 as the seminal year in which people began to understand how closely linked the environment and development truly are. 40 It was during this year that Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring,” which exposed the hazards of the pesticide DDT, and questioned humanity’s faith in technological progress. 41 Appearing on a CBS documentary about Silent Spring just months before her death she remarked, “Man’s attitude toward nature is today critically important simply because we have now acquired a fateful power to alter and destroy nature. But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself. We are challenged as mankind has never been challenged before to prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of ourselves.” 42 In publishing her book, Carson, the citizen-scientist, had generated an environmental revolution. In 1967, the first ever action brought against environmental degradation that didn't involve the allegation of personal damages was the landmark lawsuit Yannacone vs. Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission. 43 This led to the formation of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The case was tried in the Supreme Court of New York in 1966.44 Carol A. Yannacone, the plaintiff, sued individually and on behalf of the citizens of Suffolk County to stop the commission from using DDT for mosquito control.45 37 Ibid. Mark Allan Gray “The United Nations Environment Programme: An Assessment” 20 Environmental Law (1990) 292. Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning From UNEP’s History” Available online at www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf. 40 Sustainable Development Timeline at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/sd_timeline_2012.pdf. 41 Rachel Carson Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, 1962). 42 CBS Reports: Season 4, Episode 14 “The Silent Spring of Rachel Carson (3 April 1963). 43 http://yannalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/DDT_Suffolk_Briefs.pdf. 44 Sustainable Development Timeline at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/sd_timeline_2012.pdf. 45 Ibid. 38 39 14 In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published Population Bomb on the connection between human population, resource exploitation and the environment. 46 And in 1969, Friends of the Earth formed as a non-profit advocacy organisation dedicated to protecting the planet from environmental degradation; preserving biological, cultural, and ethnic diversity; and empowering citizens to have an influential voice in decisions affecting the quality of their environment and their lives.47 The early years of the 1970’s consequently became the starting point for more serious environmental action. The twenty years from 1970 to 1990 can perhaps be perceived as ‘build-up’ years to the major policies, conventions and collaborations that have resulted since. The following timeline provides a chronological overview of the international response to climate change and the evolution of the United Nations policy. It has been divided into two specific eras – 1970 to 1990 and 1991 to the present time – beginning with the “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” (SMIC) conference - to the period leading up to and including the Conference of the Parties in Warsaw, Poland in 2013. 2.3.1. Timeline of climate change action TIMELINE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION YEAR CONCLUSIONS AND PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION 1970 – 1990 SMIC Conference 1971 1972 1972 46 47 Leading scientists report a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans and call for an organised research effort. “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” UN’s first major conference on international environmental issues. It marked a turning point in the development of international environmental politics. United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden Laid foundations of contemporary environmental policy. The declaration defined principles for the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment and highlighted the Stockholm Declaration and Action Plan Ibid. See also Paul R Ehrlich “The Population Bomb” (Buccaneer Books, New York, 1968). Ibid. 15 need to support people in this process. One of the decisions outlined in the Declaration was the formation of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). 1979 Climate change identified as an urgent world problem. A declaration was issued calling on the world’s governments “to foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate that might be adverse to the well-being of humanity”. First World Climate Conference in Geneva, Switzerland This led to the establishment of the World Climate Programme (WCP) and the World Climate Research Programme. It also led to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – see below. World Climate Programme (WCP) established Joint responsibility of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). UN set up the World Commission on Environment and Development Led by Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, the Commission put forward the concept of sustainable development as an alternative approach to one simply based on economic growth – one: “which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (1987 Brundtland Report). 1985 Villach Conference Declared consensus among experts that some global warming appeared inevitable, and called on governments to consider international agreements to restrict emissions. 1988 Establishment of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1979 1983 Panel given mandate to assess the state of existing knowledge about the climate system and climate change; the environmental, economic, and social impacts of climate 16 change; and the possible response strategies. News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts and Hansen gives his testimony. 1990 Scientists and technology experts issued a strong statement highlighting the risk of climate change. Eventually led to establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Second World Climate Conference in Geneva, Switzerland IPCC’s First Report Report confirmed scientific evidence for climate change. 1991 – Present Time 1992 1994 1995 Largest ever gathering of Heads of State. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and Forest Principles agreements signed at the Summit. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro (Earth Summit) The parties to the convention have met annually since 1995 in Conferences of the Parties (COP’s) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Entered force on 21st March, 1994. IPCC’s Second Report Written and reviewed by some 2,000 scientists and experts world-wide. Became widely known for concluding, “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” Recognized that the voluntary commitment of the industrialised countries laid down in the Convention does not suffice to guarantee effective climate protection. Therefore a Protocol was to be adopted, stating the COP 1 1995 Berlin, Germany 17 specific GHG emission reduction of these countries. COP 2 1996 The countries agreed that this Protocol should set legally binding targets for reducing or limiting GHG emissions Geneva, Switzerland COP 3 After extensive negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. 1997 Kyoto, Japan 1997 Set binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions. Signing of Kyoto Protocol It had been expected that the remaining unresolved issues in Kyoto would be finalised. Instead the parties adopted a 2year “Plan of Action” to advance efforts and to devise mechanisms for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, to be completed in 2000. COP 4 1998 Buenos Aires, Argentina During COP 4, Argentina and Kazakhstan expressed their commitment to take on the greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligation, the first two non-Annex countries to do so. COP 5 Primarily a technical meeting, and did not reach major conclusions. 1999 Bonn, Germany Major controversies, especially over the US’ proposal to allow credit for carbon “sinks” in forests and agricultural lands; disagreements over consequences for noncompliance; how to obtain financial assistance for developing countries – led to collapse of talks. COP 6 2000 Part 1 The Hague, Netherlands Negotiations resumed (without participation of the United States as it had, under the leadership of George Bush, rejected the Protocol in March). Agreement was reached concerning (1) flexible mechanisms; (2) carbon sinks; (3) broad outlines on consequences for non- COP 6 2001 Part 2 Bonn, Germany 18 compliance; (4) financing – three new funds set up to: (i) provide assistance for supporting climate measures; (ii) support least-developed countries adaptation; and (iii) a Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund. 2001 Report concluded evidence for humanity’s influence on global climate stronger than ever before, and presented detailed picture of how global warming will affect various regions. IPCC’s Third Report Set the stage to ratify the Kyoto Protocol – still without participation of the United States. Completed package known as Marrakesh Accords. COP 7 2001 Marrakesh, Morocco Adopted the Delhi Ministerial Declaration that among others, called for efforts by developed countries to transfer technology and minimize the impact of climate change on developing countries. COP 8 2002 New Delhi, India Parties agreed to use the Adaptation Fund established at COP 7 primarily in supporting developing countries better adapt to climate change. COP 9 2003 Milan, Italy Discussed the progress made in past 10 years since meetings began and future challenges, with special emphasis on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Buenos Aires Plan of Action was adopted to further support adaptation by developing countries. COP 10 2004 Buenos Aires, Argentina Marked the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol – and one of the largest intergovernmental conferences on climate change ever. The Montreal Action Plan agreed to “extend the life of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 and negotiate deeper cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.” COP 11 2005 Montreal, Canada 2005 Kyoto treaty goes into effect, signed by major industrial nations with the exception of the United States. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol 19 Adopted a five-year plan of work to support climate change adaptation by developing countries, and agreed on the procedures and modalities for the adaptation Fund. Agreement reached to improve projects for clean development mechanism. COP 12 2006 Nairobi, Kenya 2007 Report concluded warming of the climate system is unequivocal and most of observed increase in global average temperatures since mid-20th century very likely (90% likelihood) due to observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. The cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the damage they will cause. IPCC’s Fourth Report Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover found to be shrinking faster than expected. Adoption of Bali Action Plan – timeline and structured negotiation on the post-2012 framework. The AD Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) established as subsidiary body to conduct negotiations aimed at urgently enhancing implementation of the Convention up to and beyond 2012. COP 13 2007 Bali, Indonesia Agreement on principles for the financing of a fund to help the poorest nations cope with the effects of climate change. Approval of a mechanism to incorporate forest protection into the efforts of the international community to combat climate change. COP 14 2008 Poznan, Poland 2009 The goal was to create a global framework to link scientific advances in climate predictions and the needs of their users for decision-making to better cope with changing conditions. Third World Climate Conference in Geneva, Switzerland 20 2009 Produced the Copenhagen Accord which recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present day and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2° C. However, the document is not legally binding and does not contain any legally binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions. United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Switzerland (Copenhagen Summit) Disappointing conference that did not achieve binding agreement on an extension of the Kyoto Protocol or for longterm action. The 3 page Copenhagen Accord was negotiated but it was only ‘noted’ by the COP as it is considered an external document, not negotiated within the UNFCCC process. It referred to a collective commitment by developed countries for new and additional resources, including forestry and investment through international institutions that will approach USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012. COP 15 2009 Copenhagen, Denmark An agreement was reached (not a binding treaty), aimed to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. It called on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions. The agreement includes a “Green Climate” fund, proposed to be worth USD 100 billion a year by 2020, to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. However, no agreement was reached on how the funds will be raised, or on how to extend the Kyoto Protocol. COP 16 2010 Cancun, Mexico In the second largest meeting of its kind, the negotiations advanced the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali Action Plan, and the Cancun Agreements. The outcomes included a decision by Parties to adopt a universal legal agreement on COP 17 2011 Durban, South Africa 21 climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015. Disappointingly, however, the day after the talks ended, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. 2012 The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development resulted in a political outcome document ‘The Future We Want’ which contains practical measures for implementing sustainable development. However, the document appears to do little more than endorse ongoing efforts in the UN system without expressing commitment to developing a new green economy, or setting any binding timetables or commitments. UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro (Rio +20 Earth Summit) The UN Climate Change Conference in Doha resulted in agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from 2013 to 2020. However, at present, this only covers Europe and Australia, which produces less than 15 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. While there was commitment, in principle, from developed nations to compensate developing nations for the impacts of climate change, only modest progress was made on the ambition of forging, by 2015, a new post 2020 global climate deal. COP 18 2012 Doha, Qatar The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw concluded with delegates reaching a compromise on how to fight global warming. After 30 hours of deadlock, they approved a way out for a new global climate treaty to be signed in Paris in 2015. It will replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Negotiators agreed that all countries should work to curb emissions from burning coal, oil and gas as soon as possible and ideally by the first quarter of 2015. COP 19 2013 Warsaw, Poland Key decisions adopted include further advancing the Durban Platform, the Green Climate Fund and Long-Term Finance, the Warsaw Framework for REDD Plus, and the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage. Source: Author’s elaboration 22 2.3.2. International climate change action – (1970-1990 era) In 1971 a comprehensive gathering of experts from fourteen nations met in Stockholm to focus specifically on climate change – a “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” (SMIC). Although there was much debate regarding whether greenhouse gases were warming the earth, or whether pollution from particles was cooling it – all experts agreed in issuing a report with stern warnings about the risk of severe climate change. 48 The SMIC meeting was preparatory for a pioneering United Nations Conference on the Human Environment that was to be held in 1972, again in Stockholm and the SMIC Report was required reading for the delegates.49 The Stockholm conference became the first major conference on international environmental issues, and for the first time, environmental issues commanded attention at a high level of international governance.50 Although intended to be a technical and scientific meeting, the conference expanded in the planning process to also cover broad policy issues. Delegates from 113 states and over 400 international agencies met to discuss a vast range of topics: protection of wildlife, marine life, and arid areas; conservation of resources and energy; human settlements, health and population; preservation of archaeological treasures; monitoring world environmental changes; natural disasters; the atmosphere; inland waters; bio-productive systems; and trade and industry. 51 However, developing countries’ participation in the proceedings did not come easily. Having gained political independence only in the 1960s, much of these countries’ concerns in the early 1970s focused on developing their economies as a way of ensuring independence and political sovereignty. 52 The governments of many developing countries, therefore, viewed environmental initiatives from the North as preventing them from industrializing. 53 Thus environmental concerns translated into the imposition of stringent standards and the institution of non-tariff barriers jeopardizing their export possibilities.54 Environmental regulations were expected to negatively influence the patterns of world trade, the international distribution of industry, the comparative costs of production, and thus the competitive position of developing countries.55 “Environmental concerns,” it was argued, “were a neat excuse for the industrialized nations to pull the ladder up behind them.”56 Some of these concerns 48 Fred S Singer Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970). Ibid. 50 Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf. 51 Mark Allan Gray “The United Nations Environment Programme: An Assessment” 20 Environmental Law (1990) 293. 52 Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid, quoting Wade Rowland The Plot to Save the World: the Life and Times of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (Clarke, Irwin & Co, Toronto, 1973) 47. 49 23 could be mitigated, however, when many of the developing countries became involved in the drafting of “The Founex Report”57 which elucidated the links between environment and development, and put to rest the idea that these concepts were entirely conflicting.58 It helped to convince developing countries that environmental concerns were both more widespread and more relevant to their situation than they had realised. Additionally, the report affirmed that the environment should not be viewed as a barrier to development but as part of the process.59 The Stockholm Conference also developed the Stockholm Declaration and Action Plan. The Declaration defined 26 principles for the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment, and highlighted the need to support people in this process.60 The Action Plan contained 109 recommendations to be implemented by a first-ever international environmental management body (the General Assembly later established this management body as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Even though taken for granted today, UNEP’s creation was less than certain in the 1970’s.61 In his proposal to the General Assembly to hold a conference on the human environment, Sweden’s ambassador to the United Nations stated, “no new institutional arrangements would result from the conference”. 62 It became increasingly clear as the preparatory process progressed that an institutional arrangement would be necessary to put the agreements into effect and to facilitate international cooperation. 63 Governments thus agreed to create a new governmental body and, following the conference, in the fall of 1972, delegates from around the world met at the UN General Assembly in New York. The delegates discussed, among other things, the institutional and financial framework for the environment. 64 UNEP was thus created as the “anchor institution” for the global environment. It was to serve as the world’s ecological conscience, to provide impartial monitoring and assessment. It also served as a global source of information on the environment, to “speed up international action on urgent environmental problems,” and to “stimulate further international agreements of a regulatory character.” 65 Most importantly, the mission of UNEP was to ensure coherent collective environmental efforts by providing central leadership, assuring 57 The Founex Report was the result of a meeting of a panel of scientists and development experts from developing countries in Founex, Switzerland in June 1971. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Available online at http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503&l=en. 61 Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 24 a comprehensive and integrated overview of environmental problems and developing stronger linkages among environmental institutions and the constituencies they serve.66 Since its inception UNEP has operated as the United Nations’ principal body for environmental affairs. Over the years, however, international environmental responsibilities have spread across multiple organisations, including UNEP and close to a dozen other United Nations bodies (such as the Commission for Sustainable Development, the World Meteorological Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).67 Additional to this are the independent secretariats and governing bodies of the numerous environmental conventions. Some state the result of this has been a series of jurisdictional overlaps, gaps and “treaty congestion” leading to unproductive duplication, competition and waste of scarce resources.68 With such a proliferation of international environmental law developed since 1972 and environmental ministries established in almost every country, some analysts contend that UNEP needs to move into a more operational, or implementing role.69 Others, however, claim that its comparative advantage lies in the normative field and that operational activities should be performed by the sectorally focused specialised agencies.70 Yet despite international efforts over the last several decades, horizontal and trans-sectoral linkages among the specialized agencies are still lacking, and environmental activities still amount to little more than rhetoric and competition for additional resources. 71 The new patterns of organisation that the founders of the system envisioned, “based on a multitude of centres of information and of energy and power, and linked together within a system in which they can interact with each other” have yet to be created.72 The first World Climate Conference (WCC) in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1979 provided a major international forum devoted exclusively to climate change and led to the creation of the World Climate Programme (WCP) and to the creation of the 66 Ibid. Frank Biermann, Bernd Siebenhuner and Anna Schreyogg (eds) International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance (Routledge, Oxon, 2009) 153. 68 Ibid. 69 Adnan Amin, "UNEP - Reform Perspectives Two Years after Johannesburg," and Klaus Töpfer, "A Strengthened International Environmental Institution," in UNEO - Towards an International Environmental Organization, ed. A. Rechkemmer. (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005). 70 Mohamed El-Ashry, "Mainstreaming the Environment--Coherence Among International Governance Systems," Paper read at the International Environmental Governance Conference, Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations, Paris, 2004; James G. Speth, "A Memorandum in Favor of a World Environment Organization," in UNEO - Towards an International Environment Organization, ed. A. Rechkemmer, (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005); and James G Speth and Peter M. Haas, Global Environmental Governance, (Island Press, Washington DC, 2006). 71 Maria Ivanova “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf. 72 Wade Rowland, The Plot to Save the World: The Life and Times of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (Clarke, Irwin & Co, Toronto, 1973) 33. 67 25 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).73 Several hundred scientists and dignitaries attended the conference and during the course of the meeting a statement was drafted and accepted. One of its most significant points was as follows: It is possible that some effects on a regional and global scale may be detectable before the end of this century and become significant before the middle of the next century. This time scale is similar to that required to redirect, if necessary, the operation of many aspects of the world economy, including agriculture and the production of energy. Since changes in climate may prove to be beneficial in some parts of the world and adverse in others, significant social and technological readjustments may be required.74 The statement went on to call on all nations to unite in efforts to understand climate change and to plan for it. Although it did not make any calls for policy action, it did lay the groundwork for a series of workshops to better understand the problem.75 The workshops were held in Villach, Austria in 1980, 1983 and 1985. It was during the 1985 session that an international group of scientists (participating in their personal capacities) reached consensus that ‘in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature would occur which is far greater than any in man’s history’. 76 The scientists recommended that ‘scientists and policy-makers should begin active collaboration to explore the effectiveness of alternative policies and adjustment.’77 The concept of sustainable development as an alternative approach to one simply based on economic growth, “which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” was put forward by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1983.78 Led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway at that time, its work was based on the need for all people everywhere to join hands in an effort to protect the global environment. The mission of the WCED was to re-examine the critical issues of environment and development, and formulate innovative, concrete and realistic action proposals to deal with them. A second goal was to strengthen international cooperation on the environment and development, to assess and propose new forms of cooperation that can break out of existing patterns, and influence policies and events in the direction of needed change. Finally, the commission aimed to raise the level of understanding and commitment to action on Shardul Agrawala “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39: 605-620. 74 William W Kellogg “Mankind’s Impact on Climate: The Evolution of an Awareness” Climatic Change 10 (1987) 123. 75 Jill Jager “From Conference to Conference” Climatic Change (1992) Vol 20, No 2, iii-vii. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987). 73 26 the part of individuals, voluntary organisations, business, institutes and governments.79 The Commission’s report Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report), published in 1987 indicated that the attainment of sustainable development must deal with the interrelationship between the global environment and development in a very comprehensive manner. It provided support for expanding the role of sustainable development, proposed a United Nations programme on sustainable development, and identified the central legal and institutional issues.80 Until recently, the planet was a large world in which human activities and the effects were neatly compartmentalized within nations, within sectors (energy, agriculture, trade) and within broad areas of concern (environmental, economic, and social). These compartments have begun to dissolve. This applies in particular to the global ‘crises’ that have seized public concern, particularly over the last decade. These are not separate crises: an environmental crisis, a development crisis, an energy crisis. They are all one.81 On policy matters the Commission focused attention on population, food security, the loss of species and genetic resources, energy, industry and human settlements, recognizing that all are connected and thus cannot be treated in isolation from each other.82 On international cooperation and institutional reform the focus included the role of the international economy; managing global commons; the relationship between peace, security, development and the environment; and institutional and legal change. 83 The Report made recommendations concerning each of the matters that identify challenges for the development of international law, including the impact of national sovereignty and the management of the ‘global commons’. It identified six priority areas for legal and institutional change: (1) It called upon governments, regional organisations and international bodies and agencies to support development which would be economically and ecologically sustainable, to integrate the environment fully into their goals and activities, and to improve coordination and cooperation. (2) It sought reinforcement of the roles and capacities of environmental protection and resource management agencies to deal with effects, including a strengthened UNEP as the principal source for environmental data, assessment and reporting and the principle advocate and agent for change and international cooperation. Sven-Olof Ryding Environmental Management Handbook: The Holistic Approach – From Problems to Strategies (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1998) 28. 80 Philippe Sands Principles of International Environmental La: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1995) 45. 81 Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987). 82 Philippe Sands Principles of International Environmental La: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1995) 46. 83 Ibid. 79 27 (3) It called for an extension of the capacity of the international community to identify, assess and report on global risks of irreversible environmental damage, including a new international programme for cooperation among non-governmental organisations, scientific bodies and industry groups. (4) It recognised the need to expand the rights, roles and participation in development planning, decision-making and project implementation of informed public, non-governmental organisations, the scientific community, and industry. (5) In recognizing that ‘international law is being rapidly out-distanced by the accelerating pace and expanding scale of impacts on the ecological basis of development’, it called on governments to fill gaps in national and international law related to the environment in order to find ways to recognise and protect the rights of present and future generations to an environment adequate for their health and well-being; to prepare under UN auspices a universal declaration on environmental protection and sustainable development and a subsequent Convention, and to strengthen procedures for avoiding or resolving disputes on environment and resource management issues. (6) It recognised the need to invest in pollution control by providing financial assistance through the World Bank, IMF and other regional development banks. It also called for a United Nations Programme on Sustainable Development and an international conference to review progress and to promote follow up arrangements.84 Each of these proposals received support from governments at UNCED, and a conclusion from the report stated: “Attempts to maintain social and ecological stability through old approaches to development and environmental protection will increase instability. Security must be sought through change...We are unanimous in our conviction that the security, well-being, and very survival of the planet depend on such changes, now.”85 In November 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was officially constituted during its first meeting in Geneva. Initiated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), this amalgamated body of scientists produces peer-reviewed literature relevant to climate change and provides the policy community with syntheses of prevailing knowledge.86 It is open to all member countries of the United Nations and WMO. There are currently 194 member countries whose governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions 84 Ibid. Refer also Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987). Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987). 86 Imran Habib Ahmad “Climate Policy Integration: Towards Operationalization” DESA Working Paper No. 73, March 2009 p4. 85 28 about the IPCC work programme are taken, and reports accepted, adopted and approved.87 A pivotal point often overlooked is that the IPCC was the product of an intensely political process within the US and the UN system.88 Its specific purpose was to engage governments globally in climate change decision making. Thus, it is a contradiction in terms that the IPCC has managed to attract and sustain the participation of high caliber scientists and has consistently produced reports that carry credibility in scientific circles. 89 Part of the answer lies in the diversity of political actors (various US agencies, UNEP, WMO, and many different countries) and the divergence in their respective interests. This may have led to a scenario in which all actors had to give up control of the assessment process by nominating a credible independent scientist to chair the IPCC, as well as through procedural rules such as universal participation, and process transparency. 90 Bert Bolin’s 91 nomination as IPCC chair in 1988 gave credibility to the emerging assessment process and probably induced other eminent scientists to participate.92 This may have created a self-reinforcing mechanism - the more credible experts there were already in the IPCC, the more attractive it was for other established experts to join, the more internal strength the institution had to defend its scientific integrity against political pressures.93 Agrawal states that “it is not entirely inconceivable that had a single or more unified group of political actors been responsible for the creation of the IPCC, or, if a bureaucrat or even a scientist of lesser stature been nominated as chair, the assessment process might have been a non-starter or spiraled towards lower and lower credibility”.94 In recent years, however, IPCC science has come under attack. A number of mistakes in IPCC data (such as when the glaciers in the Himalayas would have completely melted) and leaked out e-mail correspondence between IPCC scientists were distorted by the press and internet media causing a breach of confidence in IPCC science. IPCC scientists have tried to rectify this image but the rumours have caused extensive damage even leading to questions in national parliaments about the integrity of the scientific work.95 The Second World Climate Conference held in Geneva in 1990 was an important step towards a global climate treaty and provided a unique blend of politics, science 87 Ibid. Shardul Agrawala “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39: 605-620. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. 91 Bert Bolin (15 March 1925 – 30 December 2007) was a Swedish meteorologist who served as the first chairman of the IPCC from 1988 to 1997. He was professor of meteorology at Stockholm University from 1961 until his retirement in 1990. 92 Shardul Agrawala “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39: 605-620. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid. 95 Joyeeta Gupta “A History of International Climate Change Policy” WIREs Climate Change 2010 1 636-653. 88 29 and unprecedented public attention. 96 The conference’s main objectives were to review the UNEP/WMO World Climate Programme (WCP) and to recommend policy actions. 97 The first part of the Conference, attended by 747 scientists and technology experts from around the world, resulted in a scientific statement in which it was agreed it was time for the world community to take strong measures to reduce sources and to increase “sinks” of greenhouse gases, despite the remaining scientific uncertainties. “If the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations is not limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social systems unprecedented in the last 10,000 years.” 98 The second part of the Conference consisted of discussions among heads of governments and ministers from 137 states and the European Community. A key issue was whether or not to set emissions targets and to refer specifically to carbon dioxide. Although the final declaration did not specify any internationally agreed targets, the participants did agree on a number of points.99 These were that participants: (1) recognise a number of principles that had emerged in international climate discussions, including the concept of climate change as a common concern of humankind, the principle of equity and the common but differentiated responsibility of countries at different levels of development, the concept of sustainable development, and the precautionary principle; (2) stress the need for further scientific research on the causes and effects of climate change and recommend that this be done mainly through support of the World Climate Programme (WCP); (3) state that response measures must be adopted without delay, despite remaining uncertainties; (4) urge developed states, which are responsible for 75% of the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases, to “establish targets and/or feasible national programmes or strategies which will have a significant effect on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases …”; (5) recognise that the emissions from developing countries must still grow to accommodate their development needs; nevertheless, these states should, with support from the developed nations and international organisations, take action; and (6) call for elaboration of a framework treaty on climate change and the necessary protocols – continuing real commitments and innovative solutions – in time for 96 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available online at http://unfccc.int/resource/ccsites/senegal/fact/fs221.htm. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 30 adoption by the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992.100 2.3.3. International climate change action – (1991-present time) 1992 was the year acknowledged by many as the commencement of a global movement to protect the environment (along with integrating developmental goals into environmental considerations). The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) - otherwise known as the Earth Summit - was held in Rio de Janeiro and was unprecedented for a UN conference, both in its size and the scope of its concerns.101 The Summit’s message was strong – stressing that nothing less than a transformation of attitudes and behaviour would bring about the necessary changes. The message reflected the complexity of the problems facing humankind: that poverty as well as excessive consumption by affluent populations place damaging stress on the environment.102 Governments recognised the need to redirect international and national plans and policies to ensure that all economic decisions fully took into account any environmental impact.103 The Summit was a significant leap forward for environmental policy making and led to the adoption of three major agreements and two legally binding conventions aimed at changing the traditional approach to development. The Statement of Forest Principles, a non-binding set of principles underling the sustainable management of forests worldwide was one of the major agreements. It provided that all countries, notably developed countries, should make an effort to “green the world” through reforestation and forest conservation. It also affirmed that states have a right to develop forests according to their socio-economic needs, in keeping with national sustainable development policies; and that specific financial resources should be provided to develop programmes that encourage economic and social substitution policies.104 The second major agreement was Agenda 21. It contained detailed proposals for action in social and economic areas (such as combating poverty, changing patterns of production and consumption and addressing demographic dynamics), and for conserving and managing the natural resources that are the basis for life – protecting the atmosphere, oceans and biodiversity; preventing deforestation; and promoting sustainable agriculture. 105 Governments agreed that the integration of environment and development concerns would lead to the fulfillment of basic needs; 100 Ibid. The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/envirp2.html. 105 Ibid. 101 31 improved standards for all; better protected and better managed ecosystems and a safer and a more prosperous future. The Preamble stated: “No nation can achieve this on its own. Together we can — in a global partnership for sustainable development”.106 The programme of action also suggested ways to strengthen the role played by major groups — women, children and young people, indigenous peoples, farmers, trade unions, the scientific community, local authorities, business, industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in achieving sustainable development.107 The third major agreement was the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which supported Agenda 21 by promoting a series of principles defining the rights and responsibilities of states. The first principle proclaimed that human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development, and are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Other principles in the document proclaimed that scientific uncertainty should not delay measures to prevent environmental degradation where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage. States also had a sovereign right to exploit their own resources but not to cause damage to the environment of other states. The eradication of poverty and reduction of disparities in worldwide standards of living were “indispensable” for sustainable development. The full participation of women was seen as essential for achieving sustainable development. The developed countries acknowledged their responsibilities in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.108 The Rio Declaration was greeted with some disappointment however, as it did not meet the expectations raised by the secretary-general of the conference, Maurice Strong, who had first called for UNCED to produce an “Earth Charter.”109 Although Strong had not elaborated on the contents he envisioned for the proposed Charter, the title alone evoked a passionate debate from people inside and outside government circles. Many argued that UNCED should produce an Earth Charter that would stir the hearts and minds of people the world over, awaken them to the environmental perils and challenges before them, and inspire them to join together to achieve a healthy planet. 110 Several months before the Summit it became clear that no intergovernmental agreement would be reached and the Earth Charter was removed from the Summit agenda. However, the Charter was far from forgotten. The 1992 NGO Global Forum held in 106 Ibid. Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Jeffrey D Kovar “A Short Guide to the Rio Declaration” 4 Colo J Intl Envtl L & Poly 119 (1993). 110 Ibid. 107 32 parallel to the Summit negotiated and drafted an Earth Charter that built on the work done in preparations for the Summit. 111 In 1994, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, president of Green Cross International, launched a new Earth Charter Initiative with support from the Dutch government. An Earth Charter Commission was formed in 1997 to oversee the project. Finally, after years of discussion and drafting, the Earth Charter was launched in June 2000 (see Appendix F for full document). The key influences which have aided in shaping the values in the Earth Charter include contemporary science, international law, the wisdom of the world's great religions and philosophical traditions, the declarations and reports of the seven UN summit conferences held during the 1990s, the global ethics movement, numerous nongovernmental declarations and people's treaties issued over the past thirty years, and best practices for building sustainable communities. 112 It is a people's treaty that sets forth an important expression of the hopes and aspirations of the emerging global civil society. In addition to the three major agreements, two legally binding Conventions were opened for signature at the Earth Summit. The first of these was the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 113 which entered into force in 1993 with 3 main objectives: the conservation of biological diversity; the sustainable use of the components of biological diversity; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The second legally binding convention was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which entered into force in 1994, after receiving the requisite fifty ratifications.114 It set an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. The Parties to the Convention acknowledged that ‘change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind’; that human activities are ‘enhancing the natural greenhouse effect’; that ‘the largest share of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries’; that ‘the global nature of climate change’ requires ‘cooperation by all countries’ in an ‘international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities’; and that countries have a ‘responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States’.115 The Convention expressed a determination ‘to protect the climate system for present and future generations’ and to stabilize ‘greenhouse gas concentrations 111 Klaus Bosselmann and J Ronald Engel The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global Governance (KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010) 18. 112 The Earth Charter Initiative website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/faq.html#4. 113 Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online at http://www.cbd.int/convention/about.shtml. 114 UNFCCC now has 165 signatories and 195 Parties (194 states and one regional economic integration organisation) and is approaching universal membership. (Refer UNFCCC website). 115 M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 295. 33 in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’. In sum the UNFCCC made the claim that industrial gases are changing the earth’s climate, and that a stable climate is a universal common good whose preservation requires cooperative international mitigating action.116 Linked to the UNFCCC is the Kyoto Protocol. It was adopted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 and entered into force in 2005. The main difference between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.117 The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001 - the “Marrakesh Accords.”118 The Protocol was ratified by 184 parties to the UNFCCC, though not by the United States of America. 119 As the majority of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions were emitted from industrialised nations, the Protocol committed thirty-seven of them to mitigation actions, mandating a per-country average of five per cent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the first commitment period from 2008 through 2012.120 Although each country has its own national target (E.U. countries, for example, have a -8% target, Japan a -6% target, and Australia a +8% target), these national targets were defined through a process of international negotiations rather than determined by each country unilaterally, and are subject to detailed international accounting rules to determine whether a country has complied.121 Rather than requiring states to adopt particular policies and measures such as efficiency standards, the Kyoto emissions targets give states freedom in deciding how to reduce emissions and (to a limited degree) where and when to do so. It includes "flexibility mechanisms" such as emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, which allow states to reduce emissions wherever the reductions are cheapest. And its multi-year commitment period and provision for banking of unused credits give states flexibility about when they reduce emissions.122 The Kyoto Protocol was a considerable achievement, but it does have two significant limitations. First, the states willing to accept Kyoto-style emissions targets represent only about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.123 The United 116 Ibid. Kyoto Protocol. Available online at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. 118 Ibid 119 This is despite the fact that the United States has placed the largest share of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and remains the largest emitter after China. 120 M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 296. 121 Daniel Bodansky “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime” Working Paper Series Social Science Research Network. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 117 34 States, which accounts for roughly twenty-five per cent of global emissions, has refused to join Kyoto, and the Kyoto Protocol – reflecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities – does not establish any emissions limitation commitments for developing countries such as China, which has now surpassed the United States as the world's biggest emitter. 124 Second, the Protocol originally set targets for only a five-year commitment period running from 2008-2012. Although the Protocol was amended in 2012 to accommodate a second commitment period (2013-2020), this amendment has not yet entered into legal force.125 Many oppose the Kyoto Protocol not because its targets are ineffective but because the principle of United Nations-set emissions targets undermines the economic, and hence political, sovereignty of nation-states.126 This is a criticism most often heard in the Senate of the United States, which voted ninety-nine to one under Clinton-Gore against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and remains steadfast in opposing any treaty restraining greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. 127 The Senate also opposed the Kyoto Protocol since it did not require developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore it was said to disadvantage American businesses and employers relative to developing countries. 128 Even so, the Protocol has many supporters, especially in the developing world, as was evident at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate conference, since it is the only existing legal instrument for greenhouse gas emission reductions. 129 The principle of internationally agreed greenhouse gas emission reductions is seen as too important to give up given the complexities involved in negotiating a new treaty.130 With so many difficulties surrounding the Kyoto Protocol, the December 2007 Bali conference set out negotiating a successor regime for the Protocol’s expiry in 2012. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pleaded with delegates to ‘‘deliver to the people of the world a successful outcome’’. 131 The conference’s dramatic eleventh hour included Papua New Guinea’s open challenge to the United States: ‘‘If you’re 124 Ibid. The 37 parties with binding targets in the second commitment period are Australia, the European Union (and its 28 member states), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol). 126 M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 296. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid. 131 Ramesh Thakur and Thomas G Weiss “United Nations “Policy”: An Argument with Three Illustrations” International Studies Perspectives (2009) 10 p 29. (Quoted in Jowit, Davies, and Adam 2007). 125 35 not willing to lead, get out of the way’’. 132 After the deadline for an agreement had been reached, the 187 states present (including China and the United States) unexpectedly resumed talks on the global effort to rescue the planet from climate change, which concluded in the Bali roadmap. The roadmap encompassed all aspects of the climate change issue: mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. Even though severe concessions were made so that the United States would sign on, the United States still had serious concerns about the inadequacy of responsibilities assigned to developing countries, while Russia, Canada, and Japan also objected to some of the agreement’s key aspects. Meanwhile the G-77 and some NGOs were disappointed at the jaded final text.133 Indeed, the ambassador of Grenada described the outcome as ‘‘so watered-down’’ that ‘‘there was no need for 12,000 people to gather…in Bali. We could have done that by email’’. 134 The Copenhagen Conference of 2009 resulted in similar disappointment. It was intended to update the Kyoto Protocol, including mandating more robust levels of greenhouse gas reductions in developed countries and drawing developing countries into the process so that growth in emissions would peak before 2020 and then begin to decline.135 However fundamental disagreements over matters agreed at previous Conferences of the Parties—the legitimacy of the Kyoto Protocol, the definition of dangerous climate change as an average warming above two degrees Celsius, the science of anthropogenic climate change, the efficacy of carbon markets - prevented any comprehensive treaty being agreed in Copenhagen. 136 Thus, “Hopenhagen” became seen as “Nopenhagen” by many disillusioned participants and commentators.137 Perhaps that was too harsh a criticism, as although the conference did not result in a new legal agreement to extend, complement, or replace the Kyoto Protocol, it did produce the Copenhagen Accord. This political agreement, negotiated by the leaders of more than twenty-five countries in the closing hours of the meeting addressed all of the main elements under negotiation, including mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, forestry, and verification. 138 The key elements included setting a long-term aspirational goal of limiting temperature rise to no more than two degrees Celsius; establishing a process for recording the mitigation targets and actions of both developed and developing countries; placing significant new 132 Ibid. (quoted in Jowit et al. 2007). Ibid 29. Ibid. 135 M S Northcott “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313, 297. 136 Ibid. 137 Daniel Bodansky “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime” Working Paper Series Social Science Research Network. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865. 138 Daniel Bodansky “The International Climate Change Regime: The Road from Copenhagen” Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements October 2010. Available online at http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/climate. 133 134 36 money on the table for climate change mitigation and adaptation by developing countries, including “fast start” money for the 2010-2012 period “approaching” 30 billion United States dollars and a goal of mobilising 100 billion by 2020; and providing for “international consultation and analysis” of developing country actions, plus fuller monitoring, reporting and verification of actions that receive international support as well as developed country targets and financing.139 The Copenhagen Accord has embraced a different architecture than the Kyoto Protocol. Rather than defining emissions targets from the top down through international negotiations, the Copenhagen Accord establishes a bottom-up process that allows each party to define its own commitments and actions unilaterally. 140 The Accord specifies that developed countries will put forward national emissions targets in the 2020 timeframe, but allows each party to determine its own target level, base year, and accounting rules. Meanwhile, developing countries have even greater latitude in formulating nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs).141 So what is the legal status of the Copenhagen Accord? On the one hand, it has been adopted by the leaders of all of the world’s major economies, giving it considerable weight. On the other hand, when it was brought back to the formal conference of the parties, the conference could agree only to “take note” rather than to adopt it, due to objections from a handful of countries led by Sudan, Venezuela and Bolivia. As a result, the Accord had no official status within the UNFCCC process.142 The Cancun Agreements of December 2010 not only brought the numerous components of the Copenhagen Accord into the UNFCCC process, but elaborated the Accord’s three-page text into thirty pages of decision language.143 Key elements of the decisions included: a reiteration of the long term goal of limiting temperature increase to two degrees Celsius; anchoring of the emissions targets and actions pledged pursuant to the Copenhagen Accord in the UNFCCC process, through inclusion in two information documents – one for emissions targets to be implemented by developed countries, the other for NAMAs to be implemented by developing countries; establishment of a registry for listing NAMAs for which developing countries are seeking international support; 139 Ibid. Daniel Bodansky “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime” Working Paper Series Social Science Research Network. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 140 37 establishment of the Green Climate Fund, which will be managed by a twenty-four member board of directors and administered for the first three years by the World Bank; reiteration of the collective commitment in Copenhagen by developed countries to provide an amount approaching $30 billion in fast start financing for the 2010-2013 period, balanced between mitigation and adaptation, as well as of the longer-term goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020, a “significant portion” of which should flow through the newly-established Green Climate Fund; elaboration of the process of international consultation and analysis of developing country mitigation actions, including that it will be performed by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) of the UNFCCC; establishment of a new technology mechanism to facilitate technology development and transfer; establishment of a framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); and adoption of the Cancun Adaptation Framework.144 Whether the conference was a step in the right direction or a failure is still unclear. Those who viewed the results of COP16 with the ‘glass half full” basis included the host of the gathering, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who said the agreements reached at the conference “put Mexico and the whole world on the right path to confront the threat of global warming and climate change.”145 The general consensus among participants was that the talks were at least partially successful. The evidence is that 193 of the 194 participants signed the final declaration from the two weeks of talks, even though many still had reservations.146 Bolivia was the only country that refused to sign the document. Another point of agreement among participants was that there was a greater sense of optimism and commitment at the Cancun gathering than there was at the conclusion of the talks in Copenhagen. 147 Observers said the talks could be considered a success because participants were able to reach agreements on three difficult areas: 1. The US and China—-the two countries most responsible for greenhouse-gas emissions endorsed international, transparent standards for countries to verify their reductions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions.148 144 Ibid. Carlos Navarro “Cancun Summit on Global Climate Change a Success or Failure, Depending on Whom You Ask” (Notien, The University of New Mexico, January 2011) Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/1928/11918. 146 Ibid. 147 Ibid. 148 Ibid. 145 38 2. Participants agreed on a plan for wealthy nations to establish a US$100 billion green climate fund by 2020 for poorer countries to use to adapt to the effects of a warming planet and to develop renewable-energy sources. Before the summit, many countries had raised concerns that their needs were being ignored by industrialized nations.149 3. Participants achieved a far-reaching agreement to reduce global deforestation, another step in the effort to lower carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere.150 The conference also reaffirmed the goal set in Copenhagen of limiting global warming by less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Critics, however, argued that the industrialised nations did not make sufficient commitments to reduce emissions, and, because of that, any agreements reached in Cancun were hollow and ineffective.151 The starkest criticisms came from Bolivian President Evo Morales, who expressed disapproval at the industrialised countries for their refusal to make a binding commitment to reduce emissions.152 Morales and other critics pointed out that the poorest nations produce the least emissions but would suffer the most from the impact of flooding, drought, and other effects of the warming of the global atmosphere. 153 Kumi Naidoo, executive director of the environmental organisation Greenpeace stated that “COP16 saved the UN process but did not save the planet.”154 Several key steps forward were agreed at the UN climate convention meeting (COP 17), held in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011, including an agreement to negotiate a new and more inclusive treaty and the establishment of a Green Climate Fund.155 Governments also agreed to establish an Adaptation Committee and a process that will lead to the establishment of a Climate Technology Centre and Network with likely funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). However, Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director, stated: “The movements forward on the Cancun agreements in respect to adaptation and climate technology institutions are welcome, as is the operationalisation of the Green Climate Fund. But the core question of whether more than 190 nations can cooperate in order to peak and bring down emissions to 149 Ibid. Ibid. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 153 Ibid. 154 Ibid. 155 Nick Nuttall, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Climate Talks End With Hope for a New More Comprehensive Legally-binding Agreement”, Sunday December 11, 2011. At <http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2661&ArticleID=8984&l=en> 150 39 the necessary level by 2020 remains open – it is a high risk strategy for the planet and its people.”156 The UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 marked the 20 th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit). With thousands of participants from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders, the focus was on two key themes – a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and how to improve international coordination for sustainable development.157 The outcome document “The Future We Want” is 283 paragraphs long and contains a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) designed to bring both rich and poor nations into cooperative target setting across a range of challenges around the world - from water and land up to food waste.158 The SDGs are expected to complement the Millennium Development Goals after 2015 and they indicate that a transition to an inclusive green economy and the realisation of a sustainable century needs to include both developed and developing nations’ footprints as they aim to eradicate poverty and transit towards a sustainable path.159 However, these SDGs have only been agreed in principle - with no detail, and no real targets and thus unenforceable. According to Gro Harlem Brundtland, the document is “unambitious and lacking in tangible commitments to ensure sustainable development and protect the environment.”160 Many environmentalists at the conference criticized the document as inadequate enough to make meaningful progress.161 For example, Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International has stated: “Rio+20 has turned into an epic failure. It has failed on equity, failed on ecology, and failed on economy.”162 The World Wildlife Fund called the document “less than satisfactory from any point of view” and warned that without improvement the conference “will have been a colossal waste of time.”163 The UN Climate Change Conference, held in Doha, Qatar, in NovemberDecember 2012 also ended with few concrete gains in addressing climate change. Although it resulted in agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from 2013 to 2020, the agreement only covers Europe and Australia, which 156 Ibid. See Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development website at <http://www.uncsd2012.org/about.html>. 158 Nick Nutall, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Inclusive Green economy Given Go Ahead by Heads of State at Rio+20”, Friday June 22, 2012. At <http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2688&ArticleID=9195&l=en>. 159 Ibid. 160 Gro Harlem Brundtland, “Rio+20 didn’t go far enough” The Elders: Independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights website at <http://www.theelders.org/dialogue/rio20-didnt-go-far-enough-what-now>. 161 Brian Clark Howard “Rio+20 Brings Hope and Solutions Despite Weak Talks” (June 21, 2012) on National Geographic Daily News website at <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120621-rio-20-hope-solutions-official-talks/>. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid. 157 40 produces less than 15 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. While there was commitment, in principle, from developed nations to compensate developing nations for the impacts of climate change, only modest progress was made on the ambition of forging, by 2015, a new post 2020 global climate deal. 164 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared climate change as an “existential challenge for the whole human race – our way of life, our plans for the future” and particularly pointed to issues resulting from “abnormal [weather] which is now the normal.”165 One particular example cited by Ban Ki-moon was the November 2012 flooding of New York City. The devastation wrought by super-storm Sandy – with 253 deaths, and over US $50 billion in economic damage and disruption – is inevitably raising fresh concern about climate change.166 The UN Climate Change Conference, held in Warsaw, Poland, in November 2013 concluded with delegates reaching a compromise on how to fight global warming. After 30 hours of deadlock, they approved a way out for a new global climate treaty to be signed in Paris in 2015.167 It will replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Negotiators agreed that all countries should work to curb emissions from burning coal, oil and gas as soon as possible and ideally by the first quarter of 2015. Key decisions adopted include further advancing the Durban Platform, the Green Climate Fund and Long-Term Finance, the Warsaw Framework for REDD Plus, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage and other decisions. 168 Although a number of nations, including the US and EU, had been calling for a clearly defined timetable that would see countries make clear climate change "commitments" by a deadline of early 2015, China led a push back by a group of developing nations, arguing for more flexibility for poorer nations.169 This move drew an angry response from the US which accused China of rolling back a previous agreement to ensure all nations make some form of commitments through the 2015 treaty. 170 The eventual agreement resulted in a draft text that requires countries "who are ready" to make "contributions, without prejudice to the legal nature," ideally by early 2015 at the latest.171 The wording represented a significant watering down of earlier proposals for "those in a position" to deliver a climate "commitment" by Julian Hunt and Johnny Chan “Doha Climate Talks are Over – Now to Pick up the Pieces” (Dec 10, 2012) The National website at < http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/doha-climate-talks-are-over-now-to-pick-up-thepieces>. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 167 United Nations Climate Change Secretariat Press Release at http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/131123_pr_closing_cop19.pdf. 168 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/meeting/7649.php. 169 James Murray and Jessica Shankleman “COP 19: Warsaw Climate Deal Finalised as Deadlock Broken” BusinessGreen: Sustainable Thinking at http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2308878/cop-19-warsaw-climate-deal-finalised-as-deadlockbroken. 170 Ibid. 171 Ibid. 164 41 early 2015. However, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey maintained the UK's key objective for Warsaw had been met. "All nations have now agreed to start their homework to prepare for a global climate change deal in 2015."172 2.4. The challenges of climate change for existing governance mechanisms As illustrated by the evolving climate change timeline of action, there are a number of features of the climate change issue that present major difficulties for existing governance mechanisms. Meadowcroft lists these as:173 Societal reach: greenhouse gases are associated with industrial and agricultural activities which have sustained rising living standards over the past two centuries. Fossil fuels still provide 80% of global primary energy. The transformation of existing production and consumption patterns to reduce emissions dramatically, as well as the necessary adaptations to climate warming, will require change that reaches deep into current practices. Consciously steering societal adjustment on such a scale is in many ways unprecedented. Scientific uncertainty: although much is now understood about the processes driving climate change and the implications for human societies, enormous uncertainties remain: particularly about the sensitivity of the climate system (how much warming will result from a given increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases); regional climate impacts; and the consequences for ecosystems. There is concern about ‘tipping points’ at which radical discontinuities in current climate patterns could occur. Although knowledge is steadily increasing, uncertainties will continue for the foreseeable future. Distributional and equity linkages: climate change, and responses to climate change, will impact different groups in different ways. Some of these impacts can be anticipated, others remain uncertain. Climate change ‘shuffles the deck’ – changing the patterns of risk and opportunity to which countries, regions, industries, social strata, and individuals are exposed. Equity issues (domestic and international) have always been among the most difficult for governments to handle. And climate change layers new dimensions on top of established concerns (regional disparities, North/South tensions, fuel-poverty, etc). Long time frames: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion have been rising since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution; the climate system evolves over decades, centuries and millennia; and managing climate change is likely to be a 172 173 Ibid. James Meadowcroft “Climate Change Governance” Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, May 2009, 4. 42 governance challenge throughout this century. Such long term issues fit poorly with a four year electoral cycle, the two or three year tenure of ministers and senior officials, and of everyday politics. Global implications: the causes and impacts of climate change are international. And economic and other ties between nations make a collective response essential. Yet coordinating international efforts on such a scale is a major challenge. Meadowcroft states that each of these factors contributes to making climate change hugely problematic for governments to manage effectively (see table 2 below). Table 2: Climate change poses challenges to traditional political institutions 174 Structural Underlying issues characteristics Long time frames Political challenges Potential political responses -200 year international development path based on fossil fuels -economic costs of emissions reduction must be born today, but benefits accrue decades in the future -Incremental (but accelerating) changes to the composition of the atmosphere and increased evidence of human induced climate change -existing political institutions scaled to human activities and lifespans, with 4-5 year electoral cycles and development plans, and annual budgets -linking of short term, medium term, and long term policy targets to ensure incremental progress towards substantial emissions reduction in the future (for example, through national and international carbon budgets). -further climate change already ‘wired in’ because of historic emissions -effects of current emissions reductions will take decades to work through climate system 174 -incentives for politicians to defer mitigation because material benefits of action come in the distant future -tendency to address more immediate issues -warming will continue for more than a century after atmospheric concentrations are stabilised -lack of ‘representation’ of future people and non-human natural world in current political decision-making -atmosphere is a single sink, so emissions anywhere effect the global climate -tendency to wait for others, as national and local actions appear Ibid, 34. 43 -development of public ethos of care for the future: for nature and future generations. -establish institutions with a mandate to ‘think long’ and promote the low carbon emissions economy -align short term incentives with long term policy goals. For example: placing a price on carbon emissions (through a carbon tax and/or; cap and trade system); establishing rewards for immediate movement towards low carbon solutions (renewable feed-in tariffs and portfolio standards); and desirable R & D -negotiate international agreements Global implications -emissions are generated by all countries, but at vastly different absolute and per capita levels, varying over time -effects of climate change expected to vary considerably from region to region futile and impose immediate costs -tendency to depress efforts to that of the least enthusiastic participant -need to coordinate action by political authorities at all different scales (local, provincial, national, regional, international, global) -do not wait for international agreements to initiate national and local action -explore sectoral initiatives -consider national responsibility for embedded emissions (total emissions generated by national consumption) rather than just territorial releases -disjunction between internationalised production chains and primarily national regulatory systems -fundamental change required to many consumption and production activities Societal reach -need for a ‘revolution’ in energy production and consumption, and dramatic changes in transportation, manufacturing, construction, agriculture, forestry management, land use and urban form -implications for population levels and population growth rates -how to guide a deliberate transformation of production/consu mption patterns -‘lock-in’ to existing technological trajectories (through sunk investments, industrial structure, business models, regulatory structures, and so on) -strength of vested interests that resist change -government leadership role in driving societal change -mobilisation of societal actors -stimulation of technological innovation -techniques to break institutional inertia -build change oriented coalitions -exploit conjunctural circumstances -encourage policy integration -clash of climate policy needs with withdrawal of state from large scale economic intervention -established administrative structures that fragment policy into discrete sectors (that are cross-cut by climate change) -future emissions trajectory uncertain Scientific uncertainty -effect of given emissions on global temperature uncertain -temperature impacts on -uncertainty can be used as an excuse to defer action by those who fear their material interests will be impacted by mitigation -scale of uncertainty and unknowns make 44 -educate decision makers and publics about the nature of scientific knowledge, research, and uncertainties -educate decision makers and public about risks, complexity and regional weather uncertain -potential for radical discontinuities -uncertain ecosystem impacts deterministic calculus of cost/benefit ratios impossible -scale of uncertainty and unknowns make traditional risk assessment impossible -uncertainty and unknowns will persist into indefinite future as we conduct a one-off experiment with the world climate system Distributional and equity linkages -different countries and regions will be impacted in different ways, but how remains uncertain -different countries and regions have different historical and current patterns of emissions -the international system and national polities are characterised by deep social and economic inequalities -disagreement about responsibilities for problems, and how costs of adjustment and costs of mitigation should be divided -disagreement over relevant criteria in determining burden sharing uncertainty of climate change issues -apply hedging strategies (precautionary principle) and avoiding high impact events rather than optimising -expand knowledge base -take socio economic inequalities seriously in climate policy design -allow localities and regions flexibility in policy design and implementation -develop representative forums for feedback on policy orientations -difficulty in determining costs this generation should carry to reduce risks for future generations -uneven regional distribution of fossil fuel dependence and fossil fuel reserves 2.5. Options for reform In 2006, The International Institute for Sustainable Development wrote a 124 page study titled “Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda”.175 The study showed that although impressive institutional machinery has been built under the current framework (i.e. numerous multilateral environmental agreements, many meetings to advance implementation, and significant amounts of human resources spent producing reports on the efforts undertaken) the overall state of the global environment seems not to have improved as a consequence.176 As a result of the 175 Adil Najam, Mihaela Papa, and Nadaa Taiyab Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, 2006) 17-20. 176 Ibid. 45 study, five models of reform have been envisioned. These include the compliance model, the new agency model, the upgrading UNEP model, organisational streamlining model, and multiple actors’ model. 2.5.1. The “compliance model” The “compliance model” advocates creation of a body that could provide binding decisions to hold states and private actors accountable for non-compliance with MEAs and resulting environmental damage.177 Several potential bodies with such enforcement powers have been proposed. The first proposal is the creation of a World Environment Court, envisioned as a permanent institution along the lines of the European Court of Human Rights.178 The court would ensure compliance with MEAs and uphold the new right to a healthy environment. The second potential body is an upgrade of the Trusteeship Council – in order for it to have authority over global commons and also to represent interests of potential beneficiaries, especially future generations.179 The third proposal is to broaden the mandate of the Security Council to include environmental security. Ideally, the compliance model would solve the issue of free riders, ensuring care for the global commons, match judicial enforcement available elsewhere (especially in the WTO), enhance predictability and intergenerational concern of environmental law and directly impact compliance with MEAs. 180 However, as previously stated, states are generally unwilling to accept a compliance body’s value judgments and there is a very low probability that all states would voluntarily accept this model.181 2.5.2. The “new agency model” The “new agency model” refers to the creation of a new organisation outside UNEP (eg. joining agencies such as UNEP, CSD, UNDP and others) within a World Organisation for Environment and Development or a Global Environmental Organisation, modeled after the WTO. It would possess extensive rule-making authority to address market failures and facilitate negotiation of international standards to be implemented by all countries.182 This model could help to alleviate the problems of fragmentation and weakness of environmental governance within the UN system. However, it would present a major challenge as the current system 177 Ibid. Ibid. 179 Ibid. 180 Ibid. 181 Ibid. 182 Ibid. 178 46 is strongly decentralised and individual environmental entities strongly resist takeovers.183 2.5.3. The “upgrading UNEP model” The “upgrading UNEP model” would see UNEP upgraded to a specialised agency in order to strengthen its status as an anchor institution for the global environment (as since its creation it has seen a limited legal mandate, a lack of funds and location has been an issue).184 It has also been suggested that UNEP be upgraded into a decentralised United Nations Environment Organisation (UNEO), with its own legal identity, and comprising of a general assembly, executive structure and secretariat.185 Upgrading UNEP requires less financial and diplomatic investment than creating a completely new organisation. However, focusing reform debate only on UNEP distracts from the broader institutional challenges, and it is not yet clear just how much of a difference specialised agency status will actually give.186 2.5.4. The “organizational streamlining model” The “organisational streamlining model” suggests firstly the integrating of environmental institutions into ‘clusters’ as a way to achieve goals of environmental conventions, while also pursuing efficiency gains and improving coherence of environmental governance. 187 This model would also address duplication and overlaps by clarifying mandates of different entities, addressing their conflicting agendas and building upon their interlinkages.188 Implementation streamlining with states could help in developing plans for coordinating the implementation of the Rio Conventions on climate change, desertification and biological diversity. 189 Institutional fragmentation increases visibility of environmental protection, promotes specialisation and innovation, and increases commitments of states that host secretariats. 190 However, streamlining also has many disadvantages including institutional overlap, high financial and administrative costs, and increased reporting 183 Ibid. Ibid. It would then be able to adopt treaties, have its own budget and potentially use innovative financial mechanisms. It would also be able to serve as an information and capacity clearinghouse and set broad policy guidelines for action within the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF). 185 Ibid. It would incorporate UNEP and GMEF; take up UNEP’s mandate with respect to its normative function; and serve as the authority for environment within the UN system. 186 Ibid. 187 Ibid. Clusters can be issue-based, functional/organisational, or they can have a particular regional scope (co-location and “merger” of secretariats). 188 Ibid. 189 Ibid. 190 Ibid. Some level of redundancy is also desirable as it serves as an insurance against institutional decline. 184 47 demands (a particular problem in developing countries), resulting in a reduction of state participation and decrease in implementation of environmental law. 191 2.5.5. The “multiple actors’ model” Finally, the “multiple actors’ model” argues that the system of governance comprises multiple actors (including states, international environmental organisations, related international organisations, civil society organisations, and public concern and action) whose actions need to be mutually reinforcing and better coordinated.192 The first reform proposal thus suggests the integration of the environment into the larger context of sustainable development by allowing organisations to grow by creating venues for them to interact and “transact.” 193 The second reform proposal is to create multiple channels of implementation which naturally emerge through the complexity of today’s environmental threats (particularly climate change) but can lack direction if one is not provided by the system. 194 Thus the solutions proposed by this model are broad and offer directions the system should follow, rather than specific organisational improvements.195 2.6. Conclusion Although the above reform proposals are legitimate responses – they may still suffer the same systemic flaws as presently encountered. For example, the challenges of reaching global consensus would undoubtedly remain largely unabated; the reform options do not articulate the need for urgency in finding solutions; and ethics is still a concept left outside the door. When the influence of groups that fear adverse consequences of mitigation policies is combined with scientific uncertainty; the complexity of reaching global agreements; and long time frames - the natural tendency is for governments to delay action, to seek to avoid antagonizing influential groups, and to adopt less ambitious climate programs. This is not conducive to achieving effective solutions. Effective climate change governance will require civil society groups, governments and institutions to play a more active role in bringing about shifts in interest perceptions. However, in order to actuate a shift, legal rights and responsibilities must be adjusted and new ideas and accepted norms and 191 Ibid. Ibid. 193 Ibid. Preferring environmental to sustainable development governance may result in further marginalisation of environmental problems on the international agenda, alienation of developing countries, and continuing regime clashes between environment and other relevant international regimes. A General Agreement on Environment and Development should be negotiated to codify universally accepted sustainable development principles and serve as an umbrella for existing MEAs. 194 Ibid. Global environmental governance ‘quality’ will be increasingly determined by the interaction among five entities in implementation and the ability of the system to facilitate their interaction, e.g., through global public policy networks. 195 Ibid. 192 48 expectations must be formed. An ethical dimension is thus crucial to achieving effective solutions. This dissertation accordingly proposes utilising the wisdom of the world’s religions as a carrier of ethics into the international arena. It proposes the creation of a religious organisation at the United Nations, in which to provide the ethical constituent to policymaking. The effectiveness of any newly-formed religious organisation would depend on its ability to cooperate with national governments, international organisations, and civil society institutions.196 The key objective would be to transform the UN from the traditional “diplomatic club” and arena of national governments’ dealings into an inclusive international body representing different nations, ethnic, social and professional groups with a direct influence on the decision-making process.197 The United Nations could thus be guided by universal spiritual and moral principles in addition to state interests. Before evaluating the likelihood of the proposal, however, the thesis must first provide an account of how ethics, religion, policy and law intersect. The following chapters provide the required narrative. First, the justification for an ethical dimension for climate change will be appraised. The correlation between ethics and religion will be examined, as will the nexus between religion and law. The proposal for a religious organisation at the UN will be discussed in chapter 7 after expanding on these central and inter-connected themes. Vladimir Petrovsky “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and Constraints” International Journal on World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 49. 197 Ibid, 52. 196 49 50 The Ethical Implications of Climate Change “What distinguishes ethical issues from economic and scientific arguments about climate change is that ethics is about duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others while economic and scientific arguments are usually understood to be about “value-neutral” “facts” which once established are often deployed in arguments about self-interest.”1 3.1. 1. Introduction The previous chapter examined the inner workings and dynamics of international climate change law. After surveying the evolution of the current climate change regime and its related policies, it appears the measures created for dealing with climate change are presently too weak to have a substantial impact. Economic development remains the main focus and very little thought is given to the ethical implications of climate change. This thesis proposes the problem be approached from an entirely new perspective, with precedence given to ethical concerns. The great variability of climatic outcomes and of countries’ capacities to cope with mitigation and adaptation efforts must be taken into account. The welfare of future generations and other species must also be considered. The purpose of this chapter therefore is to discuss the nature of ethics and its importance to climate change policymaking. It will introduce specific ethical issues associated with climate change and consider how to address these issues more substantially in future dialogue. As defining ethics is integral to this process the chapter begins with an explanatory narrative. 3.2. Defining Ethics The English word ‘ethics’ has its origins in ancient Greece. It is derived from the Greek word ethos meaning ‘character’ or ‘custom’.2 It is the domain of inquiry that examines statements about what is right, fair, just or good; about what we ought to do, not just about what is the case or what is most acceptable or expedient. 3 Noel Preston states the distinction between ‘ought’ and ‘is’ signals the need to distinguish ethical claims from factual ones. Facts describe and they can be tested as to their falsity or the truth. Ethical claims prescribe and are concerned with how people Donald A Brown “Ten Reasons Why Examining Climate Change Policy Controversies through an Ethical Lens is a Practical Imperative” Climate Ethics Website http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/ . 2 Noel Preston Understanding Ethics (3rd ed) (The Federation Press, NSW, 2007) 16. 3 Ibid. 1 51 ought to behave and suggest how social and individual behaviour can be improved. As such, Preston says, ethical claims are debatable and contestable. 4 Peter Singer asserts ethics is inescapable. Ethical ramifications can be found in most of our choices. He says that even if we deliberately avoid all moral language, we will find it impossible to prevent ourselves inwardly classifying actions as right or wrong.5 He poses the questions: How should we live? Should we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more specific questions that face us: Is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? And what are our obligations to the other creatures with whom we share this planet and to the generations of humans who will come after us? 6 Singer states that ethics deals with such questions at all levels and its subject consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision-making.7 Its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong. 8 The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change report states that, generally speaking, values are general apprehensions about the importance of objects (material or ideal, physical or spiritual) according to certain criteria. 9 Ethical values form the basis of decision-making and action in accordance with an ideal accepted in a given moral system.10 They are expressed in the notions of good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust, and what does or does not deserve respect. The report also states that “in comparison with merely desirable things, situational, pragmatic, and prudential preferences, political convictions or instrumental values, ethical values differ by their universalizable character.”11 Therefore, decision-making and action based on ethical values are not arbitrary choices, but rather they follow principles that are of such importance that they are deemed to be binding on all rational human beings. 12 Ethical values are distinguished by their prescriptive character and they communicate a “must do” requirement to all who subscribes to them. If denied, society has a legitimate expectation that the dissenter(s) provide a sound, rational justification for doing so. If such a justification cannot be provided, society may place some kind of sanction on the dissenter(s).13 4 Ibid. Peter Singer The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (Princeton University Press, Oxford, 2011) Preface. 6 Peter Singer “Ethics” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, 1985) 627-648. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change” Report by the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) (UNESCO, France, 2010) 19. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 5 52 Fundamental ethical values, the Report states, include the good of individuals and communities; solidarity and unity between individuals and within communities; virtues (character traits that typically enable rational agents to promote the good of individuals and communities, or solidarity and unity between individuals and within communities); and excellence in the good, solidarity and virtues expressed in moral ideals. 14 These values are promoted through ethical principles such as – ‘do no harm’, ‘contribute to the good of others’, ‘be non-violent and just’, and ‘be tolerant and respect the dignity of others’.15 An added characteristic of the ethical domain, the report claims, is that it predominantly deals with human agency (including decision-making) and its effects. 16 Therefore, the basis of the ethical domain is comprised of the ability of humans to choose freely and rationally between different value-laden options, and the expected consequences following from these choices.17 Thus, the ethical domain is circumscribed not only by the value choices made by humans, but also by the critical weighing of the expected consequences of their actions.18 3.3. The importance of an ethical viewpoint to climate change dialogue The Buenos Aires Declaration on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change is an essential source for assessing the importance of an ethical dimension to climate change dialogue.19 The document declares that reflection on the ethical dimensions of climate change is urgent on four key grounds: (1) Unless the ethical dimensions are considered, the international community may choose responses that are ethically unsupportable or unjust; (2) Many profound ethical questions are hidden in scientific and economic arguments about various climate change policy proposals; (3) An equitable approach to climate change policy is necessary to overcome barriers currently blocking progress in international negotiations; and (4) An ethically-based global consensus on climate change may prevent further disparities between rich and poor, and reduce potential international tension that will arise from climate-caused food and water scarcities and perceived inequitable use of the global atmospheric commons as a carbon sink.20 14 Ibid 20. Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Buenos Aires Declaration on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change ((For the complete text of this declaration refer http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/documents/declaration.pdf). 20 Ibid. 15 53 An ethical viewpoint is further endorsed by Peter Singer. He considers, in his 2011 book Practical Ethics, the long-standing argument that the only obligation we have to strangers is not to harm them.21 For most of human existence that view would have been easy to live by as our ancestors lived in small groups of several hundred people, and those living on the other side of a river or mountain might well have been in another world. 22 Ethical principles were therefore developed to deal with problems arising in these small communities but not to help those outside it. Singer states the harms that it was considered wrong to cause were generally clear and well defined and the developed inhibitions against, and emotional responses to, such actions still form the basis for much of our moral thinking.23 However, in today’s world people are connected to others the world over in ways our ancestors could never have imagined. The finding that human activities are changing the climate of our planet has brought with it knowledge of new ways in which we can harm one another. Singer gives the example of a car releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere due to fossil fuel consumption. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is altered, and hence, the climate is also altered. This in turn, has an effect on others.24 Singer states climate change is thus causing, every week, as many deaths as occurred in the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. 25 The immediate causes of the additional deaths are mostly climatesensitive diseases such as malaria, dengue, and diarrhea, which is more common when there is a lack of safe water. 26 Malnutrition resulting from failed crops (because of high temperatures or low rainfall) is also responsible for many deaths. Changes can also be seen in the fertile, densely settled delta regions in Egypt, Bangladesh, India and Vietnam, which are at risk from rising sea levels. 27 The Sunderbans, islands in the Ganges delta that are home to four million Indians, are disappearing – two islands have vanished entirely; in total, an area of land measuring thirty-one square miles has disappeared over the last thirty years. Hundreds of families have had to move to camps for displaced people. 28 Some of the small Pacific nations like the Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu, which consist of lowlying coral atolls, are in similar danger. Within a few decades, these nations may be submerged beneath the waves. And Singer states that these are only the early signs.29 There is much greater change still to come. In 2007, the Fourth Assessment 21 Peter Singer Practical Ethics (3rd Ed) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011) 216. Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid 217. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 22 54 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that a temperature rise in the range of 2 to 2.40C, by the year 2080, would put stress on water resources used by 1.2 billion people. 30 Rising sea levels would expose, each year, an additional 29 million people to coastal flooding. If temperatures rise as much as 3.30C over the same period, the stress on water resources would affect 2.5 to 3.2 billion people, and each year would expose an additional 29 million to coastal flooding.31 It is not only humans who will suffer from climate change. Millions of animals will also die in droughts and floods. Some will be able to move as their environments change, but many others will have no place to go. In some regions, states Singer, alpine species may be able to move to higher ground as temperatures increase, but in countries such as Australia, alpine plants and animals are already clinging to the most elevated regions, and there is nowhere higher to go. 32 Global warming will therefore cause extinctions on a huge scale and due to the fact that very few people see the direct consequences of their actions, there is a definite lack of any kind of instinctive inhibitions or emotional response against causing the harm. As Singer points out, most have trouble seeing it as harm at all.33 3.3.1. The marginalisation of ethics in climate change discussions Brendan Mackey, presenting at the Earth Charter +10 event in Mexico, 2010 stated one reason ethical issues are not being more explicitly analysed is due to confusion as to what is meant by ‘ethics’ in a climate change context. 34 To act ethically, he said, means that in deciding what is the right or wrong thing to do in a given situation, we go beyond self-interest and give consideration to the consequences of our actions (or non-actions) for the well-being of others. 35 Many people associate ‘ethics’ only with the rights and wrongs of personal behaviour such as are addressed by an organisations ‘code of conduct’ for their staff. From this perspective, he states, ethics is a personal matter and not central to international affairs. 36 However, when obligations are created for governments that require them to go beyond consideration of self-interest alone in making decisions, and to consider their duties and responsibilities towards others (including people in other countries, future 30 Ibid. Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Prof Brendan Mackey “Climate Change, Ethics and the Earth Charter” Paper presented at the Earth Charter +10 event, Mexico 2010. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 31 55 generations of people, and even other species), then ethics is central to international negotiations.37 Mackey continues by stating that conventional notions of the morality of the nation state accepts ethics as part of international relations but only up to the point where it does not serve the national self-interest. This notion is often challenged by the proposition that nations should act beyond their self-interest in their decision making.38 However, the influence of the conventional paradigm still reigns such that the climate change negotiating positions of many (if not most) industrialised nations, and many (if not most) of the powerful developing nations, are dominated by national self-interest largely defined by standard measures of short-term economic costs and benefits.39 For example, Mackey contends one of the main arguments made in Australia against climate change policies is that ‘Australia is not a major polluter, any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not significantly influence climate change, but mitigation policies will add unnecessary costs to the Australian economy’. 40 These arguments are politically powerful because Australia obtains around 90% of its energy from coal-fired power stations and it is the world’s largest exporter of coal.41 Mackey asserts the divergence between the influences in decision-making of ‘national self-interest’ versus considering ‘responsibilities for others’ is perhaps the most important ethical issue when considering the current state of international climate change negotiations.42 Never before have governments been required to consider the global condition of human life and the far-off well-being of people and other species in the future. He asks how prepared are we to give consideration in our decision making to our responsibilities for the welfare of people in other countries and future generations?43 Harris also states that climate change negotiations are more often than not exemplified by preoccupation with narrow and short-term perceived national interests rather than the pressing need to mitigate global warming and to respond aggressively to its impacts. 44 This can be demonstrated by the December 2009 United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen, which failed to reach any formal or binding agreement on steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to deal with the impacts of global warming. 37 45 The conference revealed a Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Paul G Harris “Misplaced Ethics of Climate Change: Political vs. Environmental Geography” Ethics, Place and Environment Vol 13 No 2 June 2010, 215-222. 45 Ibid. 38 39 56 fundamental flaw in the international politics of climate change, namely underlying norms and ethics that place nearly all value and importance in states and their national interests, rather than in the people who ultimately cause and are affected by climate change.46 While national self-interest is the overarching reason for ignoring or downplaying ethical issues, there are several other closely related explanations why ethics is not upheld as a key player in climate change discussions. These reasons include the disclaimers of economic harm, lack of scientific certainty, lack of global consensus, and the wait for better technologies. 47 Each of these four disclaimers will be examined in more detail in section 3.3.2. Finally, Andy Reisinger and Howard Larsen have stated that the design and analysis of public policies related to climate change do not normally make explicit reference to ethical dimensions. 48 They state that excluding explicit ethics from policy analysis could be seen to provide a more robust and objective basis for public policy, given that ethical principles generally require subjective judgments about which principles should guide decisions.49 However, they say, this raises a dilemma in the context of climate change, where one of the key challenges of public policy making is to achieve a framework that can endure beyond the electoral cycle and that can bridge the large temporal and geographical distances between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts.50 3.3.2. Specific climate change ethical issues Because an ethical dimension is so important to climate change discussion, eight organisations launched the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change (CPEDCC) during the UNFCCC COP-10 in Buenos Aires. 51 CPEDCC also issued the Buenos Aires Declaration on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, which set out why express ethical reflection on climate change issues is urgent. It identified specific ethical issues and associated questions concerning climate change about which express ethical reflection is an international imperative. 52 Each of the issues was identified in response to actual issues in 46 Ibid. Dennis Patrick O’Hara and Alan Abelsohn “Ethical Response to Climate Change” in Ethics and the Environment Vol 16, No 1, Spring 2011. 48 Andy Reisinger and Howard Larsen “Recognising Ethics to Help a Constructive Climate Change Debate” in Public Policy: Why Ethics Matter Jonathan Boston, Andrew Bradstock, and David Eng (eds) (ANU E-Press, Canberra, 2010) 117. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 The organisations that formed the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change include The Rock Ethics Institute at Pennsylvania State University, the Pennsylvania Consortium for Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy, the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law–Ethics Working Group, the Centre for Applied Ethics at Cardiff University, the Centre For Global Ethics at Birmingham University, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, EcoEquity, and Oxford Climate Policy. The Rock Ethics Institute at Pennsylvania State University is the Secretariat for this Program. 52 “White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change” Rock Ethics Institute (Paper can be found at http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate). 47 57 contention in global climate change negotiations and the information resulted in the White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change. These issues have been summarised below. 3.3.2.1. Responsibility for damages The first issue refers to responsibility for damages. Who is ethically responsible for the consequences of climate change? (I.e. who is liable for the burdens of preparing for and then responding to climate change or paying for unavoidable damages?) The White Paper states that as people around the world have basic rights to be protected from the actions of others that threaten life, health, and security, and given that the effects of climate change will violate these rights, norms must be agreed upon by the international community to establish responsibility for mitigation, adaptation, and for reparation of damages due to climate change.53 Several norms referring to responsibility for climate change have been established by both the Rio Declaration and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These norms include: (1) Nations have the responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of activities within their jurisdiction; (2) Polluters have the responsibility to bear the costs of pollution; (3) Nations have the responsibility to reduce their emissions based upon equity to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; (4) The developed nations have the responsibility to take the lead in reducing the threat of climate change; and (5) Nations may not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for taking cost-effective action to reduce the threat of climate change.54 However, the White Paper states that while the norms established are significant, they are not sufficient. Principles of retributive and distributive justice are more applicable to determining responsibility for harm from human-induced climate change.55 These principles make those responsible for harm in proportion to their contribution to the harm in the absence of morally relevant principles that would allow for other assignments of responsibility. 56 Because harms from climate change are related to past and current emissions levels, the White Paper states the following facts are pertinent to any nation’s responsibility for damages to others: the magnitude of total national and per capita emissions during the period of concern; the nation’s proportional share of total global emissions that have led to climate change that has or will cause harm; and historical contributions of greenhouse gas emissions. 57 According to relevant 53 Ibid. Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 54 58 principles of justice, those who claim entitlement to use the atmosphere or other natural systems as a sink for their emissions at levels proportionately greater than others have the burden of demonstrating that their claim for entitlement to unequal levels of emissions is based upon morally relevant criteria. 58 Also, when multiple parties have contributed to cause harm to others, they will be responsible to the proportion of harm that they have inflicted when it is possible to determine each relative contribution.59 3.3.2.2. Atmospheric targets The second issue focuses on atmospheric targets. What ethical principles should guide the choice of specific climate change policy objectives, including but not limited to, maximum human-induced warming and atmospheric greenhouse gas targets? This issue raises profound ethical questions because the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will determine what plants, animals, and people survive and what damages will be caused to humans and the environment. The rights that people have to be protected against threats from others to life, health, and security, and the UNFCCC commitment made by nations to reduce emissions to levels that would “prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system” are basic ethical principles that must be considered in setting targets.60 However, this raises profound questions of distributive justice because climate change impacts will not be distributed equally; because nations and peoples have different responsibilities for current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; and because nations and peoples are differentially vulnerable to climate change impacts. For this reason, nations who are willing to tolerate some climate change damages to their nation cannot ignore damages that will be imposed upon others without their consent.61 Questions of procedural justice must also be raised because no country or person has the right to put other nations or persons at grave risk without their consent. Procedural justice demands the participation of victims and the vulnerable in decision-making about what risks are or are not acceptable, and under what conditions risks will be accepted. The interests of non-represented future 58 Ibid. Ibid. So long as atmospheric GHG levels threaten basic human rights, the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change cannot find any respected ethical system that would justify allowing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases to rise thereby additionally jeopardizing human rights. Therefore atmospheric levels of GHGs should be stabilized at the lowest possible levels above existing atmospheric GHG concentrations. 61 Ibid. 59 60 59 generations and non-humans must also be considered. 62 Procedural fairness is discussed in more detail below (refer section 3.3.2.8). 3.3.2.3. Allocating greenhouse gas emissions reductions The third issue, according to the White Paper, refers to allocating greenhouse gas emissions reductions. What ethical principles should be followed in allocating responsibility among people, organisations, and governments to prevent ethically intolerable impacts from climate change? Those who advocate that greenhouse gas emissions allocations should be based upon status quo emissions levels suggest that some nations should be given rights in the continued use of the atmosphere as a sink on the basis of their prior use. 63 However, this raises serious ethical dilemmas. For example, unlike some natural resources such as water, the global atmosphere has never been recognized as a subject of private property rights. Rather, it has been viewed as a global commons available for use by all people. Those who may be harmed by levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have never consented to the appropriation of the atmosphere as a sink. 64 The idea of recognising property rights in natural resources that have gained higher value through labour is not applicable to the atmosphere. This line of thinking is based on two assumptions: (1) that there will be sufficient quantities of the natural resource leftover for others to use (which is not true of the atmospheric greenhouse gas sinks); and (2) that the persons claiming property rights to natural resources have increased its value through their labour (but in the case of atmospheric sinks they have diminished the value of the atmosphere).65 Therefore, to adequately address issues of equity in allocating greenhouse gas targets among nations will involve issues of distributive justice. Traditional distributive justice demands that benefits and burdens of public policy be distributed according to concepts of equality, modified only by morally relevant considerations of need or merit. 66 Distributive justice puts the burden on those who want to be treated differently from others to show that the basis for being treated differently is based on morally relevant criteria. For this reason, those who propose a method for defining equity that is not based upon giving all people equal rights to use the atmosphere have the burden of proving that differences in treatment that they demand are based on merit, deservedness, or other morally relevant criteria. 67 One such distinction that distributive justice would acknowledge as a relevant basis for treating nations 62 Ibid. Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 63 60 differently in greenhouse gas emissions allocations is differences in responsibility for causing the existing problem. This “polluter-pays” principle is consistent with distributive justice because polluters deserve to have greater responsibilities for the problems they cause.68 Another distinction is differences in needs and capacities. Developing countries where the citizens cannot meet their basic needs merit having lesser responsibilities than other countries.69 An equal per capita allocation would also be consistent with principles of justice for several reasons. First, it treats all individuals as equals and therefore is consistent with most theories of distributive justice. Second, it would implement the ethical maxim that all people should have equal rights to use global commons. Third, it would implement the widely accepted “polluter-pays” principle, and fourthly, it would recognize the need of developing countries to increase their emissions to meet the basic needs of their citizens.70 The White Paper states that equity and justice demand that policy makers examine whether those who are harmed by public policy decisions on allocations of burdens and benefits are being treated fairly. 71 For this reason, all people who would be affected by greenhouse gas allocation schemes have a right to fair representation in decision-making. The UNFCCC has established the norm that nations should reduce their emissions on the basis of “equity.” This should be considered a minimum normative requirement, to be interpreted in the context of other ethical and justice considerations relevant to distributing benefits and burdens.72 Therefore, although the amount of human-caused temperature increases that has been experienced thus far is linked to the historical levels of greenhouse gas emissions earlier than 1990, the 1990 baseline level adopted in the Kyoto Protocol as a matter of equity should not necessarily be determinative of the point in time at which responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is triggered.73 The White Paper maintains the level of historical emissions from countries is a relevant factor that could be considered in determining responsibility along with other ethically relevant considerations. 74 Although most developing countries have contributed comparatively small amounts to elevated levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, any developing nation which exceeds its fair share of emissions that interfere with the rights of other people also needs to take action to maintain 68 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 71 Ibid. Philosopher John Rawls has suggested that the principles of justice that should be followed in allocating society’s burdens and benefits are those that would be agreed upon by rational self-interested persons behind a “veil of ignorance” about their positions in the society. In this light, policy makers would adopt greenhouse gas reduction allocation schemes that give maximum rights to use the atmosphere to the poorest, least-advantaged people. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 69 70 61 emissions levels below its fair share of safe global emissions.75 In addition, there is an ethical imperative that each developing nation makes every effort to support sustainable development practices. 3.3.2.4. Scientific uncertainty The fourth issue relates to scientific uncertainty. What is the ethical significance of the need to make climate change decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty? Even if science could accurately describe levels of risk, ethical questions about the acceptability of the risk arise. 76 For instance, although science may conclude that certain levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere create a risk that the West Antarctic ice sheet may melt and increase sea levels by many meters, science cannot say whether this additional risk is acceptable. Science is designed to identify and describe facts and cannot, by itself, generate prescriptive guidance. Science alone cannot tell society what it should do about various threats. Furthermore, science alone cannot determine the quantity of proof that should trigger preventative actions. For this reason, climate change decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty about impacts must be understood to raise a mixture of ethical and scientific questions.77 The White Paper stresses that all ethical systems agree that those who engage in risky behaviour are not vindicated simply because there is uncertainty involved in determining whether or not their behaviour will actually cause damage.78 There are many laws that implement this well-established norm. For instance, for a defendant to be convicted of reckless driving or reckless endangerment a prosecutor simply has to prove that the defendant acted in a way that he or she should have known to be risky. 79 Therefore, as a matter of ethics, a relevant question in the face of scientific uncertainty about harmful consequences of human behaviour is whether there is a reasonable basis for concluding that serious harm to others could result from the behaviour. In the case of climate change, scientists have understood the potential of human activities to change the climate for many years and have known that these changes could harm humans, plants, animals and ecosystems. In addition, during the last decade, the threat of human induced climate change to human health and the environment has been widely discussed in scientific literature.80 And the IPCC has been telling the world that great harm from global 75 It should be noted, however, this obligation of developing nations to reduce emissions should not be construed as a limitation on rights to make morally relevant arguments about what constitutes their nations fair share of global emissions. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 62 warming is likely. For this reason, climate change causing actions constitute risky behaviour that is ethically unsupportable. As such, nations cannot deny that their emissions create a risk to human health and the environment around the world, even if specific predictions of the timing and magnitude of global warming impacts are contestable. The result is that nations emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases are engaging in risky behaviour which has ethical significance even if there is uncertainty about actual consequences.81 This argument of scientific uncertainty does not withstand minimum ethical scrutiny and there are various factors implicated in this. First, there will be enormous adverse potential impacts on human life, liberty, and personal security, as well as on the environment from human induced climate change.82 Second, there will be disproportionate effects on the poorest people of the world. 83 Third, the real potential for catastrophic climate surprises are much greater than impacts often predicted that rely on assumptions of smooth, linear responses to climate change.84 Fourth, much of climate change science has never been in dispute even if one acknowledges uncertainty about timing or magnitude of climate change impacts. 85 Fifth, climate change damage is probably already being experienced by some people worldwide.86 Sixth, there is a strong likelihood that serious and irreversible damage will be experienced before all scientific uncertainties can be eliminated. 87 Seventh, the longer nations wait to take action, the more difficult it will be to stabilize greenhouse gases at levels which don’t create serious damage to humans, plants, animals, and ecosystems. 88 Eighth, nations have already decided not to use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for inaction on climate change when they agreed to the precautionary principle in the UNFCCC.89 And finally, those most vulnerable to climate change impacts have not consented to the risk imposed by climate change.90 3.3.2.5. Cost to national economies The fifth issue refers to the cost to national economies. Is the commonly used justification of national cost for delaying or minimizing climate change action ethically justified? If nations justify their refusal to take action to reduce emissions 81 Ibid. Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. Because nations have consented to be bound by the precautionary principle in relation to climate change science, the failure to apply the precautionary principle in developing climate change policies also violates the ethical norm that a nation should keep its promises. 90 Ibid. 82 63 on the basis of cost to them alone, their position is ethically unsupportable because no person or nation has a right either to harm others as a means to achieve their economic health or to endanger others’ life, health, or security. Responsibility for reducing emissions should be derived from rights theories and principles of distributive justice - not on the cost to the polluter. 91 Although choosing policy options on the basis of maximizing net present economic welfare has been widely used by some governments as justification for government policy, this approach is ethically problematic as it undermines duties that nations have to refrain from causing harm to others and the rights that all people have to life, liberty, and security.92 Since principles of justice would give all people equal rights to use the atmosphere in absence of morally relevant criteria that would entitle people to different levels of use, those who advocate that use of cost as a basis for determining responsibility for greenhouse gas reductions bear the burden of identifying morally relevant criteria that justify the use of cost of reductions as a basis for determining responsibility. 93 To use “willingness-to-pay” as the exclusive measure of value of the benefits of climate change policy in cost-benefit analyses can result in the focus on one type of value at the expense of other approaches to value.94 For instance, as some value systems recognize inherent value in the life of some living beings, an approach that only recognizes the market value of beings transforms inherent value into instrumental value, the very thing prohibited by some value systems.95 Putting a market price on something that should be protected because of ethical duty can undermine the duty. Since people have rights to be protected from harm to their life, health, and security, the use of “willingness-to-pay” as the measure of the value of life, health, and security of others who have not consented to this valuation undermines duties to do no harm to others without their free, informed consent. 96 Failure to clearly identify all methodological assumptions in cost-benefit analyses in determining costs and benefits, in selecting which reduction strategies will be considered in cost calculations, and in determining which adverse climate change impacts will be considered in benefit calculations given scientific uncertainty about impacts, violates principles of free informed consent that are required to assure fair participation in climate change decision making.97 And by assuming only mid-level range potential impacts when more serious harms are plausible is also ethically 91 Ibid. Ability to pay can however be relevant. Ibid. Ibid. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid. 92 93 64 problematic if it leads to actions that are not sufficient to avoid great harm to life, health, and security of others that have not consented to failure to consider all potential harms to them.98 3.3.2.6. Independent responsibility to act The sixth issue focuses on the independent responsibility to act. Is the commonly used reason for delaying or minimizing climate change action that any nation need not act until others agree on action, ethically justifiable? 99 The duty to cease activities that harm others is not diminished if others who are contributing to the harm fail to cease their harmful behaviour. No nation or person has a right to continue destructive behaviour on the basis that others who are contributing to the damage have not ceased.100 Since Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that Annex I countries would take the lead in combating climate change and modifying future trends, these countries should undertake policies and measures to limit their emissions regardless of actions taken by non-Annex I country Parties.101 Violating a provision of the UNFCCC is considered a wrongful act under international law, and is therefore an unethical action for all consenting nations. 102 Even in the absence of a violation of a specific agreement, actions that harm another state may be regarded as wrongful under international law. Greenhouse gases are affecting global climate, and the adverse impacts of climate change are felt by nations far from the sources of the emissions. High emitting nations therefore have a legal and ethical responsibility to reduce emissions that harm others and this duty applies regardless of efforts undertaken by other nations.103 3.3.2.7. Potential new technologies The seventh issue relates to potential new technologies. The argument that we should minimize climate change action until new, less-costly technologies may be invented in the future is not ethically justifiable.104 Past and present emissions are already causing serious harm to people, plants, animals, and ecosystems. Given this, parties have a duty to take the necessary steps to reduce damage caused, including emission reductions for those parties whose emissions are above their just 98 Ibid. This must include harm to future generations as current discounting benefits in cost-benefit analyses assumes that only contemporary investor-individuals’ interests count in determining worth. Since nations agreed in the adopting the UNFCCC to protect the interests of future generations, discounting benefits and harms in cost-benefit analyses can violate the duty of nations to keep promises made in treaties. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 65 share of global emissions. 105 Furthermore, if parties delay making reductions to levels of emissions that constitute their just share, these parties should be held responsible for harm caused by their delay. (It could be that costs due to reparations for damage caused by such delays could cost more than the current costs of reducing emissions).106 The assumption that current emission reduction technologies are unaffordable is questionable. 107 A combination of lifestyle changes (public versus individual transportation, local versus imported food consumption) and readily available and affordable renewable energy technologies can significantly reduce emissions. 108 Alternative transportation systems and vehicles are now readily available. In addition, human settlement patterns and energy conservation processes that reduce emissions are being applied globally. 109 Many promising possibilities are emerging all over the world and should not be underestimated. Since humanity has the knowledge, the financial facilities, and technology to reduce emissions, it is likely misleading and unethical to take a position that no or hardly any such options exist.110 In making the claim that new less costly technologies will eventually exist to solve the problem of climate change, parties are speculating that these technologies will be developed in time to avoid additional damages. 111 But what if they are not developed in time? It is ethically irresponsible to fail to act to reduce the threat of harm on the basis of speculation, especially when there are methods for reducing emissions already technologically available.112 Those who wish to wait to take steps to prevent harmful consequences from current behaviour have the burden of proof in demonstrating the feasibility of the premise that these new technologies will be available in time to avoid serious damages.113 3.3.2.8. Procedural fairness The eighth issue refers to procedural fairness. What principles of procedural justice should be followed to assure fair representation in decision making? Given basic human rights to life, health, and security, those who might be harmed by climate change policy options have a right to free informed consent to being exposed to climate change.114 In order to give free, informed consent, persons must not be 105 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid. 106 107 66 forced to consent, they must be in possession of all relevant information, and they must understand policy options. 115 Nations therefore have a duty to disclose all assumptions and uncertainties entailed by climate change policy options to those who will be affected by the policy so that they have an opportunity to exercise free informed consent to policies that could harm them.116 Nations also need to provide expertise to explain climate change science and economics so that those affected by climate change can make informed decisions. 117 And in international negotiations, all nations have a right to competent expertise to inform decision makers on complex scientific and economic issues.118 For this reason, developed nations should provide funds to support technical experts to assist those nations who do not possess such expertise.119 In developing national policies, no nation may consider the implications of any climate change policy to itself alone. To do so would violate the rights of those who may be harmed. For this reason, when developing national climate change policies, nations must consult with, and consider the interests of, persons who may be harmed that live outside their jurisdictions.120 3.4. Conclusion Ethical implications of climate change are hugely complex but require urgent action. Lyon Dahl has asserted these ethical issues are a consequence of the present selfcentered materialism of our economic paradigm and the world's present institutions have failed to adequately address the problem.121 No politician has been willing to sacrifice the short-term economic welfare of his or her country, even while agreeing that sustainability is essential in the long term. 122 Furthermore, the deep social, economic and political divisions within societies and between countries prevent united action in the common interest.123 If a solution based on ethics is the answer, then subsequent questions must inquire: 1) where can an ethical component be located? And 2) how can this component be incorporated into international law and policymaking? The religious traditions of the world may offer a solution. Religions contain guidance, principles and warnings, all of which throw considerable light on the 115 Ibid. Nations who formulate climate change policies have a duty to make climate policy options understandable to all those who will be affected by their policies and to seek their participation in decision making. 116 Ibid. 117 For example, nations formulating climate policies based upon cost-benefit analysis must disaggregate harms and benefits so that subgroups will understand how they will be affected. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid. 121 Lyon Dahl “Climate Change and its Ethical Challenges” The Baha’i World 2005-2006 (Baha’i World Centre, Haifa, 2007) 157172. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 67 present global environment and development issues. Religion is understood by many to possess an ethical foundation and some of the most fundamental ethical principles of humanity stem from the faiths. For example, the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and the commandment of charity: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Approximately 85 per cent of the world’s population adheres to a religious or spiritual tradition and thus the capacity for moral harmonisation is achievable. It is proposed therefore, that religion may provide the ethical foundation by which to guide social and political change in the climate change arena. The following chapter will present religious voice as a significant contributor and actor for climate change governance. The following questions will be addressed. How can religion be seen as a source of political morality? What are the world’s faiths attitudes towards climate change and what is each tradition doing to alleviate the problem? Can faiths unite for the common goal of preserving the global environment? 68 Religious Perspectives on Climate Change Religion is a powerful force for ... preventing our common environment heritage from being irretrievably lost. It offers wisdom, perspectives and insights in combination with principles of fair play and justice which form one of the greatest resources available for protecting the environment and saving posterity.1 4.1. Introduction The preceding chapter discussed the importance of ethics for climate change concerns. It concluded with a proposal stating religion has the capacity for moral harmonisation and may provide the ethical foundation by which to guide social and political change in the climate change arena. The purpose of this chapter is to further advance this proposition. The predominant reasons why religion could be perceived as a source of political morality are crucial to the discussion. Justification lies in such matters as the sheer number of adherents, unity of purpose amongst religions, sustainability practices that are assumed by religious groups, notions of justice, reverence for nature and the high moral authority held by religious leaders. These particular attributes represent a dimension not yet fully explored by policy-makers. The respective perspectives on climate change of the five major world’s religions (the Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions) and the myriad interreligious initiatives worldwide illustrate the growing impetus by religions to unite toward the common goal of protection of the global environment. However, defining ‘religion’ is complex as it comprises many differing systems and values, and no one definition can satisfy all concerns. Therefore a general description for the purposes of this dissertation will first be advanced. 4.2. Defining religion Although it is one of the oldest human institutions, no single, authoritative definition of religion exists. John A. Hutchinson, in his book Paths of Faith acknowledged this difficulty when he wrote:2 Formal definitions of religion are as numerous, as various, and often as mutually conflicting as there are students of religion. Often such definitions illustrate the oriental parable of the blind men describing the elephant, each taking hold of part of the beast and defining the whole in terms of this part. Like the elephant, religion is a large and complex phenomenon. In this connection, some historians of religion question or reject the word religion as a 1 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) xiv. 2 John A Hutchinson Paths of Faith (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1981) 3-4. 69 distortion of the form of experience it seeks to communicate. Several of the world's major languages lack any word that can be adequately translated as "religion." The common noun religion imputes a unity or homogeneity of experience that many observers believe does not exist. The psychologist William James (1842 – 1910), in his Gifford Lectures on natural religion delivered at Edinburgh in 1901 – 1902, also struggled to accurately define religion. He wrote:3 The warring gods and formulas of the various religions do indeed cancel each other, but there is a certain uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet, based on an uneasiness ... that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand [the solution to which] is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers. Nafziger has commented that although some may argue this generalisation is historically and culturally biased, and should therefore be viewed in its turn-of-thecentury context, it does appear to form a shared feeling and concern about the human condition. 4 According to James, idealistically, the positive experience of deliverance from this anxiety helps verify religious belief. James concludes that this kind of shared religious experience demonstrates “that we can experience union with something larger than ourselves and in that union find the greatest peace. ...All that the facts require is that the power should be both other and larger than our conscious selves.” 5 Thus, James responds, “religion is the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude; so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.”6 Emile Durkheim, who offered the classic functionalist definition, stated: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." 7 His definition was based on the distinction between sacred and profane. As far as Durkheim was concerned, it has nothing to do with holiness, goodness or supernatural characteristics. Anything can be sacred in a given society, provided only that it is not profane, and vice versa. The point to this distinction is to offer a representation for society as a whole. Religion is thus the symbolization of the whole 3 William James The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008) 368. James A R Nafziger “The Functions of Religion in the International Legal System” in Religion and International Law Mark W Janis and Carolyn Evans (eds) (Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, 1999) 157. 5 William James The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008) 380. 6 Ibid, 31. 7 Emile Durkheim The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (6th edition) (Translated by Joseph Ward Swain) (George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1968) 47. 4 70 of the social body – defined by its social function rather than by any distinctively religious content.8 For the purposes of this thesis religion is not termed in any particular way, as indeed it cannot be definitively defined. William James voiced this succinctly when he stated: “Let us not fall immediately into a one-sided view of our subject, but let us rather admit freely at the outset that we may very likely find no one essence, but many characters which may alternately be equally important in religion.” 9 It is through these ‘many characters’ that we may derive a common base of values and norms of conduct pertaining to the environment. Christopher Weeramantry, in his book Tread Lightly on the Earth has stated: ‘What is important in the current crisis faced by all humanity is the realisation that there are numerous goals, values, aspirations and norms of conduct which are common to all of humanity and that on these fundamentals, the teachings of all religions coalesce. What unites the religions is immensely more important than what divides them.’10 So what might a common base of values and norms of conduct consist of? Hans Kung, through his Global Ethics Project, has stated there are five principles manifest within many of the world’s religions.11 Perhaps the most important principle is the Golden Rule which is found and has been sustained by many religions and ethical traditions for thousands of years: What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others.12 Stated in positive terms this would read: What you wish done to yourself, do to others. Kung states this should be the irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations and religions. 13 The four ethical maxims – which can be found with Patanjali, the founder of Yoga, as well as the Buddhist Canon, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and in the Qur’an – can also be placed in positive terms and utilised as a common base of values and norms of conduct. These maxims include (1) Have respect for life; (2) Speak and act truthfully; (3) Deal honestly and fairly; (4) Respect and love one another.14 Although these values are of a more general nature – they would be essential starting points for any set of ethics regarding the environment. 15 The Earth Charter provides another example of a common base of values and norms found within religions. Many religious leaders from diverse traditions 8 William E Arnal in Guide to the Study of Religion (Part 1 Definition) Willi Braun and Russell T McCutcheon eds (T & T Clark, New York, 2000) 25. 9 William James The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008) 28. 10 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) xv. 11 “What is a Global Ethic?” Available online at http://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0a_was-ist-weltethos/0a-00einleitung/0a-00-was-ist-weltethos.php. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Refer Chapter 4.5.5 and Appendix C for more detailed information and the full text of the Global Ethic. 71 participated in the consultation and drafting process of the Earth Charter throughout the decade-long, cross-cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values.16 The Charter itself sets out general ethical principles and strategic guidelines for building a just, sustainable and peaceful world. 17 The text affirms many values that are fundamental to the great religious traditions, and include compassion, love, justice, care for the poor, environmental conservation, and peace. 18 In addition to its ethical principles, the Earth Charter recognises the importance of the spiritual dimension of life and notes several generally shared spiritual values. For example, the Preamble highlights “that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.” It affirms the values of “reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.”19 In relation to specifically environmental values and norms, Tucker and Grim have stated that most of the world’s religions hold common values pertaining to the natural world. The Harvard Project (a ten-part conference series on World Religions and Ecology) held at the Harvard Center for the study of World Religions from 1996 to 1998, identified seven common values. 20 These include reverence, respect, reciprocity, restraint, redistribution, responsibility and restoration. 21 Although there are variations in interpretation within and between religions regarding these values, Tucker and Grim consider religions to be moving toward a richer understanding of both their cosmological orientation and ethical obligations. 22 They suggest that as the shift toward environmental concerns progresses, religions are calling for “reverence for the Earth and its profound ecological processes, respect for Earth’s myriad species and an extension of ethics to include all life forms, reciprocity in relation to both humans and nature, restraint in the use of natural resources combined with support for effective alternative technologies, a more equitable redistribution of economic opportunities, the acknowledgment of human responsibility for the continuity of life, and restoration of both humans and ecosystems for the flourishing of life.” 23 The above examples portray a conscious effort by many religions toward a more holistic orientation – thus expressing a capacity for progression and change for contemporary concerns. Tucker has stated that religion has always both effected “The Earth Charter and Religion” Statements on Controversial Issues (Earth Charter International, 2008). Found online at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/The%20Earth%20Charter%20and%20Religion.pdf. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. Refer Chapter 4.5.6 and Appendix F for more detailed information and the full text of the Earth Charter. 20 Grim John & Tucker Mary Evelyn Ecology and Religion (Island Press, Washington DC, 2014) p 8. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 16 72 change and been affected by change in response to intellectual, political, cultural, social, and economic forces.24 She states that in light of this, religions may more accurately be described as religious processes rather than simply as preservers of traditions. 25 “If this is the case”, she states, “then perhaps the ‘process’ can be creatively guided in response to the environmental crisis we are now facing.” 26 Tucker has suggested that there have been three major stages of the world’s religions associated with the advancement of civilisation. These stages are categorized below:27 (1) Classical – this was the era of the emergence of the major world religions and philosophy in the first Axial Age in the sixth century before the Common Era.28 Many creative spiritual leaders, such as Confucius and Lao Tzu in East Asia, Buddha and the Upanishadic seers in South Asia, the Hebrew prophets of West Asia, and the pre-Socratic philosophers in Greece flourished in this period.29 (2) Medieval – this was the era of new religious frameworks that were often the result of dialogue with other religious or philosophical traditions. For example, the recovery of the Aristotelian philosophical tradition by the medieval Christian scholastics, such as Thomas Aquinas, or the rise of Neo-Confucianism in China and the synthesis of Zhu Xi, partly in response to Buddhism and Daoism.30 (3) Modern – this era consists of the last five hundred years. Within the modern era are the distinct revolutions that have helped to shape our world today.31 For example: (a) the religious revolution of the sixteenth-century Reformation – which initiated a major challenge to the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church, to its orthodox teachings, and to the role of individuals in interpreting scripture and seeking personal salvation;32 (b) The scientific revolution of the seventeenth century – religious cosmologies were severally called into question. The separation of reason and faith that began in the medieval period became more pronounced.33 (This has been further exacerbated by the emergence in the nineteenth century of the Darwinian theory of evolution, which religions are still trying to absorb). 24 Mary Evelyn Tucker Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Carus Publishing Company, Illinois, 2003) 12. Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid, 12-13. 28 In 1949, Karl Jaspers, the German psychologist and philosopher, published The Origin and Goal of History (Greenwood Press Reprint, 1977), and coined the term the Axial Age to describe the period from 800 BCE to 200 BCE. Jaspers opined similarly revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India and the Occident. He saw striking similarities without any obvious direct transmission of ideas from one region to the other. Jaspers argued that during the Axial Age "the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently... And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today.” 29 Mary Evelyn Tucker Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Carus Publishing Company, Illinois, 2003) 14. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid, 14-16. 33 Ibid. 25 73 (c) the political revolution of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment – new notions of reason, individualism, and freedom emerged along with fresh concepts of social contract, the role of law, and the desirability of democratic processes;34 (d) The economic revolution of nineteenth-century industrialisation;35 (e) The social revolution of twentieth-century human rights – which arose out of two world wars and the postcolonial era. It reaffirmed a sense of dignity of individuals regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference;36 and finally, (f) The ongoing ecological revolution of twentieth-and twenty-first-century environmental movements. (It must be noted, however, that the individual human rights intrepidly gained during the social revolution have not yet permeated through to include community responsibilities to other persons, other species, or the planet as a whole.)37 “In each of these eras”, states Tucker, “the religious traditions developed significant new schools of thought and practice in response to challenges from within as well as to pressures from without”.38 Tucker further states some scholars of religion would describe the present era as a fourth stage categorized as “postmodernism”.39 Within this framework, there are calls to move beyond outdated practices. This fourth stage presents an opportunity for a positive move into religion’s ecological phase. As the concepts of sustainability of life on Earth and the viability of our species give rise to some urgency in the ecological revolution, it also creates opportunities for new religious thought and for creative practical efforts to come to light. 40 This is an important opportunity, especially equipped with the knowledge that approximately 85 per cent of the world’s population adheres to one religion or another (this figure is nearing six billion individuals as diagram 1 illustrates).41 34 Ibid. Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid, 16. 38 Ibid, 13. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 According to the U.S Census Bureau, the world population on November 7, 2012 was approximately 7,050,554,589. 35 74 Diagram 1: MAJOR RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD RANKED BY NUMBER OF ADHERENTS 42 1. Christianity: 2.1 billion 2. Islam: 1.5 billion 3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion 4. Hinduism: 900 million 5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million 6. Buddhism: 376 million 7. Primal-indigenous: 300 million 8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million 9. Sikhism: 23 million 10. Juche: 19 million 11. Spiritism: 15 million 12. Judaism: 14 million 13. Baha'i: 7 million 14. Jainism: 4.2 million 15. Shinto: 4 million 16. Cao Dai: 4 million 17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million 18. Tenrikyo: 2 million 19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million 20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand 21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand 22. Scientology: 500 thousand 4.3. Religion as a source of political morality Over the past several decades, academics and scientists alike have spoken out regarding the positive influence religions possess, particularly when involved in specific social issues. For example, in a 1990 appeal by scientists to the world religious community, the scientists asked for commitment in word and deed to preserve the environment of the Earth, as ‘the historical record makes clear that religious teachings, example, and leadership are powerfully able to influence personal conduct and commitment’.43 In 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ ‘warning to humanity’ extended a specific invitation to several groups, including religious leaders, to embrace a new environmental ethic sufficient to ‘motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes.’44 (Refer Appendix B). 42 Source: Adherents.com website <http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html>. Sizes shown are approximate estimates only. The adherent counts presented in the list are current estimates of the number of people who have at least a minimal level of self-identification as adherents of the religion. Levels of identification as adherents vary within all groups. These numbers tend toward the high end of reasonable worldwide estimates. Valid arguments can be made for different figures, but if the same criteria are used for all groups, the relative order should be the same. 43 Carl Sagan Guest comment: “Preserving and Cherishing the Earth – An Appeal for Joint Commitment in Science and Religion” Am J Phys 58:615-617. 44 Union of Concerned Scientists - World Scientist’s Warning to Humanity (UCS, Cambridge, MA, 1992). 75 Tony Juniper, special adviser to the Prince of Wales' Rainforests Project and former executive director of Friends of the Earth, likewise emphasized the important role that religion may play:45 Scientific rationalism gave rise to good science, which in turn gave rise to strong political arguments for cleaning up the environment. Purely scientific rationalism cannot change our fundamental understanding of who we are and how we should live. Religion and science must work together to bring about a fundamental transformation in our relationship to the world. This kind of change needs a spiritual foundation.” Whilst speaking to a group of religious leaders, James Speth, a former administrator of the United Nations Development Programme and chair of the UN Development Group, stated:46 “Thirty years ago, I thought that with enough good science, we would be able to solve the environmental crisis. I was wrong. I used to think the greatest problems threatening the planet were species extinction, pollution and climate change. I was wrong there too. I now believe that the greatest problems are pride, apathy and greed. And for that we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that. We need your help.” Carl Safina, a prominent ecologist and marine conservationist has also proclaimed: “The world doesn’t listen to just scientists. Although science tells us the facts, the solutions are moral solutions. And people don’t look to science for morality. They look to religion.”47 The importance of religion for environmental concerns lies in such notions as sheer numbers of adherents, unity of purpose amongst religions, sustainability practices that are already underway by religious groups, notions of justice, and reverence for nature. Significance also lies in the fact that religious leaders command high moral authority and even a seemingly simple act of story-telling can become a means of communicating strong environmental messages. These particular attributes represent a dimension not yet fully explored by policy-makers (i.e. an ethical dimension that involves changing mindsets about how we live rather than simply living a life that serves mostly narrow self-interests). The cultural historian, Thomas Berry illustrates this idea best when he stated that biblical ethics World’s Major Religions Present Action Plans on Environment (Baha’i World News Service) Baha’i website available online at http://news.bahai.org/story/736 . 46 Rabbi Julian Sinclair Sally Bingham’s “Love God, Heal Earth”: A Review Jewish Climate Initiative, June, 2009 available online at http://climateofchange.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/sally-binghams-love-god-heal-the-earth-a-review-by-rabbi-julian-sinclair/ . 47 Courtney Woo (quoting Ken Wilson) Religion Rejuvenates Environmentalism The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, June 2009 available online at http://unc.news21.com/index.php/stories/rel.html. 45 76 requires us to live “knowingly, lovingly, skillfully, reverently” rather than “ignorantly, greedily, clumsily, destructively.”48 These attributes may seem far removed from the world of economics, science, or law but they are equally as important. Law itself is perceived as very black and white and current policies and discussions are therefore based on facts and figures from the scientific, technological, economic and political arenas. While these arenas remain essential to policy-making, facts and figures may not necessarily help in changing people’s attitudes to climate change issues whereas a value-laden or moral imperative may do so. Most importantly, however, is that a growing awareness of issues such as global climate change may mean a human readiness to accept major changes in societal course. The next section discusses these individual attributes. It then points to the World Council of Churches as an excellent example of how religious communities have responded to climate change by manifesting the power of the dimensions of religious affirmation and morality as identified above. 4.3.1. Numbers of adherents One of the first and foremost attributes religion can offer is sheer numbers of adherents (as illustrated in diagram 1 above). Possessing such a large global membership, it has the potential to create a considerable impact in the global effort to curb climate change.49 Gary Gardner states that degrees of adherence among the billions of religious people vary greatly, as does the readiness of adherents to translate their faith into political action or lifestyle choices.50 And many believers within the same religion, he says, may interpret their faith in conflicting ways, leading them to act at cross-purposes. 51 Even so, the sheer numbers are so large that mobilising even a fraction of adherents to the cause of building a just and environmentally healthy society could advance the sustainability agenda dramatically. Adding non-religious but spiritually-minded people to the total increases the potential for influence even more. 52 Gardner also remarks that influence stemming from having a large number of followers is further enhanced by the geographic concentration of many religions. This increases their ability to make 48 Roger S Gottlieb This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment (Routledge, New York, 2004) 573. Although data are estimates, roughly 85 per cent of people on the planet belong to one of 10,000 or so religions, and 150 or so of these faith traditions have at least a million followers each. Adherents of the three largest traditions – Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism – account for about two-thirds of the global population today. Another 20 per cent of the world’s people subscribe to the remaining religions, and about 16 per cent are non-religious. This information is based on the following: Adherents, www.adherents.com/Religions_by_Adherents.html; population data from US Census Bureau, International Data Base, www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html. 50 Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006) 49. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid, 50. 49 77 mass appeals and facilitate action.53 For example, Christians form the majority of the population in 120 countries. Muslims form the majority in 45 countries, and Buddhists in 10.54 The peaceful East German revolution of 1989 is one example of the profound political changes numbers of religious adherents can effect. It has been dubbed a “Protestant revolution” because of the prominent role played by church members in steering the democracy movement to success. Werner Schulz, a German politician and member of the European Parliament, stated: “the peaceful revolution was, at its core, also a Protestant revolution... Its pioneering motto ‘no violence’ was the essence of the Sermon on the Mount, the most revolutionary passage in the Gospel... Protestant churches were base camps of this revolution....” 55 Robert Goeckel, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York at Geneseo, has similarly stated the Evangelical-Lutheran Church has long symbolised a key element in civil society in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and has been a major actor in political change. 56 Despite the traditional political abstinence of Lutherans, the church had become more critical of the state since the Hitler experience and this proved to be a crucial permissive factor in causing the revolution. 57 In 1988 church leadership began to call for change, arguing that “even the GDR cannot escape the need for glasnost.” 58 It was this critical role played by church leaders and activist pastors that led to the local churches evolving as the cradle of the revolution. One particular example is the Nikolai church in Leipzig which rose to national fame with the Monday Demonstrations (Montagsdemonstrationen). These mass demonstrations were a series of peaceful political protests against the authoritarian government of the GDR, and they occurred on thirteen consecutive Mondays between September 25, and December 18, 1989. 59 The demonstrations commenced in Leipzig but soon spread to other cities. Safe in the knowledge that the Lutheran Church supported their resistance, many dissatisfied East German citizens gathered outside the church, and non-violent demonstrations began in order to express their demands for political liberalisation, open borders, and, toward the end of the cycle, German unification.60 Numbers of dissatisfied citizens grew by 53 Ibid. Religious adherence statistics from Adherents.com, “Predominant Religions” available online at http://www.adherents.com/adh_predom.html. 55 Tom Heneghan “Some East German Protestants Feel Overlooked as Wall Recalled” FaithWorld: Religion, Faith and Ethics at http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/06/some-east-german-protestants-feel-overlooked-as-wall-recalled/. 56 Robert Goeckel “The Evangelical-Lutheran Church and the East German Revolution” Research Paper available online at http://www.georgefox.edu/.../Goeckel_Evangelical_articles_previous.pdf. 57 Ibid. 58 Glasnost was a policy that committed the government to greater accountability, openness, discussion and freer disclosure of information than previously. 59 Susanne Lohmann “The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 198991” World Politics 47 (October 1994) 42. 60 Ibid. 54 78 the week, until, on 16 October 1989, the numbers had grown to 320,000. 61 The pressure this created led to the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November, and marked the imminent fall of the socialist GDR regime.62 As a key element of civil society the institutional church had provided leadership to the opposition and mediation among the political forces in the revolutionary context and had been a key factor in political and social change.63 The East German Revolution is similarly valuable in portraying the importance of the church in environmental matters, and specifically for aiding development of the German Green movement. The revolution of 1989 possessed a strong environmental component and for good reason. By the 1970’s and 1980’s, the GDR was mining more coal than any other country in the world, including the USSR, and it had poured the toxic by-products of the extraction onto the ground, killing all vegetation and poisoning the groundwater.64 From the antiquated power plants, the GDR emitted 5.6 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide each year. The resulting acid rain killed 9000 lakes, killed or damaged 37 per cent of East German forests, lowered agricultural production, and damaged many buildings and monuments around the country.65 East German chemical plants, lacking in pollution controls and even basic repairs, discharged countless amounts of poisonous and hazardous waste into the rivers, killing fauna and flora and causing extensive damage to bridges and other constructions along the banks.66 Buna, the chemical plant in Halle, dumped twenty kilograms of mercury into the Saale River each day. The lack of sewage and water treatment plants, unregulated hazardous waste dumps, and chemical-intensive agriculture caused further problems.67 With increasing despondency over the ever-increasing pollution and destruction of the environment, grass-roots groups began to emerge with the assistance of the East German Protestant Church. On theological grounds, exploitation of the environment was seen as a sin against the Creation of God. Man’s stewardship role on earth – his responsibility to respect and love God’s Creation – was cited by the church in opposing environmental degradation. 68 For example, in response to a letter in 1971 from a group of theologians, church leaders in Saxony-Magdeburg turned to the Ecclesiastical Research Center in Wittenberg (Kirchliches Forschungsheim [KFH]), established in 1927 to explore Christianity's relationship to nature, and allocated it the task of defining the theological aspects of environmental 61 Ibid. Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Merrill E Jones “Origins of the East German Environmental Movement” German Studies Review, Vol 16, No 2 (May, 1993) 236. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid, 240. 62 79 matters.69 This was to be the initial spark of organized environmental concern in the German Democratic Republic. The KFH also played a role at the grass-roots level. Lectures and a travelling exhibition shown in churches across the country ignited the formation of numerous environmental groups.70 And in 1984, the environment was selected by the federal synod as the "theme of the year". The council's final resolution in September of that year showed solid support for church engagement in environmental issues:71 Concern for Creation has been shown in local, regional, and ecumenical circles. We are thankful for their activities, their courage, and their creativity. We would like to encourage them to continue their work undeterred. But responsibility for Creation cannot be an issue of importance only in local groups; rather, it must represent a continuous effort on the part of the whole Church. It should be undertaken in sermons, in teaching, in training church workers, and in our lifestyles. ... We ask church leaders to support parishes with [environmental] goals and to encourage them to consult with church leaders about such issues. As a consequence of taking on the role of protector, supporter, activist, and forum for dialogue, the East German Protestant Church thus played a prominent role in promoting democracy and environmental concerns and proves to illustrate the enormous possibilities for societal change that religious numbers can achieve – a valuable and essential asset for the current fight against climate change. 4.3.2. Unity of purpose As described above, environmental concern can be a natural progression of churches, synagogues, mosques, and sanghas on-going concern for human health, well-being, and social justice. It is this common purpose which helps to explain how religions from widely different global regions and with widely divergent beliefs and theologies can work together on climate justice. Christopher Weeramantry has stated, “Whereas organised religions once tended to shut out perspectives of the wisdom of other religions, today’s multicultural world has opened up a dialogue between the religions whereby they reach out to each other to discuss the core values they teach in common.” 72 Religions and religious groups with widely divergent beliefs and theologies are already working together on climate justice, which includes considering global warming’s impact on the poor and less fortunate. For example, in 1986, His Royal Highness Prince Philip (then President of World 69 Ibid. Ibid, 241. 71 Ibid, 242 as quoted from Streiflichter XXIX (November 1984). 72 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 11. 70 80 Wildlife Fund International (WWF)) sent out an invitation to the five leaders of the five major world religions – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism – to meet for a discussion on how the faiths could help save the natural world.73 The invitation aptly stated: “Come, proud of your own tradition, but humble enough to learn from others”. The meeting was fittingly held in Assisi, Italy, the birthplace of St. Francis, the Catholic saint of ecology.74 The reasons for its importance were spelt out by Prince Philip in his opening speech:75 We came to Assisi to find vision and hope: vision to discover a new and caring relationship with the rest of the living world, and hope that the destruction of nature can be stopped before all is wasted and gone. I believe that today, in this famous shrine of the saint of ecology, a new and powerful alliance has been forged between the forces of religion and the forces of conservation. I am convinced that secular conservation has learned to see the problems of the natural world from a different perspective, and I hope and believe that the spiritual leaders have learned that the natural world of creation cannot be saved without their active involvement. Neither can ever be the same again. The Uppsala Interfaith Climate Summit provides a more recent example of interfaith unity. In 2008, the Archbishop of the Church of Sweden invited a group of internationally recognised opinion-makers from different faiths and continents to a climate summit in Uppsala.76 The purpose of the summit, among others, was to communicate an urgent, hopeful, ethical-religious message to the global community about the need to slow down global warming. 77 Religious leaders affirmed the climate question as a deep spiritual issue, and therefore questioned why the responsibility for attempting to solve the crisis should be placed in the hands of politicians alone. Dr He Xiaoxin, from the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) stated, “I believe the Uppsala Manifesto is an important indication of the potential role faiths can play in reminding Government that they do not stand alone on the issues of climate change and the environment.” Most recently, the Lambeth Interfaith Forum was held at Lambeth Palace in London. The seminar was held in March 2011 and attended by religious and political leaders and representatives of all major faiths.78 The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks and Lord Marland, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Alliance of Religions and Conservation – History” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/about.asp?pageID=2. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Uppsala Manifesto Promises Faith Action on Climate Issues” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=283. 77 Ibid. 78 Church of England “Carbon Pledges at Lambeth Interfaith Forum” March 2011, available online at http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2011/03/carbon-pledges-at-lambeth-interfaith-forum.aspx. 73 81 Change all supported the event sponsored by the British Council. 79 Lord Marland expressed his support when he stated: “I really applaud the different faiths working together to find practical ways of tackling climate change at national and community level. Stewardship of Creation, concern for the world’s poor and a responsibility to safeguard natural resources for future generations are moral and spiritual obligations found at the heart of all the major faiths. They are also at the heart of the climate change debate.”80 Lord Marland stated that people of faith have much to contribute by leading by example, encouraging behaviour change and by placing sustainability at the centre of individual’s lives. He also believed that religion plays a crucial role in encouraging religious and political leaders around the world to push harder to reach a binding agreement to limit global carbon emissions.81 4.3.3. Sustainable practices Over the past several decades, engagement on environmental sustainability matters by religions and spiritual traditions has grown. Many religions are becoming increasingly aware of their potential for environmental good, and some are taking action to introduce sustainable practices. Below are several examples of the numerous practices currently underway. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople (also known as the “Green Patriarch”), leader of more than three hundred million Orthodox Christians, founded Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) in 1988 to advance religious and scientific dialogue around the environmental problems of major rivers and seas. 82 RSE has organised shipboard symposia for scientists, religious leaders, scholars, journalists, and policymakers to study the problems of the Aegean, Black, Adriatic, and Baltic Seas; the Danube, Amazon, and Mississippi Rivers; and the Arctic Ocean.83 Travelling down these waterways, the participants literally follow pollution from its source to its point of impact. Thus, these journeys have highlighted the interconnectedness of the world’s waters and all its ecosystems, demonstrating the destructive ripples human actions can send through space and time. 84 By bringing participants to the places where environmental problems are most acute and focusing on practical remedies rather than theoretical discussions, RSE symposia have inspired positive change through collective action.85 In addition, the 79 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 82 Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) available online at http://www.rsesymposia.org. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 80 81 82 symposia have generated initiatives for education, co-operation, and networkbuilding among local communities and policymakers.86 The Living Churchyards and Cemetery project in the United Kingdom is one example of sustainable land use.87 More than 6000 churchyards – the plots of land that sit adjacent to churches and often used as burial grounds – are now managed as “sacred ecosystems,” without pesticides and with infrequent mowing, in order to provide habitat for birds, reptiles, and insects. 88 The yards are respected as historical, cultural, and ecological sites that provide for the needs of mourners and wildlife alike.89 Interfaith Power and Light (IPL), an initiative of the San Francisco-based Regeneration Project, helps U.S. faith communities green their buildings, conserve energy, educate about energy and climate, and advocate for climate and energy policies at the state and federal level. Led by Reverend Sally Bingham, an Episcopal priest, IPL is now active in twenty-nine states and works with ten thousand congregations. 90 IPL congregations often take steps to green their facilities. For example, Michigan IPL reported in 2006 that its congregations’ efficiency improvements and renewable energy choices had saved more than US$775,000 and eliminated the same amount of pollution as planting 612 hectares of forest or removing 960 cars from the road.91 In 2009, at Windsor Castle, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) joined with thirty-one faith traditions to launch and celebrate their Long Term Commitments for a Living Planet. 92 Plans on the environment have been created by Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Daoist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, and Sikh groups.93 Each of the plans discusses wide and varied aspects of sustainable action: from buildings, trees, and food, to education, theology and celebration.94 Also involved in long-term commitments is GreenFaith. 95 It is one of the oldest religious-environmental organisations in the United States – made up of Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, and Buddhist faiths. Its mission is to inspire, educate and mobilise people of diverse religious backgrounds for environmental leadership. The 86 Ibid. Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006) 77. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid 25. See also The Regeneration Project website available online at http://www.theregenerationproject.org. 91 Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006) 79 (taken from conversations the author had with Sally Bingham). 92 Alliance of Religions and Conservation “ARC-UN Long Term Commitments for a Living Planet” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=47. 93 Alliance of Religions and Conservation “List of Faith Commitments Including 7 Year Plans” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=497. 94 Ibid. 95 GreenFaith: Interfaith Partners for the Environment available online at http://greenfaith.org/. 87 83 group believes that protecting the earth is a religious value, and that environmental stewardship is a moral responsibility. 96 In 2003, GreenFaith launched “Lighting the Way”, which provided an opportunity for religious institutions in New Jersey to install solar electric systems on their buildings at no upfront cost. Twenty-three institutions participated – preventing over 8,536,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions from entering earth’s atmosphere over the next twenty years. 97 GreenFaith has also introduced a sustainable food guide for religious institutions called “Repairing Eden.”98 Although not all religions and not all denominations embrace environmental protection or take the responsibility of caring for Creation seriously, it does appear that religious engagement is increasing. By greening their activities and uncovering or re-emphasizing the green dimensions of sacred texts, religious and spiritual groups are helping to create sustainable cultures. 4.3.4. Notions of justice Throughout history, justice as the fair and just distribution of opportunities, responsibilities and burdens has been a key value in all ethical systems and societies. It is the way in which it is interpreted, or the importance it is given in relation to other values that varies immensely.99 Climate justice implies just and fair instruments, decisions, actions, sharing of the burden and accountability in order to prevent, mitigate and adapt to climate change.100 The notion of justice from within a religious perspective derives from a sense of responsibility to care for Creation. And for some religious groups, justice is at the heart of their environmental concerns. (Refer to 4.3.9 below - a Case Study on the World Council of Churches (WCC) which considers justice to be the main concern in climate change issues). 4.3.5. Reverence for nature The world’s religions view the environment in different ways, but as global degradation becomes ever more evident, there is increasing attention paid to the natural world. The planetary scale of the crisis has awakened a process that Mary Evelyn Tucker of the Forum on Religion and Ecology describes as the retrieval, reevaluation, and reconstruction of religious wisdom regarding human interaction with the natural world.101 To put it in other words, religious traditions are finding in their 96 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 99 Christoph Stueckelberger “Who Dies First? Who is Sacrificed First? Ethical Aspects of Climate Justice” in God, Creation and Climate Change: Spiritual and Ethical Perspectives (Lutheran University Press, Minneapolis, 2009) 48. 100 Ibid. 101 Mary Evelyn Tucker Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Open Court, Chicago, 2002) 36-54. 97 98 84 own annals of wisdom ancient teachings that may have been overlooked, or that are understood more profoundly in the light of the global environmental crisis. 102 Tucker’s analysis suggests that religions are more adaptable than they are commonly perceived to be.103 Tucker and Grim give examples of the adaptability of differing religions in their foreword to Hinduism and Ecology104. They begin by stating that in the three western monotheistic traditions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, morality has traditionally been human-focused, with nature being of secondary importance and with God transcending the natural world. Thus, the natural world can be seen as a set of resources for human use, a perspective that some observers blame for the wasteful and destructive development of the past two centuries.105 Yet scholars in each of these traditions find substantial grounds for building a strong environmental ethic. The Judaic concept of a covenant or legal agreement between God and humanity, for example, can be extended to all of creation. The Christian emphases on sacrament and incarnation are seen as lenses through which the entire natural world can be viewed as sacred. And the Islamic concept of vice-regency teaches that the natural world is not owned by humans but is given to them in trust – a trust that implies certain responsibilities to preserve the balance of creation. 106 Tucker and Grim state that both Hinduism and Buddhism in South Asia contain teachings concerning the natural world that are arguably in conflict. 107 Some scholars emphasize the illusory nature of the material world and the desirability of escaping suffering by turning to a timeless world of spirit (in the case of Hinduism) or by seeking release in nirvana (in the case of some meditative schools of Buddhism).108 This other-worldly orientation, some scholars argue, minimizes the importance of environmental degradation.109 On the other hand, both religions place great emphasis on correct conduct and on fulfillment of duty, which often includes obligations to environmental preservation. Thus, Hindus regard rivers as sacred and, in the concept of lilo, the creative manifestation of the divine. Meanwhile, Buddhist environmentalists often stress the importance of trees in the life of the Buddha, and “socially engaged” Buddhism in Asia and the United States is active in environmental protection, especially of forests.110 Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006) 69. 103 Ibid. 104 Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim “Series Foreword” in Christopher Key Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker Hinduism and Ecology (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2000) pp xxv-xxvii. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 102 85 The East Asian traditions of Confucianism and Daoism seamlessly link the divine, human, and natural worlds. 111 The divine is not seen as transcendent; instead the Earth’s richness is seen as continuously unfolding through nature’s movements across the seasons and through human workings in the cycles of agriculture. This organic worldview is centred on the concept of ch’i, the dynamic, material force that infuses the natural and human worlds, unifying matter and spirit. Confucianists and Daoists seek to live in harmony with nature and with other human beings, while paying attention to the movements of the Dao, the Way.112 Despite the affinity of these traditions with an environmental ethic, however, deforestation, pollution, and other forms of degradation have become widespread in contemporary East Asia due to many factors, including rapid industrialisation and the decline of traditional values in the last fifty years with the spread of Communism.113 Although the environment is still not a major concern across an entire religion or denomination, the interest is rapidly growing with areas of activity within all of the world’s major religions, as they begin to reassess their understanding of humans and the environment, and as they begin to give the environment a prominent place in their worldviews.114 4.3.6. Key leadership roles in environmental issues As has been evidenced in earlier discussions, religious leaders have begun to play key leadership roles on the environmental stage. Roger Gottlieb has suggested that it is one of the great accomplishments of the world’s religious leaders that ecological responsibility has recently become a key topic of discussion.115 For example, in a statement in 1997, Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch stated:116 To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin ... to cause species to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation ... to degrade the integrity of the Earth by causing changes in its climate, stripping the Earth of its natural forests, or destroying its wetlands ... to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life with poisonous substances – these are sins. The fact that Bartholomew’s powerful theological language directly contradicts any presupposition that the environmental crisis is merely a technical problem or a 111 Ibid. Ibid. 113 Ibid. 114 Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006) 69. 115 Roger S Gottlieb “Religion and the Environment” in John Hinnells (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion 2nd ed (Routledge, London, 2010) pp 492-508. 116 Ibid. 112 86 flawed policy is important. His assertion that environmental degradation is a sin puts human relation to nature in the category of religious morality and, as such, is a direct expansion of both religion and environmental concern.117 A similar expansion, asserts Gottlieb, can be found in important statements by Catholic authorities, including Pope John Paul II. In his first year as Pope, John Paul declared St Francis the patron saint of those concerned with the environment. 118 Over the next two decades a series of statements revealed two central principles: first, that concern for the environment was now to take its place alongside other Catholic social justice issues such as poverty, abortion, capital punishment, and war. It had become essential to Catholic teaching to resist the cultural and political failures which led to the environmental crisis. Second, that crisis is not defined solely in terms of how it affects people.119 This discovery of a transcendent presence in creation, must lead us also to rediscover our fraternity with the earth, to which we have been linked since creation (cf Gen 2:7). This very goal was foreshadowed by the Old Testament in the Hebrew Jubilee, when the earth rested and man gathered what the land spontaneously offered (cf Lev 25:11-12). If nature is not violated and humiliated, it returns to being the sister of humanity. This is not only a bold and non-human centred environmental declaration; it is also a groundbreaking move for a religious tradition which for many centuries did its best to destroy any religion which honoured the earth.120 While Buddhism has no central authority structure the way Catholicism does, it does have some internationally recognised leaders. The Dalai Lama is the most important of these. He has made many ecologically oriented pronouncements, linking environmental problems to more comprehensive problems of greed and attachment. 121 He has also proposed that Tibet be turned into an international ecological refuge and criticized the Chinese government for un-ecological practices, including the dumping of nuclear wastes in Tibet.122 These examples of religious leadership and the declarations and pronouncements made do not as yet signify a huge change in citizen’s thinking about environmental issues or how to solve them. However, it is significant that religious authorities, who have the ear of billions of people, have embraced environmentalism and are ready and willing to pass this knowledge on.123 A more 117 Ibid 497. Ibid. Ibid. 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid 498. 118 119 87 detailed discussion on how the world’s major religions relate to climate change issues is elaborated in section 4.4. 4.3.7. Story-telling as an environmental awareness teaching tool Martin Palmer, in Faith and Conservation, stated that all religions pass on their messages and their ethos by telling stories.124 This, he reasoned, can be extended to pass on messages about the environment and social development. Given that humanity interprets the world through stories, Palmer is surprised that in the environmental and developmental movements’ people rarely use stories but rely instead on “dry statistics or facts with no context.” This can lead us, he states, to miss the point of an activity and at its worst can even bring us to destroy the very thing we seek to understand.125 This is where we can learn from the great religions. For it is by telling and remembering traditional stories that the religions are often most persuasive and positive in protecting the environment, by reminding people of the right way of doing things and by promoting a greater sense of responsibility for natural resources. Palmer gives several examples of stories that demonstrate the importance, and the possibilities, of story-telling:126 Muhammad and the River One day, the prophet Muhammad was traveling from one town to the next with his followers. They were just crossing a river when it became time for prayers. Naturally they used the river to perform the ritual ablutions required before prayer. However, the followers of the Prophet were astonished to see him enter the river with a little bowl. This he filled with water and it was this water with which he performed the ablutions. When asked why, surrounded by a whole river, he took so little water to use; he said that just because there is plenty this does not give us the right to waste or to take more than we really need.127 Krishna and the Serpent This ancient legend tells that once upon a time, an evil serpent lived in the sacred Yamuna River that flows across the centre of India and into the Ganges. The serpent’s foul breath blasted the crops growing along the river and its polluting body fouled the river, injuring all life. The people started to weep and the creatures of the river started to cry out, and eventually their distress reached the ears of Lord 124 Martin Palmer with Victoria Finlay Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment (The World Bank, Washington DC, 2003) 50. 125 Ibid 51. 126 Ibid 51 – 52. 127 Ibid. 88 Krishna. He sped to the river and – after a dramatic three day battle – killed the serpent and freed the waters and the people from its evil influence. Hindu communities were able to draw upon this legend and use it to awaken local awareness of the problem, when in the 1990’s the Yamuna was reaching dangerous levels of pollution. The pollution was seen as the return of the evil serpent in a new and uglier form and humanity was required to be the hands of Krishna in the battle against the serpent.128 Stories such as the two examples above make it possible to envision how storytelling can have a much greater positive influence on people concerning environmental issues than mere facts and figures that are far less easily understood. And when coupled with the authority that religious teaching holds for many people, stories have the potential to change lives and societies. 4.3.8. Physical and financial resources Religions command vast physical and financial resources, with many of them having assets far greater than many banks or multinational corporations. According to the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), religions “own some five per cent of forests; are connected to more than half of schools; own and manage most of the world’s tourist destinations ... and control some seven per cent of all financial investments.”129 For example, the United Methodist Church in the United States has holdings of around $70 billion. By comparison, the Church of England holds nearly one hundred times this amount.130 In terms of buildings, the Catholic Church owns approximately one million structures (including churches, monasteries, retreat centres, schools, parish halls, sports facilities, publishing companies, media centres, research centres, and universities). 131 And in countries such as Brazil, Germany, and Spain, the Church runs the majority of the historic buildings – the churches and cathedrals that are the very heart of the national tourism trade.132 Rabbi Daniel Sperber, on recognizing that we must all take full responsibility for all our assets, stated that “we must become knowledgeable of what our investments are actually doing, whether they are being used with harmful results, or whether we can proactively harness them for the betterment of humanity.” While acknowledging a single individual can have little effect, and therefore the challenge immense, he continued: “To have real impact one must work in concert with others, and who Ibid 52 – 53. Alliance of Religions and Conservation website available online at http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=51 . 130 Martin Palmer with Victoria Finlay Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment (The World Bank, Washington DC, 2003) 39. 131 Ibid 40. 132 Ibid 40. 128 129 89 better than the faith groups who control vast funds and share common ethical ideals, and therefore constitute the logical partners for an alliance towards shared goals.” 133 The International Interfaith Investment Group (3iG) is a prime example of an organisation ‘working in concert with others’. This interfaith organisation was launched in 2005 through the efforts of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC). It is a not-for-profit membership organisation whose mission is to contribute to a just and sustainable society, by promoting faith-consistent investments in the spirit of interfaith and international dialogue and cooperation.134 The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), comprising nearly three hundred organisations with collective assets totaling over US$100 billion, remains the pioneer coalition of active shareowners who view the management of their investments as a catalyst to promote justice and sustainability in the world. 135 ICCR members help shape corporate policy on a host of environmental, social and economic justice concerns. KC Burton, Deputy Director of the ICCR, when laying out his vision for the Center stated: “ICCR’s identity, what distinguishes us, is the moral drive, the sense of social rightness, that is embedded in our faith practices that find common ground around, it is right to care for one another, it is right to protect this planet, it is right to further people’s well-being, and it is right for us to work together in doing that.”136 4.3.9. A Case Study - World Council of Churches The World Council of Churches (WCC) is a prominent example of how religious organisations have responded to climate change by manifesting the power of many of the dimensions of religious affirmation and morality as identified in sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.8. Many of these attributes are expressly located within the work of the WCC and these have been categorised under similar headings below: Numbers of adherents/Unity of purpose – The WCC is the largest and most inclusive among the many organised representations of the modern ecumenical movement and it brings together 349 Christian churches, denominations and church fellowships in more than 110 countries and territories throughout the world. 137 It represents over 560 million Christians and includes most of the world’s Orthodox churches, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Reformed churches, 133 Alliance of Religions and Conservation website available online at http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=90 . The International Interfaith Investment Group (3iG) website available online at http://www.3ignet.org/about/index.html. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) website available online at http://www.iccr.org/. 136 Ibid. 137 Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are Responding to Climate Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay (Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 278. 134 135 90 as well as many United and Independent churches and some Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.138 One important role of the WCC is to build networks and relationships and enhance solidarity.139 The world’s churches are beginning to recognise how climate change consequences are affecting the lives and livelihoods of their communities.140 In an effort to respond to these challenges, they are aiding in the development of resilient communities which are equipped to adapt to climate change. 141 Churches of different denominations are coming together to respond to the impacts of climate change and to advocate for policies that respond to the needs and rights of vulnerable populations, both at local and national levels.142 Key leadership roles in environmental issues – In 1972, the WCC began to address growing environmental and social challenges. At the fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Nairobi in 1975, there was a call to establish the conditions for a “just, participatory, and sustainable [global] society.” 143 In 1979, a follow-up WCC conference was held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on “Faith, Science, and the Future.” The 1983 Vancouver Assembly of the WCC revised the theme of the Nairobi conference to include “Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation.” The 1991 WCC Canberra conference expanded on these ideas with the theme of the “Holy Spirit Renewing the Whole of Creation.”144 After Canberra, the WCC theme for mission in society became “Theology of Life.” This has invoked theological thought on environmental destruction and social inequities resulting from economic globalization. In 1992, at the time of the UN Earth Summit in Rio, the WCC facilitated a gathering of Christian leaders that issued a “Letter to the Churches,” calling for attention to pressing eco-justice concerns: solidarity with other people and all creatures; ecological sustainability; sufficiency as a standard of distributive justice; and socially just participation in decisions for the common good.145 Since this time, the WCC has attended all UN climate change conferences. 138 Ibid. Grace Ji-Sun Kim “Advocacy and Action on Climate Change: The World Council of Churches” Available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/grace-jisun-kim/climate-changeadvocacy_b_5344044.html. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Mary Evelyn Tucker and John A Grim “Introduction: The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology” in Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change? Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 2001, p 11. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid. 139 91 Of particular significance is the WCC’s role within the UN. Created in 1948, the WCC was one of the first recognised nongovernmental organisations with general consultative status at the United Nations, through its Commission of the Churches on International Affairs. 146 The General Secretariat of the WCC is based in Geneva, Switzerland, where about 150 staff coordinate worldwide programs – including responsibility for creation and interreligious dialogue and cooperation. 147 Other WCC offices are based in Jerusalem and New York. In September 2014 the WCC organised the Interfaith Climate Summit in New York. It was held in advance of the UN Climate Summit and its purpose was to show the extent of religious communities concern regarding the current climate crisis and of how they accept scientific consensus that portrays the consequences of climate change today and for the future. 148 The Summit particularly aimed at asking the international community to effectively react to climate change and to call for a legally binding, ambitious and fair treaty in Paris, 2015. Leaders from the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian faiths, as well as representatives from indigenous peoples, participated. Although interfaith meetings and declarations have been coordinated in the past, the 2014 Summit presented a real sense of urgency – with religious leaders acknowledging the very small window of opportunity to act and thus calling for immediate action by the international community. 149 In his message to the Summit, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew stated that: “each believer and each leader, each field and each discipline, each institution and each individual must be touched by the call to change our greedy ways and destructive habits” for the sake of climate justice.150 Notions of justice/Reverence for nature – It is the overarching theme of justice and the care for creation that are at the centre of WCC work on climate change issues. Its members understanding of the implications of justice as it pertains to climate change Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are responding to Climate Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay (Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 278. 147 Ibid, 279. 148 Charlotta Lomas “Religious communities are concerned about the climate” Interview with Guillermo Kerber of WCC. Available online at http://www.dw.de/religious-communities-are-concerned-about-the-climate/a-17966092. 149 Ibid. 150 World Council of Churches Press Centre News, “To save the earth, all must change their ways, says Ecumenical Patriarch”. Available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/to-save-the-earth-all-must-change-their-ways-saysecumenical-patriarch. 146 92 was expressed in a statement to the high-level segment of COP3 in Kyoto when the protocol was being drafted. The statement proclaimed: 151 (1) Justice means being held responsible for one’s actions. The rich of the world, through promotion of the current economic model, have been and continue to be responsible for the vast majority of emissions causing human-produced climate change. (2) Justice means being held accountable for promises you make. The rich of the world have broken their Rio promise to stabilise emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels. (3) Justice means being held responsible for the suffering you cause to others. Small island states, millions of environmental refugees, and future generations will suffer as a result of the callous exploitation of the earth’s resources by the rich. (4) Justice means being held accountable for abuse of power. Human societies, particularly in the over-developed countries, are damaging the environment through climate change with little respect for the inherent worth of other species which we believe to be loved by God as we are. (5) Justice means an equitable sharing of the Earth’s resources. Millions of people lack the necessities for a decent quality of life. It is the height of ignorance to propose that restrictive commitments be placed on the poor to make up for the delinquencies of the rich. Over-consumption of the rich and poverty of the poor must both be eliminated to ensure quality of life for all. (6) Justice demands truth. The organisation first held a series of meetings in relation to sustainability in the 1970s.152 This led to a process in the 1980s known as Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC) which linked environment degradation with justice issues. 153 The WCC has focused directly on climate change since that time and has been present at every UNFCCC annual conference.154 It has also increasingly worked with faith groups outside of the Christian tradition on advocacy and action in David G Hallman, WCC Climate Change Programme Coordinator, Climate Justice – the Role of Religion in Addressing Climate Change World Climate Change Conference 2003, Moscow, Russion Federation, September 29 to October 3, 2003 available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/climatechange-water/world-climate-change-conference.html. 152 Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are responding to Climate Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay (Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 279. 153 Ibid. 154 Ibid. 151 93 response to climate change. 155 Examples of WCCs climate change and global justice advocacy is illustrated in the table below. Sample of WCC-involved activities at UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties to show the consistent relationship expressed between climate change and global justice156 155 156 COP Year and location Title of WCC statement Other notes 2 1996 Geneva, Switzerland A Profoundly Ethical and Spiritual Challenge First WCC statement at COP meeting. 3 1997 Kyoto, Japan A Matter of Justice: An Interfaith Statement Interfaith Climate Change Celebration was a major event 6 2000 The Hague, Netherlands The Earth’s Atmosphere: Responsible Caring and Equitable Sharing for a Global Commons. A Justice Statement Regarding Climate Change 7 2001 Marrakech, Morocco The Role of Religions: An Interfaith Statement 8 2002 New Delhi, India A Call to Action in Solidarity with Victims of Climate Change 9 The Earth Does Not Belong to Us: We Belong to the Earth – an Ethics Statement 2003 Milan, Italy 10 2004 Buenos Aires, Argentina Moving beyond Kyoto with Equity, Justice and Solidarity 13 2007 Bali, Indonesia This Far and No Further: Act Fast and Act Now 14 2008 Poznan, Poland Faith and Feasibility: Responsibly Searching for a New Heaven and a New Earth 15 2009 Copenhagen, Denmark A Sign of Hope for the Future of the People of Goodwill Ibid. Ibid, 287. 94 One-day colloquium focused on Islamic and Christian perspectives on environment and climate change. Appendix included Message on Occasion of COP9 of the World Conference on Religion and Peace: Religions for Peace. Interfaith Celebration on Climate Change held at Nusa Dua International Church. Uppsala Interfaith Climate Manifesto 2008. Renew the Face of the Earth: Faith-based Approach to Climate Justice side event co- 17 2011 Durban, South Africa Once More a Plea for Immediate Action: Climate Justice for All organised by the WCC and Caritas Internationalis and cosponsored by several national churches and the Asian Muslim Action Network. Countdown to CO2penhagen: Time for Climate Justice international campaign organised before COP meetings. African interfaith statement Climate and Sustainable Peace in Africa. Interfaith side event Climate Justice and Food Security: Moral, Ethical and Spiritual Imperatives. The UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties have not been the only target for WCCs interfaith work on climate justice. Particularly after COP 15 in Copenhagen, for example, new avenues were sought to advance the climate justice agenda. 157 One such avenue was the Geneva Interfaith Forum on Climate Change, Environment and Human Rights, created in 2010. The WCC was a founding member in conjunction with the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, the Centre Catholique International de Geneve and the Indigenous Peoples Ancestral Spiritual Council. 158 The mission statement reiterated that injustice is inherent in climate change and it highlighted “vulnerable communities” that will face the most severe consequences of climatic variation.159 It also declared that “climate justice should be at the core of the Human Rights debate.”160 Such advocacy for climate justice is grounded in the affirmation of churches and other religious organisations that climate change must be addressed holistically - based on recognition of the interconnectedness of the various dimensions of the climate crisis, including the environmental, social, cultural and economic dimensions. 161 Financial resources – Although the WCC has a relatively small investment portfolio compared to many other institutions, it is very careful in how it manages these 157 Ibid, 289. Ibid. Ibid. 160 Ibid. 161 Guillermo Kerber “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are Responding to Climate Change: Social scientific investigations edited by Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay (Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 280. 158 159 95 investments. 162 WCC’s finance director, Elaine Dykes, states the WCC holds 8.7 million Swiss Francs in short-term deposits and money-market funds and the general ethical guidelines for investment have included concern for a sustainable environment for future generations and for the CO2 footprint of individuals and organisations.163 As of 2014, however, this further included no direct investment in fossil fuel industries. 164 Dykes further states that while the ethical investment guidelines apply to the WCC only, they are seen as a point of reference by others. “From time to time, other faith-based organisations have requested to consult the WCC’s policies.”165 This brief overview of the World Council of Churches indicates the resoluteness on behalf of the organisation to confront the issues of climate change in a comprehensive and energetic way and has demonstrated the practical application of the attributes listed in the previous section. The following section will discuss the world’s five major religions differing perspectives on climate change. 4.4. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu and Buddhist Perspectives on climate change 4.4.1. Christianity Looking back in history, there have always been Christian thinkers who held much concern for the environment. 166 For example, Saint Francis of Assisi (1181/1182 – 1226), an Italian Catholic friar and preacher, was one of the first known persons within the Christian tradition to exhibit a nature mysticism. Saint Francis is renowned by many as the patron saint of animals and ecology. 167 Although there were other early Christian environmental thinkers, including Mechtild of Magdeburg (c. 1207 – c. 1282/1294); Meister Ekhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327); and Julian of Norwich (1342 – c. 1416), these thinkers were mostly exceptions to the rule as Christianity, in general, had at that time largely demonstrated a lack of concern for environmental issues. 168 Following the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism, this lack of concern was heightened even further with an increased emphasis on the individual and the Peter Kenney “World Council of Churches says it will not invest in fossil fuels” Ecumenical News available online at http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/world-council-of-churches-says-it-will-not-invest-in-fossil-fuels-25685. 163 Ibid. 164 Ibid. 165 Ibid. 166 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 160. 167 Ibid. On Easter Sunday, 1980, Pope John Paul II proclaimed Saint Francis of Assisi the patron saint of ecology, following the suggestion 13 years earlier by Lynn White, Jr. in his seminal article in Science. 168 Ibid. 162 96 rights thereof.169 Any duties or responsibilities to the environment were more or less consigned to the background. Church documents from the late nineteenth and mid twentieth century’s reflected this anthropocentric behaviour. For example Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the Papal Encyclical of 1891 expressly stated that: “The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like. Rather, although no part of it was assigned to anyone in particular, man could by his industry make his own that part of nature’s field which he cultivates ...and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his own.” 170 Pius XII’s declaration on the fiftieth anniversary of Rerum Novarum in 1941 reinforced the concept of private ownership to the effect that “Every man... has in fact from nature the fundamental right to make use of the material goods of the earth... This right cannot in any way be suppressed.”171 It was not until the second half of the twentieth century that Christians began addressing environmental issues at any substantial level. For example, historian Lynn White instigated much thought and debate when he published, The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis in 1967. 172 He stated that many of today’s environmental issues could be traced to the Christian notion that God gave earth to humans for their use and specifically directed them to exercise dominion over the earth and all of its life forms.173 White criticized the Western European version of Christianity from the Renaissance forward, with its rationalistic view of science and technology, in combination with the Bible: “It was ceasing to be the decoding of the physical symbols of God’s communication with man and was becoming the effort to understand God’s mind by discovering how his creation operates.” 174 Disengaged from nature by the Bible, given the power of scientific domination, humanity had in White’s analysis, unleashed an increasing devastation upon the earth. 175 White qualified his argument, however, by stating, “Christianity is a complex faith, and its consequences differ in differing contexts.”176 He also argued that Christians could learn to live in harmony with the environment, if only they would emulate Saint Francis, who “proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of nature 169 Ibid. Rerum Novarum Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor. Available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html. 171 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 164. 172 Lynn Townsend White, Jr. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis” 1967, Science, Vol 155, No. 3767. 173 Ibid 7; and Holy Bible: Genesis 128. 174 Ibid. 175 Ibid. 176 Ibid. 170 97 and man’s relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man’s limitless rule of creation.”177 The overall effect of White’s essay has been to serve as a denunciation of Christianity as the source of the planet’s environmental problems. It may also be credited, however, with provoking a positive shift in Christian thinking on environmental matters, as in differing ways, the main churches have sought to either revise or re-examine their theology and practices. 178 For example, in 1988, the World Council of Churches (WCC) at a meeting in Granvollen, Norway, stated: ”The drive to have “mastery” over creation has resulted in the senseless exploitation of natural resources, the alienation of the land from people and the destruction of indigenous cultures ... Creation came into being by the will and love of the Triune God, and as such it possesses an inner cohesion and goodness. Though human eyes may not always discern it, every creature and the whole creation in chorus bear witness to the glorious unity and harmony with which creation is endowed. And when our human eyes are opened and our tongues unloosed, we too learn to praise and participate in the life, love, power and freedom that is God’s continuing gift and grace”.179 Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens similarly commented: "... by an ill-considered exploitation of nature he [man] risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation [...] flight from the land, industrial growth, continual demographic expansion and the attraction of urban centres bring about concentrations of population difficul t to imagine." 180 As part of his 1990 New Year message (para 15), Pope John Paul II stated: "Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith”. 181 The Pope elaborated on this theme in his Message for the World Day of Peace (para 10) in 1999 when he proclaimed, “the world’s present and future depend on the safeguarding of creation, because of the endless interdependence between human beings and their environment”. 182 He also issued a warning, stating: “the danger of serious damage to land and sea, and to the climate, flora and 177 Ibid 10. “Christian Faith Statement” Faiths & Ecology, ARC Alliance of Religions and Conservation website at http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=69. 179 Ibid. 180 Pope John Paul VI “Octogesima Adveniens” The Vatican website, at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html 181 Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1990 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-forpeace_en.html. 182 Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1999 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-forpeace_en.html. 178 98 fauna, calls for a profound change in modern civilisation’s typical consumer life-style, particularly in the richer countries”. 183 This was reiterated even more forcibly in his January 2001 General Audience with the words “If one looks at the regions of our planet, one realizes that humanity has disappointed the divine expectation ... humiliating ... the earth, that flower-bed that is our dwelling”. 184 Pope Benedict XVI, during his service as Pope between 2005 and 2013, was also proactive in his statements on environmental issues. For example, in 2008 he emphasized the need for ecological responsibility: “We need to care for the environment; it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion.”185 In 2009 he stated: “The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere.”186 In 2010, he criticized the failure by world leaders to agree to a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen, criticizing the “economic and political resistance” to fighting environmental degradation.187 In March 2013, the new Pope chose his name Francis, in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi, the Catholic Church’s patron saint of animals and the environment. In his first mass, Pope Francis proclaimed: “Let us be protectors of creation, protectors of God’s plan inscribed in nature, protectors of one another and of the environment.”188 The need to care for the environment was further strengthened in the document Orthodoxy and the Ecological Crisis, by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1990: “We must attempt to return to a proper relationship with the Creator AND the creation. This may well mean that just as a shepherd will in times of greatest hazard, lay down his life for his flock, so human beings may need to forego part of their wants and needs in order that the survival of the natural world can be assured. This is a new situation - a new challenge. It calls for humanity to bear some of the pain of creation as well as to enjoy and celebrate it. It calls first and foremost for repentance - but of an order not previously understood by many.” (10–11) 183 Ibid (para 10). John Paul II General Audience (para 4) 17 January 2001 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010117_en.html. 185 Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2008 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-daypeace_en.html. 186 Encycclical Letter Caritas in Veritate of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women Religious the Lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html. 187 David Willey Pope Benedict XVI lambasts Copenhagen failure. 11 January 2010. BBC News website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8452447.stm. 188 Marcela Valente “Pope Francis Raises Hope for an Ecological Church” Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS) at http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/pope-francis-raises-hopes-for-an-ecological-church/. 184 99 The Orthodox Church teaches that humanity, both individually and collectively, should perceive the natural order as a sign and sacrament of God and that it is the responsibility of humanity to restore the proper relationship between God and the world as it was in Eden. Through repentance, two landscapes—the one human, the other natural—can become the objects of a caring and creative effort. But repentance must be accompanied by soundly focused initiatives that manifest the ethos of Orthodox Christian faith.189 The World Council of Churches, predominantly Protestant, but also with full Orthodox participation, produced a series of conclusions on the issues of Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation: 190 We affirm that the world, as God's handiwork, has its own inherent i ntegrity; that land, waters, air, forests, mountains and all creatures, including all humanity, are 'good' in God's sight. The integrity of creation has a social aspect which we recognise as peace with justice, and an ecological aspect which we recognise i n the self-renewing, sustainable character of natural ecosystems. We will resist the claim that anything in creation is merely a resource for human exploitation. We will resist species extinction for human benefit; consumerism and harmful mass production; pollution of land, air and waters; all human activities which are now leading to probable rapid climate change; and the policies and plans which contribute to the disintegration of creation. Therefore we commit ourselves to be members both of the living co mmunity of creation in which we are but one species, and of the covenant community of Christ; to be full co-workers with God, with moral responsibility to respect the rights of future generations; and to conserve and work for the integrity of creation both for its inherent value to God and in order that justice may be achieved and sustained. Numerous Christian climate change initiatives have evolved alongside the various proclamations. For example, the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) is a group of over 300 senior evangelical leaders in the United States committed to helping solve the issues associated with climate change. They recognize both the opportunity and the responsibility in offering a biblically based moral account that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the world.191 ECI have offered a statement that puts forward four simple but urgent claims, and urge all to take appropriate actions to follow from them. The claims, as represented in the document Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action, are expounded in Appendix A. The teaching orders of monks and nuns also have an important role to play in educating people about environmental issues. They often own lan d, and “Christian Faith Statement” Faiths & Ecology, ARC Alliance of Religions and Conservation website at http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=69. 190 Ibid. 191 Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/. 189 100 many have started organic farming projects, tree nurseries and similar practical programmes on their own land. The Sisters of the Humility of Mary in Villa Maria, Pennsylvania, for example, are a group of religious women dedicated to works of peacemaking, justice, and care for the Earth. Villa Maria encompasses 726 acres of farmland, wetlands, forest, a bird sanctuary and nature trails. The naturally grown produce produces food for residents and guests as well as people served by food banks and outre ach programs in the area. Educational programs on topics of land and soil use, and care of wetlands, forests and wildlife are also offered in cooperation with farm-based environmental education. 192 And in Crete, the Chrysopigi Monastry near Chania is renowned for its ecological and environmental actions. 193 The nuns cultivate approximately 130 acres of land with olive, tangerine, orange, avocado, fig, apricot trees and vegetable gardens. 194 All are organically grown. From the products, they mainly sell organic oil in order to promote organic farming to locals and tourists. Organic wastes of the monastery are converted into compost for using as fertilizers, while the rest are recycled. Moreover, the nuns run environmental education programs for school children from all over Europe.195 Catholic schools, colleges and charitable organisations are becoming increasingly aware and active in environmental matters. 196 Many Catholic Universities have departments of engineering which have assumed environmental responsibilities, and in many cases, these universities have developed environmental studies institutes. 197 For example, the Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies offers environmental science programmes for students and adults of all ages, from primary school to graduate school. 198 This Christian institute carries the mission of bringing both the Christian community and the public at large to a fuller, deeper, and better understanding of the stewardship of God’s creation. It offers field -based, university level courses at campuses in the Great Lakes region, Pacific Northwest, South India, and Latin America. Au Sable’s focus is to create and provide new knowledge and resources about the care of creation that address both scientific understanding and theological perspective. 199 192 Sisters of the Humility of Mary website at http://www.humilityofmary.org/villa-farm.html . Chrysopigi Monastry, Chania, Crete at http://www.cretanbeaches.com/Monasteries/Chania-Monasteries/chrysopigimonastery-near-chania/. 194 Ibid. 195 Ibid. 196 Alexander Belopopsky “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051. 197 Ibid. 198 Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies website at http://ausable.org/about/. 199 Ibid. 193 101 Most other Protestant churches such as the Methodists, Lutherans and Baptists, now have an international policy agreement to work on enviro nmental concerns. At national and local levels thousands of churches have introduced programmes on recycling and education along with practical schemes on church lands. Within some of the most active of the smaller churches, such as the indigenous churches of Asia, Africa and Latin America, environmental concerns work in close cooperation with the rediscovery or reintegration of traditional cultures and Christianity. 200 In areas such as the Philippines churches assist indigenous peoples in struggling for land rights and against economic and environmental exploitation. For example, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) Comprehensive Ecology and Environmental Protection Program (CEEPP) was a pioneering work among Philippine churches which provided valuable lessons and insights not only in environmental education and advocacy but also in implementing development programmes in the Philippine context. 201 The CEEPP “extended invaluable material and moral support for the conduct of a number of campa igns in the regions, especially around the issues of large -scale and other destructive forms of mining, such as open-pit mining, conversion of agricultural lands into tourist and export industry zones, and mega-dams,” stated Toquero, former CEEPP staff.202 It is not only the churches and schools that have shown environmental concern. Many of the major Christian aid agencies, such as Caritas, Christian Aid and the German and Swedish Lutheran aid agencies have also made environmental factors integral parts of their development programmes around the world.203 Although progress may appear slow at times, the examples above indicate that Christian involvement in environmental issues is on the increase and this involvement has immense potential to play a positive role in future discussions for climate change governance, in both national and international arenas. 4.4.2. Islam Khalid states that it has often been observed that Islam cannot, as a rule, be described as a religion as it prescribes a way of life that goes beyond the recital of Alexander Belopopsky “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051. 201 Peace for Life Secretariat “Philippines: Church people, environmental groups call for ecological wholeness amid environmental crisis” news report at http://www.peaceforlife.org/news/local/2009/09-0825-ncejed.html. 202 Ibid. 203 Alexander Belopopsky “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051. 200 102 rituals.204 In the Qu’ran, the word religion (din) appears in 90 different places and mostly in contexts that place it outside the purely ritual. 205 Din describes a code of behaviour which deals with issues such as personal hygiene to human’s relationship with the natural order. It thus provides a holistic approach to existence and does not differentiate between the sacred and the secular. Everything is seen as important and as interdependent on everything else. There is no distinction between the world of mankind and the world of nature.206 However, Khalid states this Islamic mode of expression has become greatly weakened over time and today the natural world is treated exclusively as an exploitable resource. The secular ethic, he says, “has progressively seeped into the Muslim psyche and as industrial development, economic indicators and consumerism became the governing parameters of society, there has been a corresponding erosion of the Muslim perception of the holistic and a withering of its understanding of the sacred nexus between the human community and the rest of the natural order.” 207 In Islam, human-environment interactions are guided by the notion of the person as a khalifa, meaning a viceregent or steward of the earth. It is impermissible in Islam to abuse one’s rights as khalifa, because the notion of acting in “good faith” underpins Islamic law. The planet was inherited by all humankind and “all its posterity from generation to generation .... Each generation is only the trustee. No one generation has the right to pollute the planet or consume its natural resources in a manner that leaves for posterity only a polluted planet or one seriously denuded of its resources.”208 In other contexts, the concept of khalifa refers to the fact that waves of humanity will continuously succeed each other and inherit planet earth. 209 The Qur’an commands believers to, “Make not mischief on the earth” 210 and declares that “Corruptness hath appeared on land and sea because of that which men’s hands have earned, so that he (God) may make them taste a part of which they have done (deeds they have done), in order that haply they may turn (back from evil).” 211 When human-produced “mischief” – “fassad” – spoils the natural order, God penalizes people with the same type of affliction that they have inflicted on His creation. 212 The other meanings of fassad include taking something unjustifiably and unfairly or spoiling or degrading (natural) resources.213 The notion Fazlun M Khalid “Islam and the Environment” Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, 2002) 332 – 339. 205 Ibid. 206 Ibid. 207 Ibid. 208 Christopher G Weeramantry Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective (St Martins Press, New York, 1988) 61. 209 Hussein A. Amery “Rights of the Environment” in Water Management in Islam edited by Naser I. Faruqui, Asit K. Biswas, and Murad J. Bino (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2001) 41. 210 Holy Qur’an 2:11 211 Holy Qur’an 30:41. 212 Hussein A. Amery “Rights of the Environment” in Water Management in Islam edited by Naser I. Faruqui, Asit K. Biswas, and Murad J. Bino (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2001) 42. 213 Ibid. 204 103 of fassad is not associated with any specific time and place, and is thus universal and everlasting in scope.214 Fassad is mentioned in the context of “land and sea”. It is however reasonable to assume that this notion also encompasses all other components of the ecosystem because the Qur’an states that to God, the creator of everything, belong the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them and what is beneath the ground. Islamic teachings, including the Qur’an, therefore, command Muslims to avoid and prevent fassad, which encompasses undue exploitation or degradation of environmental resources. This perspective is especially revealing in light of the Islamic belief that the natural world is subservient to the human world. Humans are consequently permitted to use and transform the natural environment, with which they are entrusted, to serve their survival needs. For example, God states that humans may use His (good) resources for their sustenance on the condition that they “commit no excess (la tatghou) therein, lest My wrath should justly descend on you.” Muslims who engage in fassad are effectively sinners and environmentally disrupting conduct amounts to breaking “God’s covenant after it is ratified.”215 Richard Foltz believes that Islam may have a special role to play in environmental justice issues.216 He states “It is a tragic reality that the poor suffer far more directly from environmental degradation than do the rich, who are better able to insulate themselves from its effects. And on a global scale, a disproportionate percentage of the world’s poor happen to be Muslim.”217 Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a key Muslim environmental thinker, argues that Islam, with its belief in unity, does not contain the divide between man and nature as can be found in Christianity. 218 Traditional Islam supports a harmonious balance between human and nature, while both modern and fundamentalist versions distort verses from the Qur’an.219 Nasr believes that a true Islamic state would be inherently environmentalist, in which stability, rather than change and uncertainty, will allow the environment to return to its nurturing state.220 “Unfortunately, today the West dominates the world economy, so Islam reacts to the West both economically and politically. The West sets the agenda.”221 Nasr speaks also of the destructiveness of the separation between religion and the secular domain “which is rooted in Western modern science and its domination of our view of nature, a view that 214 Ibid. Holy Quran 2:27 216 Richard Foltz “Introduction” Islam and Ecology Edited by Richard Foltz, Frederick Denny & Azizan Baharuddin (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003) p xxxix. 217 Ibid. 218 Seyyed Hossein Nasr Islam and the Plight of Modern Man (Longman Group, London, 1975) 4. 219 Ibid. 220 Ibid. 221 Marjorie Hope and James Young “Islam and Ecology” http://www.crosscurrents.org/islamecology.htm. 215 104 separates nature from the sacred.”222 While Nasr is not hostile to Western science he is hostile to its claim to be the only valid science of the natural world. 223 He states that Western science has become illegitimate because scientists and the rest of society fail to see the need for a higher knowledge into which it could be integrated. The spiritual value of nature is destroyed and we cannot save the natural world except by rediscovering the sacred in nature.224 Kabir Helminski holds the belief that, influenced strongly by the dominant West, Islam has lost its way.225 He argues that it needs to return to a path of developing human reason and spirit while avoiding the “globalisation of consumer culture and commercial values” that “is rapidly displacing spiritual values.” 226 He therefore suggests an accord between Islam and those in the West who “are turning away from consumerism and materialism toward voluntary simplicity and humane values.”227 The belief that environmentalism is a concern only for elites with the money and leisure to worry about nature is still common among Muslims. One research team has found a widespread attitude among Muslims that, “when we catch up with the technological superiority of the West, then we can begin to focus on this issue.” 228 Muslim society rebels against the West but at the same time, seeks to surpass it which creates a philosophical stumbling block obstructing a stronger contribution to environmentalism.229 The Arab and Muslim world has, however, begun to pay attention to global environmental issues. During the last twenty years especially, an increasing number of environmental organisations have been established and the awareness of environmental issues has increased. For example, in 2008, the Bay Area chapter of the Muslim American Society (a society who believe living a “greener” lifestyle is not only healthier and socially responsible, but an essential and mandatory component of a Muslim’s life), established the Muslim Green Team. 230 This grassroots environmental campaign promotes environmentally conscious and sustainable practices in all spheres of human activity.231 The primary objectives of Muslim Green Team are (1) to fulfill the duty to Allah in adopting environmentally friendly practices; (2) to contribute to the increasingly global effort to reverse the 222 Ibid. Ibid. 224 Ibid. 225 Kabir Helmsinki “The Dialog of Civilisations and the Globalisation of Spirit” The Threshold Society as quoted by Ethan Goffman “God, Humanity and Nature: Comparative Religious Views of the Environment” (Review article) ProQuest http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/envrel/review.php#n6. 226 Ibid. 227 Ibid. 228 Marjorie Hope and James Young “Islam and Ecology” http://www.crosscurrents.org/islamecology.htm. 229 Ibid. 230 Muslim Green Team website at http://muslimgreenteam.org/about. 231 Ibid. 223 105 effects of environmentally irresponsible practices; (3) to raise awareness about environmental issues within the Muslim community; (4) to demonstrate the environmental message of Islam; and (5) to contribute the unique, Islamic perspective of the environment to the national and global environmental conversation. 232 The Muslim Green Team holds an annual Eco-fair to grow awareness to all these matters and educates the community on how to participate in environmentally responsible practices.233 Additionally, the Muslim Green Team organizes a project every year targeting a particular area of concern. These projects are intended to unite the community behind a specific cause to have a larger environmental impact, and so that the particular positive change can become part of the culture of the community. The entire community supports each other in making permanent, productive changes.234 Another example of an organisation which expresses Islamic perspectives on the environment is the Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences (IFEES) - an internationally recognised charity organisation which is motivated by Islamic principles such as tawhid (unity), amana (entrustment) of the Earth to khalifa (the stewardship of humankind), and a system of ethics grounded in the Qur’an and sunnah (the guidance) of the Prophet Muhammad.235 The main objective of IFEES is to set up a centre for Islamic research on conservation practice which would teach practical and theoretical subjects based on the principles of Shariah.236 In West Africa in 2011, IFEES conducted a two-day training session on environmental ethics based on the Qur’an. It was attended by Islamic scholars and Qur’an school teachers from the Kano region of Northern Nigeria. Participants were trained to develop techniques to disseminate environmental messages to their communities, particularly on climate change. They were also taught how to devise projects in keeping with local conditions. 237 Also in 2011, Climate4Classrooms (C4C), an international partnership programme between the British Council, the Royal Geographical Society and the Royal Meteorological Society invited IFEES to deliver two workshops on Islamic Environmental ethics in Java and Surabaya. 238 The IFEES centre also serves as a demonstration and promotional site for experimental projects on sustainable land resource management and traditional and nonindustrial farming techniques (organic farming) as well as the development of 232 Ibid. Ibid. 234 Ibid. 235 Forum on Religion and Ecology “Islam Engaged Projects – Islamic Foundation for ecology and Environmental Sciences (IFEES) at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/islam/projects/islamic_foundation.html. 236 Ibid. 237 Eco Islam magazine, June 2011, Issue no.08 found at http://www.ifees.org.uk. 238 Ibid. 233 106 alternative low energy, low cost technology (water wheels, solar panels, and waste recycling).239 Many Muslim religious scholars have published books and religious rulings concerning environmental matters. For example, Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet written by Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, is a publication concerning environmental living and policy from a Muslim perspective.240 In a time when many associate Islam with terrorism and oil, the long history of environmentalism that is inherent in the Qur’an and Islamic teachings has been forgotten and this book seeks to remedy the position. Environmentalism in the Muslim World by Richard Foltz provides an overview of how Muslim activists are responding on the ground to the global environmental crisis. Although it states that governments of Muslim societies have been slow to respond to environmental problems, environmental awareness and activism are nevertheless growing, with environmental initiatives currently underway in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Malaysia.241 4.4.3. Judaism As has been observed with other religions, engagement of Judaism with environmental issues is not simple or straightforward. Although many Jewish groups are active, the philosophy on the need for environmental activism varies greatly from one branch of Judaism to another. A type of continuum is followed, with Reconstructionist being the most left-leaning, followed by Reform, Conservative and Orthodox, which consists of the most observant.242 Troster, a conservative Rabbi, states the Reconstructionist and Reform groups have carried out a much better job on the national level, with the Orthodox groups (the more inward-looking and least open to the outside, secular world) having done the least.243 For example, Hasidism, the most observant sect, is entirely isolated and opposed to modern science or the secular world. 244 Nevertheless, pockets of activism can be found throughout all Jewish groups, and in particular among the more secular Jews.245 The reason for the varying degrees of activism lies in the fact that there are several ways in which to understand or interpret the application of biblical, Talmudic, Forum on Religion and Ecology “Islam Engaged Projects – Islamic Foundation for ecology and Environmental Sciences (IFEES) at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/islam/projects/islamic_foundation.html. 240 Ibrahim Abdul-Matin Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, San Francisco, 2010). 241 Richard Foltz Environmentalism in the Muslim World (Nova Science Publishers, Inc, USA, 2005). 242 Julie Halpert “Judaism and Climate Change” The Yale Forum on Clmate Change and the Media at http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/judaism-and-climate-change/. 243 Ibid. 244 Ibid. In 1990 the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation passed a movement-wide resolution on the environment and congregational life. Since 2006 it has offered conference calls and resources on sustainable synagogues and living a Jewish life rooted in ecological values. 245 Ibid. 239 107 or medieval categories and values to contemporary problems.246 Benstein states that one approach maintains that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccles 1:411), and therefore chazal, the early rabbinic sages, knew all that is necessary to deal successfully with climate change and other contemporary pressures. 247 According to this view, all questions and answers have been revealed, and the process of applying ancient texts to modern problems is relatively uncomplicated. 248 A second approach appreciates the challenges we presently face are largely unprecedented, and no simple or automatic answers can be found in pre-modern sources. 249 Moreover, Benstein states, “the decidedly religious character of the classical texts makes them doubly archaic and arcane in relation to our technological lives, with their singular opportunities and threats.”250 According to this view, the challenges will be met by scientists and technocrats familiar with the latest innovations rather than by religious authorities.251 A third approach in understanding Judaism’s relationship to the environment centres around the belief that the Torah and traditional sources are crucially relevant but as their meaningful application to adherents lives is far from automatic, a creative interpretation is now required. Namely, one can accept the essential newness of many of the issues while at the same time still embrace the need for guiding values and insight from timeless sources. 252 Benstein contends it is not enough to be extensively trained in the intricacies of Talmudic thought without comprehensive instruction in the details and data of contemporary environmental discourse. Likewise, mere technical knowledge can never by itself address the real underlying questions, which are issues of beliefs, values, and worldviews, all of which require wisdom, not just data.253 Classical Jewish texts have much to say about the relationship of man to nature. Ancient and medieval Jewish texts both express and are consistent with a strong environmental ethic and impose numerous restrictions on how, when, and to what extent people can use the natural environment.254 Rather than simply expressing anthropocentric values, many of its ideas and principles either explicitly or implicitly evoke themes that are consistent with eco- or bio-centric understandings of the relationship between people and nature.255 However, its teachings are not identical 246 Jeremy Benstein The Way into Judaism and the Environment (Jewish Lights Publishing, Vermont, 2006) 1. Ibid. 248 Ibid. 249 Ibid. 250 Ibid. 251 Ibid. 252 Ibid 2. 253 Ibid. 254 David Vogel “How Green is Judaism? Exploring Jewish Environmental Ethics Business Ethics Quarterly Vol 11, No 2 (Apr 2001) 350. 255 Ibid. 247 108 to them. Specifically, Judaism does not regard the preservation or protection of nature as the most important societal value. It holds that humans are not just a part of nature but have privileged and distinctive moral claims. It believes that nature can threaten humans as well as the obverse. It argues that nature should be used and enjoyed as well as protected.256 Vogel suggests then, that Judaism contains both “green” and “non-green” elements.257 While the natural world must be respected and admired, its challenge to human interests and values must also be recognised. Therefore, the most important contribution of ancient and medieval Jewish texts to contemporary environmental discourse lies in the concept of balance – balance between viewing nature as a source of life and moral values and as a threat to human life and social values.258 Vogel states the teachings of Judaism challenge both those who would place too low a value on nature as well as those who would place too high a value on it.259 Although in the past, environmental issues have rarely been on the agenda, Orthodox rabbis are now increasingly focusing their sermons on issues such as climate change. While many Jews appreciate these problems are largely secular, they also understand that solutions must "be based on religious and moral values."260 For example, the Jewish Climate Initiative provides a Jewish response to the global climate crisis through the promotion of innovative science, technology and ethical leadership.261 This not-for-profit organisation, created for the purposes of Tikkun Olam (“repairing the world” in Hebrew), provides a unique contribution to climate change action in three critical areas: (1) Ethics – the ethical and spiritual wellsprings of Jewish tradition are examined anew for guidance for the planet as a whole; (2) Policy and Activism – the long experience of Jewish activism to improve the world is directed at the critical challenge of climate change; (3) Science and Technology – applies skills in technology development and commercialisation to those fields that need to be advanced in order to reverse the potentially dire effects of climate change.262 The issues the Jewish Climate Initiative is addressing include: Pollution Ethics – How can Jewish environmental law be generalized and reasoned to inform policy on global climate change? Pikuah Nefesh – The central Jewish value of saving lives as it impacts global warming. 256 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 259 Ibid. 260 Ibid. 261 Jewish Climate Initiative website at http://www.jewishclimateinitiative.org/home/. 262 Ibid. 257 258 109 Ethical Consumption – How can Jewish ethics help us shift to sustainable patterns of energy and water consumption? How can they challenge the ethos of excessive consumption that drives environmental degradation? Intergenerational Justice – Climate change threatens to bequeath a far less hospitable world to our children and grandchildren. What are our obligations to preserve the conditions of life for future generations? Global Justice – Climate change disproportionately affects the world’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens, leading to critical disagreements between rich and poor nations about who should bear the costs averting and mitigating climate change impacts. What can Jewish teachings contribute to these debates? Midrashic Narratives – The scale of the climate change challenge requires narratives of “mythical” scope to be adequately grasped. The default myth of global warming in Western societies is one of hellfire as a consequence of sin. Jewish Climate Initiative is articulating religiously-based narratives of climate change that are less paralyzing and more empowering. Climate Change Theology – Climate science demonstrates the potential of human activities to profoundly affect the weather, a domain reserved by classical theologies for the Divine. This fact may have profound implications for traditional categories of faith and prayer in relation to natural phenomena. Interfaith Engagement – The world’s faiths can be an immensely powerful force for behavioural change in combating global warming. It is the aim of Judaism to actualize this power and, through dialogue with other religious leaders to stimulate them to actualize it in their own faith communities. The Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) is another example of the Jewish community’s commitment to stewardship and protection of the Earth. The COEJLs goal is to mobilize the Jewish community to conserve energy, increase sustainability, and advocate for policies that increase energy efficiency and security while building core Jewish environmental knowledge and serving as a Jewish voice in the broader interfaith community. 263 COEJL addresses the climate crisis through advocacy for appropriate legislation as well as action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by challenging and supporting Jewish organisations to practice sustainability in their facilities, operations and programs. 264 It also seeks to expand the contemporary understanding of such Jewish values as tikkun olam (repairing the Earth) and tzedek (justice) to include the protection of both people and other species from environmental degradation. 265 To advance its mission, COEJL “COEJL: Protecting Creation, Generation to Generation” at http://coejl.org/. Ibid. 265 Ibid. 263 264 110 partners with the complete field of national Jewish organisations to integrate Jewish values of environmental stewardship into Jewish life. 266 It also works with synagogues and other local Jewish organisations to bring Jewish environmental education, ecologically-conscious Jewish observance, and opportunities for environmental action to Jewish families and individuals. 267 It supports rabbis, educators, and Jewish scholars to develop and distribute materials that express diverse Jewish perspectives on environmental issues and brings a Jewish vision and voice to issues of environmental justice and sustainability, by advocating on behalf of the Jewish community. The COEJL also participates in inter-religious and civic coalitions to protect the environment, public health, and our common future.268 4.4.4. Hinduism Hinduism, as a non-Abrahamic religion, rivals the Christian and Muslim faiths in size, with close to a billion followers. It is a remarkably diverse religious and cultural phenomenon, with many local and regional manifestations.269 Although it has no church, no single leader or scripture, and no representative global council, it does have five important themes arising from its core of beliefs. These themes suggest that: (1) the earth can be seen as a manifestation of the goddess, and must be treated with respect; (2) the five elements – space, air, fire, water and earth – are the foundation of an interconnected web of life; (3) dharma, often translated as duty, can be interpreted to include our responsibility to care for the earth; (4) simple living is a model for the development of sustainable economies; and (5) our treatment of nature directly affects our karma.270 Gandhi exemplified many of these teachings, and his example continues to inspire social, religious and environmental leaders in their efforts to protect the planet.271 The Vedas (a large body of texts originating in ancient India) have offered numerous texts and rituals that extol the earth (bhu), the atmosphere (bhuvah), and sky (sva), as well as the goddess associated with the earth (Prthivi), and the gods associated with water (Ap), with fire and heat (Agni), and the wind (Vayu). 272 The centrality of these gods and goddesses suggests an underlying ecological sensitivity within the Hindu tradition.273 Hindu religious thinkers and activists have begun to reflect on how the broader values of Hindu tradition might contribute to 266 Ibid. Ibid. 268 Ibid. 269 Pankaj Jain “10 Hindu Environmental Teachings” Religion, Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pankaj-jainphd/10-hindu-environmental-te_b_846245.html 270 Ibid. 271 Ibid. 272 Christopher Key Chapple “Hindusm, Jainism, and Ecology” at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/hinduism/. 273 Ibid. 267 111 promoting greater care for the earth.274 For example, Gandhi’s advocacy of simple living through the principles of nonviolence and truthfulness is an important step forward as it gives Hindus the incentive or drive necessary to consider lifestyle changes that are now required due to contemporary consumerism.275 The Bhumi Project is a worldwide Hindu response to the environmental issues facing the planet. Based at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, alongside the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), it works with Hindu organisations, communities, temples and individuals in all parts of the world. 276 The project organizers believe, that with a Hindu population of 900 million worldwide, Hindu communities, sampradays, and sanghas could become an important voice in addressing climate change. The project itself is named after Bhumi Devi, a Sanskrit name for the personality of Mother Earth, famed in Indian literature. The aims of the project are to educate, inspire, inform, and connect Hindus interested in protection of the planet; to develop long term sustainable plans beginning with a Nine-Year timeframe; and to build a base of global partners and friends who encourage best environmental practice.277 It seeks to apply traditional wisdom to modern concerns, stating that it is not about teaching something new, but rather re-learning what it is that was once known, but now forgotten.278 One of the schemes currently being explored by the Nine-Year Action Plan is a ‘Hindu Labeling Scheme’ whereby a set of standards based on the principles of ahimsa (non-violence) will aid in assisting the Hindu community in ethical buying in line with its ethos and values.279 It proposes a ‘Hindu benchmark’ for a range of products and services including renewable energy, ethically sourced food, transport, and other products and services that assist sustainable lifestyles.280 The labeling scheme is hoped to commence by 2014 in the UK, with the hope that other countries will also be encouraged to develop similar schemes.281 There are several other schemes presently being developed within the NineYear Action Plan. For example, ‘Compassionate Living’ will collaborate with organisations who wish to promote a more compassionate, vegetarian lifestyle. 282 It is widely acknowledged that the meat industry is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases and to help address this issue, the scheme aims to encourage 274 Ibid. Ibid. The Bhumi Project at http://bhumiproject.org/. 277 Ibid. 278 Ibid. 279 “The Bhumi Project: Respect, Compassion and Service for our Environment” The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, University of Oxford, http://www.bhumiproject.org/downloads/TheBhumiProject.pdf. 280 Ibid. 281 Ibid. 282 Ibid. 275 276 112 all Hindus to consider reducing or eliminating meat from their diets. 283 The development of ‘Temple Gardens’ is another example. 284 This scheme aims to promote the development of temple gardens, where only organic gardening principles are used. It will work alongside local and national gardening organisations and experts to learn best practices and increase organic and sustainable standards.285 It is hoped that by defining clear temple standards, creation of positive change in the habits of devotees will develop.286 Gopal Patel, Project Manager for the Bhumi Project has stated, “Hindu temples were traditionally the standardbearers for good practice in the community. By making our places of worship earthfriendly, we can send a clear message that care for the environment is central to Hindu life.” 287 Jose Dallo, of the United Nations Development Programme also added: “The Preamble of the UN Charter talks about ‘We the Peoples of the United Nations.’ Sometimes the United Nations has been concentrating on the Governments of the World. We recognise that achieving the international agreed goals will require development partnerships which reflect that civil society has an important role to play. Initiatives like the Hindu Green Temple Initiative are very much about the people, and what the people want to achieve.”288 The Bhumi Project acknowledges that effective education is vital to all aspects of the plan and is aimed at effecting a generational change in the Hindu community.289 It also recognizes that audiences, traditions, practices, and teachings can widely differ in the Hindu community. However, it aims to meet this challenge by acknowledging and addressing all facets of Hindu thought and practice in their educational initiatives.290 Hindus released the Hindu Declaration on Climate Change in December 2009, at the finale of the Convocation of Hindu Spiritual Leaders Parliament of the World’s Religions.291 It stated: The Hindu tradition understands that man is not separate from nature, that we are linked by spiritual, psychological and physical bonds with the elements around us. Knowing that the Divine is present everywhere and in all things, Hindus strive to do no harm. We hold a deep reverence for life and an awareness that the great forces of nature – the earth, the water, 283 Ibid. Ibid. 285 Ibid. 286 Ibid. 287 Gopal Patel, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Recieves White House Launch” ISKCON News at http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-08-02/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch. 288 Joes Dallo, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Recieves White Hosue Launch” ISKCON News at http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-08-02/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch. 289 “The Bhumi Project: Respect, Compassion and Service for our Environment” The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, University of Oxford, http://www.bhumiproject.org/downloads/TheBhumiProject.pdf. 290 Ibid. 291 http://www.hinduismtoday.com/pdf_downloads/hindu-climate-change-declaration.pdf. 284 113 the fire, the air and space – as well as all the various orders of life, including plants and trees, forests and animals, are bound to each other within life’s cosmic web. … We cannot continue to destroy nature without also destroying ourselves. The dire problems besetting our world – war, disease, poverty and hunger – will all be magnified many fold by the predicted impacts of climate change. … Humanity’s very survival depends upon our capacity to make a major transition of consciousness equal in significance to earlier transitions from nomadic to agricultural, agricultural to industrial and industrial to technological. We must transit to complementarity in place of competition, convergence in place of conflict, holism in place of hedonism, optimisation in place of maximisation. We must, in short, move rapidly towards a global consciousness that replaces the present fractured and fragmented consciousness of the human race. Although Hindus concede that it may be too late to avoid drastic climate change they consider “the whole world is one family”, and therefore encourage all to be prepared to respond with compassion to the likely calamitous challenges such as population displacement, food and water shortages, catastrophic weather and rampant disease.292 4.4.5. Buddhism Buddha did not directly address the issue of the human relationship with nature as a separate subject. However, many of those involved in the ecology movement have found inspiration and valuable parallels within the Buddhist tradition and many Buddhists themselves have begun the process of extracting ecological wisdoms from their tradition.293 Buddhism is completely averse to the idea that nature and all created things exist for the benefit of humankind.294 Humankind is but one part of the entire cosmic order and not in a position of dominance. Humans are just as much subject to the natural order of the universe as any other form of sentient being.295 “Buddhism is ecocentric rather than anthropocentric since it views humans as an integral part of nature.”296 The Thai monk, Buddhadasa Bhikku once stated: “The entire cosmos is a cooperative. The sun, the moon, and the stars live together as a cooperative. The same is true for humans and animals, trees and the earth. When we realize that the world is a mutual, interdependent, cooperative Lynn and Ellie Whitney “Faith Based Statements on Climate Change”, June 2012 at http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/Faith%20Based%20Statements%20PDF%20for%20printing.pdf. 293 Ecodharma Centre: Radical Ecology Radical Dharma “Buddhism and Ecology at http://www.ecodharma.com/influencesarticles/buddhism-ecology. 294 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (PTY) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 132. 295 Ibid. 296 Ibid. See also Klas Sandell (ed) Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis (Sri Lanka Buddhist Publications Society, Kandy, 1987). 292 114 enterprise… then we can build a noble environment. If our lives are not based on this truth, then we shall perish.”297 Applying this principle to the relationship between humans and their environment, the implications are clear. Since no action is without its reaction on every interconnected thing, whatever action we take has a relationship with the environment and we need to consider that consequential impact.298 The essence of Buddhist teaching lies in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. The four noble truths are that there is suffering, there is a cause of suffering, there can be emancipation from suffering and there is a way towards emancipation from suffering. 299 The means of avoiding such suffering is within reach if the Noble Eightfold Path is followed. The Path consists of right vision, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. Right concentration, right mindfulness and right vision all highlight the importance of an intense concentration on what one is doing at the present moment, a mindfulness of the impact of such actions on those who are affected by them, and a vision of the long term future.300 All conduct would thus need to be considered in the light of the medium to long-term impacts it will produce. The rights of future generations must be contemplated when considering these perspectives. 301 Exploiting the earth’s resources for short-term advantage is a definite contravention of these basic Buddhist teachings. 302 Right thought, right action and right livelihood also open many perspectives on the pursuit of short-term advantages at the cost of long-term damage.303 As thought is a precursor to action, thought must be given to the future and future generations, before acting in a selfish manner. The action that ensues must be related to such thoughtfulness and the emphasis on right livelihood is very relevant to the millions of people today who indulge in a wasteful lifestyle and the exploitation of earth resources when they should be using those resources economically while thinking of the long-term future.304 The Dalai Lama has summarised Buddhism’s principles relating to the environment as follows:305 Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (1906 – 1993) was an influential Thai ascetic-philosopher of the 20th century. Ibid, 132. 299 Ibid, 116. 300 Ibid, 117. 301 Ibid. 302 Ibid. 303 Ibid. 304 Ibid. 305 Peter Scott Tree of Life: Buddhism and Protection of Nature Preface by His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama of Tibet. (Buddhist Perception of Nature, Hong Kong, 1987). 297 298 115 Destruction of nature and natural resources results from ignorance, greed and lack of respect for the earth’s living things. This lack of respect extends even to earth’s human descendants, the future generations who will inherit a vastly degraded planet if world peace does not become a reality, and destruction of the natural environment continues at the present rate. Our ancestors viewed the earth as rich and bountiful, which it is. Many people in the past also saw nature as inexhaustibly sustainable, which we now know is the case only if we care for it. It is not difficult to forgive destruction in the past which resulted from ignorance. Today however we have access to more information, and it is essential that we examine ethically what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming generations. Clearly this is a pivotal generation. Buddhism teaches that humanity does not have to search far and wide to gain knowledge of what is right or wrong. This knowledge is latent within each individual. All that is required in order to apply this to environmental protection is an internal change of attitude. It is not sufficient to just correct the external environment. There are numerous Buddhist environmental initiatives existing today. For example, the Association of Buddhists for the Environment (ABE), founded in Cambodia in 2005, is a network of Buddhist monks and nuns promoting environmental protection. 306 ABE connects Buddhist clerics with ecology experts to use local pagodas as centres of environmental education. The clerics are well respected and their advocacy for environmental issues is influential. 307 Examples of ABE projects include small-scale community projects such as compost heaps, tree nurseries, and local water management systems. 308 The project also produces educational material, including a documentary film, and manages a website to build the network of conservation-minded Buddhists in the country. 309 ABE has partnerships with the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).310 Buddhist monks in Thailand began to play an active role in protecting the environment over the course of the 1990s. Known informally as environmentalist, or ecology monks (phra nak anuraksa), they have felt compelled to address environmental issues as part of their religious duty to help relieve suffering. 311 Resources on Faith, Ethics, and Public Life “Association of Buddhists for the Environment” at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/organizations/association-of-buddhists-for-the-environment 307 Ibid. 308 Ibid. 309 Ibid. 310 Ibid. 311 “Thai Ecology Monks” The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/buddhism/projects/thai_ecology/. 306 116 Seeing a direct connection between the root causes of suffering (greed, ignorance, and hatred) and environmental destruction, ecology monks consider environmental activism to be amenable to their traditional rituals and ceremonies.312 They draw attention to environmental problems, raise awareness about the value of nature, and inspire people to take part in conservation efforts. 313 For example, tree ordination rituals (buat ton mai) are often performed - in which trees are blessed and wrapped in saffron robes to signify their sacred status.314 There is also a wide variety of other grassroots conservation initiatives, including planting ceremonies, the creation of wildlife preserves and sacred community gardens, long-life ceremonies for ecologically threatened sites or natural entities, and initiatives in sustainable community development and natural farming.315 Ecology monks have taken stands against deforestation, shrimp farming, dam and pipeline construction, and the cultivation of cash-crops.316 Phrakhru Pitak, one of the most active ecology monks, has formed an umbrella non-governmental organisation called Hag Muang Nan Group (Love Nan Group) to coordinate the environmental activities of local village groups, government agencies, and other NGOs in his home province of Nan.317 As respected leaders of Thai society, monks have a crucial role to play in transforming environmentally destructive attitudes and policies. Conservation efforts of rural monks are becoming especially effective due to the importance of the temple in Thai village life. 318 Because of these ecologically-minded abbots, forest monasteries in Thailand protect some of the last remaining natural forests. 319 His Holiness, the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, the latest reincarnation in a line of Tibetan spiritual leaders, leads more than one hundred monasteries spread across the Himalayas and heads the Karma Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. 320 In 2009, the Karmapa asked the World Wildlife Fund organisation (WWF) to help him establish a far-reaching program called Rangjung Khoryug Sungkyob Tsokpa, usually simply called Khoryug, or “environment” in Tibetan.321 Khoryug is a nonsectarian association of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries dedicated to environmental protection on the Buddhist principle of the interdependence of all sentient beings and the Earth itself.322 His Holiness, the 17th Karmapa has stated: “Whatever it is that I do, I want it to have a long term visible impact and for it to be practical. If I 312 Ibid. Ibid. 314 Ibid. 315 Ibid. 316 Ibid. 317 Ibid. 318 Ibid. 319 Ibid. 320 World Wildlife Fund “Tibetan Monasteries at Work for the Environment” at http://worldwildlife.org/stories/tibetan-monasteriesat-work-for-the-environment. 321 Ibid. 322 Ibid. 313 117 have the opportunity, I would most like to restore the natural environment in the Himalayas and Tibet, and to especially protect the forests, the water and wildlife of this region.”323 The ultimate goal of the Khoryug program is to make monasteries and nunneries in the Himalayas into environmental leaders and problem-solvers in their own communities.324 With the help of WWF, the Karmapa has created a book of environmental guidelines for Buddhist monasteries, centers, and communities. 325 The partnership has also produced 108 Things You Can Do To Save the Environment, a set of guidelines for individual Buddhist practitioners that has been translated into more than ten languages and adopted by Buddhist centers worldwide.326 Khoryug also helps to improve the local Himalayan environment by providing examples of climate change adaptation and environmental stewardship through a range of projects such as solar power, organic farming, and rainwater harvesting.327 Over 55 projects led by Khoryug monasteries address issues such as climate change, forest degradation, and wildlife trade. The project has resulted in a group of more than 100 senior monks and nuns with understanding of basic environmental science and hands-on expertise in environmental management. The Khoryug program is supported by WWF’s Sacred Earth program, which partners with religious leaders and communities around the world to collaborate on a wide range of environmental conservation initiatives. 328 Sacred Earth aims to tap into ethical and spiritual ideals around the sacred value of Earth and its diversity to help religious communities take action on watershed restoration, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and wildlife protection.329 4.5. Interfaith partnerships for climate change Although environmental and religious organisations have had very limited contact since the start of the modern environmental movement, the 1980’s welcomed in some positive interactions between the two, starting with the World Charter for Nature in 1982.330 The Charter is of particular importance because for the first time in history it was a universal document pronouncing every form of life to be unique regardless of its worth to man.331 It also stressed the need for a moral code of action, in which the teachings of the world’s religions have much to offer.332 323 Ibid. Ibid. 325 Ibid. 326 Ibid. 327 Ibid. 328 Ibid. 329 Ibid. 330 See Appendix D of this thesis for full document. 331 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 262. 332 Ibid. 324 118 Interactions have increased in frequency and importance ever since, with numerous international meetings, national networks of interreligious activism, religiously sponsored environmental advocacy and education programs, collaborations between religious and environmental groups, and grassroots religious and environmental advocacy flourishing. 333 The increased activity and commitment represented by the initiatives suggests that environmentalism is not just a passing interest for religious groups.334 The timeline below demonstrates the increasing capacity of religious groups and organisations to wield their power in an effort to build a sustainable world. A more detailed discussion on several of these important initiatives and partnerships will follow. TABLE 1: TIMELINE OF RELIGIOUS INITIATIVES AND PARTNERSHIPS ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY335 INITIATIVES DESCRIPTION World Charter for Nature, 1982 This document holds particular importance because for the first time in history a universal document pronouncing every form of life to be unique regardless of its worth to man was created. It stressed the need for a moral code of action in this area and also introduced the need to refer to religious teachings which have major influences in framing moral codes of communities and nations globally. When read as a whole, the document serves as an illustration of the sort of international documentation that can be further developed by inspirational contributions of the world’s religions. Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Conference in Assisi, Italy, 1986 In the first major meeting of its kind, representatives of five of the world’s major faiths discussed strategies for helping their communities to assist in protecting the environment. Assisi Declarations, 1986 The declarations were prepared at the 25th anniversary of the Worldwide Fund for Nature. The document initially drew upon Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian and Islamic teachings, and was later added to by the Baha’i, Sikhs, and Jains. The Assisi conference and the Declarations have revealed to the public, international lawyers and decision-makers the valuable contribution available in religious repositories for strengthening principles, concepts and practical conduct in the environmental field. 333 Gary Gardner Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World, WorldWatch Paper 164, (Worldwatch Institute, US, 2002) 6. 334 Ibid, 21. 335 Ibid, 22. Note: This author has modified, enlarged and updated Table 2 “Religious Initiatives and Partnerships on Environment and Sustainability” from Gardner’s 2002 paper. 119 Preserving and Cherishing the Earth: An Appeal for Joint Commitment in Science and Religion, 1990 This appeal was issued by a Religious Partnership for the Environment at a Global Forum meeting in Moscow. The body of the appeal states: We are now threatened by self-inflicted, swiftly moving environmental alterations about whose long-term biological and ecological consequences we are still painfully ignorant - depletion of the protective ozone layer; a global warming unprecedented in the last 150 millennia; the obliteration of an acre of forest every second; the rapid-fire extinction of species; and the prospect of a global nuclear war which would put at risk most of the population of the Earth. Individually and cumulatively they represent a trap being set for the human species, a trap we are setting for ourselves. However principled and lofty (or naive and shortsighted) the justifications may have been for the activities that brought forth these dangers, separately and together they now imperil our species and many others. We are close to committing what in religious language is sometimes called Crimes against Creation. The scientists therefore, urgently appealed to the world religious community to commit, in word and deed to preserve the environment of the Earth. They understand that what is regarded as sacred is more likely to be treated with care and respect and efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment need to be infused with a vision of the sacred. World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, 1992 Some 1700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The appeal stated that human beings and the natural world are on a collision course and that if human activities – which inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources are left unchecked – then the future that we wish for will be seriously at risk. The full Appeal can be found at Appendix B at the conclusion of this thesis. Parliament of World Religions, 1993, 1999, 2004, 2009 Since 1993, the Parliament of the World’s Religions has convened approximately every five years in a major international city. It comes together to celebrate diversity and harmony and to explore religious and spiritual responses to critical issues that confront humanity. Declaration Towards a Global Ethic, 1993 The Global Ethic was a project spearheaded by Swiss theologian Hans Küng and it emerged directly from the global religious community. It was a research initiative aimed at identifying common ethical tenets of the world’s religions, as a way of defining a globally relevant ethical foundation appropriate in an age of globalisation. 120 The full Declaration can be found at Appendix C at the conclusion of this thesis. Religion, Science and Environment (RSE) Symposia, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew convened a series of shipboard symposia focusing on regional water-related environmental issues. The symposia involved scientists, policymakers, religious leaders, and journalists. Summit on Religion and Environment, Windsor, England, 1995 Hosted by Prince Phillip, leaders of nine world religions, along with secular leaders, gathered to discuss implementation plans for religion-based conservation projects. The conference resulted in the creation of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC). Harvard conferences on Religions of the World and Ecology, 1996-98 800 scholars from a broad range of religious traditions did research and outreach work on the religion/ecology connection. Nine volumes, each focusing on a different tradition, were published. The Forum on Religion and Ecology was then created to continue the work. World Faiths Development Dialogue, London, 1998 A collaborative initiative between development institutions and nine world religions was organized under the leadership of the World Bank and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The initiative incorporated a spiritual voice into shaping the policies and practices of human development organisations. World Council of Churches Climate Change Programme, 1999 The WCC created a program to lobby governments and international organisations to fundamentally reorient “the socioeconomic structures and personal lifestyles” that have led to the current climate change crisis. Earth and Faith: A Book on Reflections for Action – issued by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2000 This eighty page book referred to a unique long-standing collaboration between UNEP and the Interfaith Partnership for the Environment (IPE), a global network of faith, traditions and organisations working to bring together the forces of religion and ecology. The book highlights critical environmental issues and religious texts relevant to environmental protection and calls for “a new sense of our communion with planet earth”. Through the use of primary texts of religious traditions, it presents, from various faith perspectives, the theme of human responsibility to protect the natural world. It also presents projects, big and small, which can be undertaken to help save the planet from further ecological degradation. The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, 2000 For the first time in history, religious and spiritual leaders of the world’s diverse faith traditions came together to discuss forging a partnership of peace with the United Nations. The goal was to build an 121 unprecedented collaboration among leaders of the world's diverse faith traditions willing to commit to cooperation in building peaceful societies. The Commitment also included statements on promoting the eradication of poverty and assuming a shared responsibility for expanding access to education, healthcare and an opportunity to achieve a secure and sustainable livelihood. The commitment pledged signatories to educate their communities on the need to make environmental protection a priority. The full document can be found at Appendix E at the conclusion of this thesis. The Earth Charter, 2000 This initiative was shaped and adopted largely by civil society and local government institutions rather than central government. The Earth Charter is a declaration of fundamental ethical principles for the global community that seeks “to establish a sound ethical foundation for the emerging global society and to help build a sustainable world.” It promotes a respect for nature, diversity, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. The full Charter can be found at Appendix F at the conclusion of this thesis. In 2009, the Task Force on Religion, Spirituality and Ethics was formed by the Earth Charter Initiative. The aim was to engage a broad range of individuals, institutions, and organisations concerned with religion, spirituality, and ethics to use the Earth Charter in their efforts toward creating a just, peaceful, and sustainable future for the Earth Community. The United Religions Initiative Charter, 2000 The idea for URI came to California Episcopal Bishop William Swing in 1993, after an invitation by the United Nations to host a large interfaith service in San Francisco, marking the 50th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter. The question became “If the nations of the world are working together for peace through the UN, then where are the world’s religions?” The Charter was thus developed through a four year global process by several hundred women, men, and youth representing a diverse array of religions, spiritual paths and indigenous traditions. The URI Charter commits humanity “to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings,” and to “act from sound ecological practices to protect and preserve the Earth for both present and future generations.” Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet Conference, Nepal, 2000 Organized by WWF and ARC, 11 major religions, representing 4.5 billion people, 122 offer 26 conservation gifts to help improve the environment. International Seminar on Religion, Culture, and Environment, Tehran, June 2001 Sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the conference discussed the importance of fighting environmental degradation. The seminar culminated in the signing of the Tehran Declaration, which reaffirmed commitments made at the Millennium World Peace Summit. Oxford Declaration on Global Warming, July 2002 Calling climate change “a moral, ethical, and religious issue,” scientists and Christian leaders from six continents called on Christian denominations, churches, and organisations to educate about climate change, reduce church buildings’ impact on climate, and lobbied officials to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics of Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, 2002 This declaration was issued by Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople. It voiced concern regarding “the negative consequences for humanity and for all creation resulting from the degradation of basic resources such as water, air and land - brought about by an economic and technological progress which does not recognise and take into account its limits.” The declaration invites all men and women of good will to ponder the importance of ethical goals and to “acknowledge the diversity of situations and responsibilities in the work for a better world environment.” Although it is not expected that every person and every institution must assume the same burden, it does state that everyone has a part to play. However, for justice and charity to be upheld the most affluent societies must carry the greater burden, and a greater sacrifice is demanded of them than can be offered by the poor. It also states “religions, governments and institutions are faced by many different situations; but on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity all of them can take on some tasks, some part of the shared effort.” The declaration affirms that it is not too late to steer the earth toward our children’s future as long as we start now. Minute on Global Warming and Climate Change – World Council of Churches, 2008 “Be stewards of God’s creation” is the very first sentence of the minute. It emphasizes that humanity is not the master of the earth, but has been entrusted with stewardship with a duty to care responsibly for the integrity of creation. It states that climate change is both an environmental issue and a matter of justice and churches and religious communities can take key leadership roles in addressing the problem. They must find ways to challenge and motivate each other in order to make lasting changes in lifestyles and economic pursuits. It also states that although many churches, ecumenical organisations and 123 specialized ministries have already started to take action concerning climate change, it urgently calls the churches to strengthen their moral code and encourages them to reinforce their advocacy towards governments, NGO’s, the scientific community and the business sector to intensify cooperation in response to climate change. It also calls for a profound change in the relationship towards nature, economic policies, consumption, production and technological patterns. The minute seeks to promote the exploration of interreligious dialogue and inter-cultural avenues for cooperation and constructive response, ensuring a better stewardship of creation. The Uppsala Interfaith Climate Manifesto, 2008 Religious leaders from around the world gathered in Uppsala to call for effective leadership and action in view of the global threat to the climate. The leaders urged governments and international organisations to prepare and agree upon a comprehensive climate strategy and also urged political and religious leaders to bear responsibility for the future of the planet - and the living conditions and habitat preservation of new generations. The leaders stated that the climate crisis is a fundamental spiritual question for the survival of humanity on planet Earth and challenged humanity to review the values, philosophies, beliefs and moral concepts which have shaped and driven behaviours and informed our dysfunctional relationship with our natural environment. The leaders committed themselves to taking and sharing responsibility for providing moral leadership within the various faith traditions by offering the gift of the various faiths as a source of empowerment for sustainable lifestyles and patterns of consumption. Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change and Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action, 2009 The representatives of diverse religious traditions gathered on the International Day of Peace (September 21st, 2009) to reflect on humanity’s collective response to the climate crisis. This multi-religious gathering called on all faith communities to join the religious leaders in their commitment and also to persuade world leaders to take urgent action to stop and reverse the adverse impact of climate change. They also urged that the natural world itself be considered a partner at the table and not a commodity to be used solely for human pleasure or gain. The Religious Traditions Call to Action was inspired by the Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change. Both documents can be found at Appendix G of this thesis. The World Religions Summit, 2010 The Summit was the sixth in a series of interfaith gatherings associated with the annual G8 meetings. It brought together more than 80 participants from all of the world’s major faiths. The meeting and its 124 output was directed principally at the leaders of the “Group of 8” countries because they represent the nations that have the most power to effect change in the world. His Holiness Aram I, of the Armenian Orthodox Church stated: “We have to tell the G8 and the world that we religions not only speak together but that we are working together to build communities of integrated dialogue.” Halki Summit on Global Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability, 2012 The Summit was a gathering of activists, scientists, journalists, business leaders, theologians, and academics engaging working across intellectual boundaries to bring the global environmental discussion to a new and richer place. The belief that no effort can be successful without a fundamental change in values (as manifested in ethics, spirituality, and religion) was at the heart of the discussion. 4.5.1. The United Nations World Charter for Nature The United Nations World Charter for Nature can perhaps be seen as the catalyst behind many of the present contributions of the world’s religions in environmental affairs. The Charter itself was an important expression of the intent among the member states of the United Nations to achieve a more harmonious and sustainable relationship between humanity and the rest of the biosphere.336 A careful reading of the Charter affirms that it was intended to exert political and moral, but not legal, force on member states. 337 In the preamble, the General Assembly embraced “principles of conservation” by which “all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged.”338The “Implementation” section of the Charter, in particular, addresses the environmental responsibilities not only of states, but also of international organisations, corporations, groups and even individuals – thus the goals of the Charter are intended for all humankind, not merely for the political organisations of the world. 339 The document is therefore a valuable guide for continued discussion and further action within religious circles. Harold W Wood Jr. “The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The developing Nations’ Initiative to Establish Protections for the Environment” 12 Ecology L.Q. (1884-1985) 990. 337 Ibid, 982. 338 Ibid. 339 Ibid, 981. The “Implementation” section directs countries to implement eleven types of activities to carry out the principles of the document. The Charter encourages states to: (1) enact and support domestic and international law; (2) develop ecological education; (3) increase public participation in planning; (4) set up funding and administrative programs; (5) support scientific research and the dissemination of research; (6) implement environmental monitoring; (7) assess the impact of military activities; (8) encourage cooperation among states, international organisations, individuals, groups and corporations; (9) adopt administrative regulations for both domestic and foreign application; (10) allow citizen redress for environmental damage; and (11) stress the need for individuals to meet their environmental duties. While these eleven categories are comprehensive, none set forth more than a general admonition that all nations should strive to operate in a fashion which minimises the adverse impact of development on nature. The Charter allows decision-making entities within each state to select an appropriate mix of social, economic, and political methods to achieve the goals of the Charter. 336 125 4.5.2. The Assisi Declarations In 1986, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) conference was held in Assisi, Italy. A landmark in the field of international religious environmental activity, it was hosted by HRH Prince Philip (then President of WWF International) who issued an invitation to five leaders of the five major world religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism) to meet and discuss how the faiths could help save the natural world.340 The invitation aptly stated: “Come, proud of your own tradition, but humble enough to learn from others”. The meeting was purposely held in Assisi, Italy, the birthplace of St. Francis, the Catholic Saint of Ecology.341 It was a unique occasion involving some of the world’s leading environmental and conservation bodies, who for the first time, sat down with the world’s major faiths to discuss how they could all work together. 342 The words of welcome by Father Lanfranco Serrini of the Franciscan Order (OFM) encapsulated the reason for the meeting: “Each religion will celebrate the dignity of nature and the duty of every person to live harmoniously within the natural world. We are convinced of the inestimable value of our respective traditions and of what they can offer to re-establish ecological harmony; but, at the same time, we are humble enough to desire to learn from each other. The very richness of our diversity lends strength to our shared concern and responsibility for our Planet Earth.”343 From this important conference, key statements by the five faiths arose. Appropriately named “The Assisi Declarations,” a broad outline of each religion’s distinctive traditions and approach to the care of nature was created. Exerts from each of the five major religions are cited below:344 BUDDHIST: “…disregard for the natural inheritance of human beings has brought about the danger that now threatens the peace of the world as well as the chance to live of endangered species. Such destruction of the environment and the life depending upon it is a result of ignorance, greed and disregard for the richness of all living things. This disregard is gaining great influence. If peace does not become a reality in the world and if the destruction of the environment continues as it does today, there is no doubt that future generations will inherit a dead world;” HINDU: "What is needed today is to remind ourselves that nature cannot be destroyed without mankind ultimately being destroyed itself. With nuclear weapons representing the ultimate pollutant, threatening to convert this beautiful planet of ours into a scorched cinder unable to support even the most primitive life forms, mankind is finally forced to face its 340 Alliance of Religions and Conservation Website at <http://www.arcworld.org/about_ARC.htm>. Ibid. St Francis was very sensitive to the concept of harmony with the natural order. 342 Ibid. 343 Ibid. 344 The Assisi Declarations at http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/THE%20ASSISI%20DECLARATIONS.pdf. 341 126 dilemma. Centuries of rapacious exploitation of the environment have finally caught up with us and a radically changed attitude towards nature is now not a question of spiritual merit or condescension, but of sheer survival.” … “Let us declare our determination to halt the present slide towards destruction, to rediscover the ancient tradition of reverence for all life and, even at this late hour, to reverse the suicidal course upon which we have embarked. Let us recall the ancient Hindu dictum – The Earth is our mother, and we are all her children;" JEWISH: "now, when the whole world is in peril, when the environment is in danger of being poisoned and various species, both plant and animal, are becoming extinct, it is our... responsibility to put the defense of nature at the very center of our concern.” … “Our ancestor, Abraham inherited his passion for nature from Adam. The later rabbis never forgot it. Some twenty centuries ago they told the story of two men who were out on the water in a rowboat. Suddenly one of them started to saw under his feet. He maintained that it was his right to do whatever he wished with the place that belonged to him. The other answered him that they were in the rowboat together; the hole that he was making would sink both of them (Vayikra Rabbah 4:6). CHRISTIAN: “Many are the causes of the ecological disaster which mankind faces today. Without pretending to be complete, the following should be singled out: uncontrolled use of technology for immediate economic growth, with little or no consideration for the planet’s resources and their possible renewal; disregard for just and peaceful relations among peoples; destruction of cultures and environments during war; ill-considered exploitation of natural resources by consumer-orientated societies; unmastered and unregulated urbanisation; and the exclusive preoccupation with the present without any regard for the future quality of life;" MUSLIM: “People as God's trustees "are responsible for maintaining the unity of His creation, the integrity of the Earth, its flora and fauna, its wildlife and natural environment". … “The notions of unity, trusteeship and accountability should not be reduced to matters of personal piety; they must guide all aspects of their life and work. Shariah should not be relegated just to issues of crime and punishment; it must also become the vanguard for environmental legislation. We often say that Islam is a complete way of life, by which it is meant that our ethical system provides the bearings for all our actions. Yet our actions often undermine the very values we cherish. Often while working as scientists or technologists, economists or politicians, we act contrary to the environmental dictates of Islam. We must imbibe these values into our very being. We must judge our actions by them. They furnish us with a world-view which enables us to ask environmentally appropriate questions, draw up the right balance sheet of possibilities, properly weigh the environmental costs and benefits of what we want, what we can do within the ethical boundaries established by God, without violating the rights of His other creations.” By 1995, the original five faiths had been joined by four others, the Baha’is, Daoists, Jains and Sikhs. As the work had grown considerably, a new independent secular 127 organisation, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) was created.345 It was the first time an organisation existed to link the secular worlds of conservation and ecology with the faith worlds of the major religions.346 By 2000, ARC had been approached by the Shinto and Zoroastrian religions. They became members in November 2000. 347 This brought the total of faith members to eleven, with ARC working in just under 60 countries. 348 By November of the same year, ARC and WWF, joined by conservation bodies, the World Bank, and numerous foundations, celebrated the first 26 “Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet” in Bhaktapur, Nepal.349 This event placed ARC solidly in the international arena and its work tripled within one year. The meetings also led to a scheme by which religions would become more actively involved in socially responsible investing of their stocks and shares.350 In 2008, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) launched an international programme in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – the “Seven Year Plans for Generational Change”. The programme is designed to help all key religions establish major new initiatives as a contribution towards protecting the natural environment and addressing climate change.351 The seven key areas include:352 (1) Assets: land, forests, seas, financial investments, purchasing and property; (2) Education and Young People; (3) Wisdom and Guidance; (4) Lifestyles; (5) Media and Advocacy; (6) Partnerships, Eco-twinning and Creating own Environment Departments; and (7) Celebration. 353 There have been numerous other projects and conferences since the first meeting at Assisi and this continued commitment has indicated the scale of faith action for the environment has grown immensely. Martin Palmer has stated: “Today, thanks to that first Assisi event, every major religion takes ecology seriously and is involved in environmental projects, and the world’s religions are increasingly recognised as playing a pivotal role in protecting the natural world.” 354 345 The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) website at <http://www.arcworld.org/about_ARC.asp>. The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) website at <http://www.arcworld.org/about.asp?pageID=2>. 347 Ibid. 348 Ibid. 349 Ibid. The Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet is a special term of praise and recognition for major significant new projects by the world’s religions. It was termed by WWF and ARC as every religion believes that the gift of life itself is sacred: we do not own it, but we have responsibility to care for it. The projects themselves range from climate change to marine conservation, from sustainable forest management to environmental advocacy. Some examples include restoring sacred forests in Orissa by Hindus; Jains building a sustainable community in an earthquake village; a Cairo rubbish dump converted into a public park; Hindus pledge to clean up the sacred Bagmati River; and many others. 350 Ibid. 351 The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) website at <http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=270>. 352 Ibid. 353 Alliance of Religions and Conservation Seven Year Plan leaflet at <http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/ARC%20UNDP%20Seven%20Year%20Plan%20leaflet.pdf>. Not all of the seven areas will be relevant to all faiths but the Plans should reflect particular strengths and interests of each faith community and each plan will be unique. For example, Mongolian Buddhists are adopting Eight Year Plans, because it is a more auspicious number; faith retreat centres are looking at food sourcing; and Lutherans and Shinto have explored their impacts on the forests in particular. 354 See supra note 17. 346 128 4.5.3. Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) was established in 1994. The enterprise grew from His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I’s growing concern over the declining state of the earth’s environment, particularly its marine waters. His core belief is that scientists and clergy must work in harmony if further degradation is to be avoided.355 In order to promote this belief, RSE arranges symposia, which take place afloat, bringing the participants directly to endangered bodies of water.356 The aims include: raising public awareness regarding the plight of the world’s waters; encouraging clergy and scientists in specific areas to work together to strengthen existing projects on environmental protection; to persuade national and international bodies to support new projects financially; to deepen and clarify theologies within diverse religions and to develop the scientific and sociological analysis so that both religionists and scientists have a firm and growing basis for their cooperation, mutual support and mutual education in the environmental realm; and to improve dialogue regarding connections between religion and science.357 A series of eight sea-borne symposia have already taken place in order to fulfill these aims. The first symposium, held in 1995, sailed through the Aegean Sea to the Island of Patmos. It brought together approximately 200 scientists, religious leaders, philosophers, economists, artists and policy makers to examine the nexus of religion and the environment. 358 Representatives of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist, Sikh, Zoroastrian and Baha’i participated in the discussions. This event was an important step in the long-running effort to find common ground among religious and scientific leaders who share similar concerns about the environment, but whose historical antagonism has often blocked collaboration.359 Symposium II, held in 1997, took place on the Black Sea. The aim was to better understand local issues and to engage in a dialogue on their wider implications.360 All the Patriarchs from the Black Sea region were present. Leaders from the region included presidents, vice-presidents and ministers of the environment, while prominent scientists brought expertise at local, regional and international levels.361 As a consequence of the symposium, plans were developed for expanding and deepening the understanding of clergy on environmental problems and solutions.362 Symposium III, held in 1999, traveled down the Danube What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at <http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf>. Religion, Science and the Environment Website at <http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=29>. 357 What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf. 358 Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?pcatid=50&catid=88. 359 Ibid. 360 What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf. 361 Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?pcatid=50&catid=87. 362 Ibid. 355 356 129 River, the source of many of the Black Sea’s environmental ills. 363 Entitled "The Danube - a network for a living river", this endeavour sought to link the faith communities and environmentalists with each other, from the river source, across Europe and down to the Danube Delta. Symposium IV, held in 2002 took place in the Adriatic Sea and addressed the ethical aspects of the environmental crisis. It clearly stated “the environment is not just an object of study or an area of managerial concern. It is a space where millions of people live and share the responsibility of an extraordinary heritage. The need to cultivate a set of ecological values and foster the emergence of the ecological consciousness of humanity is becoming more and more urgent.”364 In the course of the symposium, religious leaders, and participants were asked to propose ideas as to how religion may inspire humanity towards an ecological ethos. 365 At the end of the symposium, Pope John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew signed the ‘Venice Commitment’, a statement of the need for ‘an environmental code of ethics,’ ahead of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.366 Symposium V, held in 2003, took place in the Baltic Sea. The intention of this symposium was to generate practical initiatives that support on-going efforts to protect the Baltic Sea and apply lessons learned from other environmentally threatened parts of the world. 367 Symposium VI, held in 2006, considered that international cooperation to combat climate change is the greatest challenge ahead for the global community and preservation of the integrity of the Amazon ecology must be a priority focus. The RSE symposium coincided with talks in Sao Paolo between soya traders and major UK food companies, which finally delivered a deal to halt the destruction. The Brazilian grain exporters' association, which includes the entire major multinationals, committed itself to "seeking to reconcile environmental conservation with economic development, through responsible and sustainable use of Brazil's natural resources". 368 A two-year moratorium on crops from newly deforested land was announced. Symposium VII, held in 2007, took place in the Arctic. Climate change was foremost on the agenda and the participants visited areas where the impacts of melting ice are already clear.369 At the closing ceremony His All Holiness offered a clear message to all: “Time is short. The ice of the Arctic is shrinking at a frightening pace according to the scientists and Greenlanders. If all of the ice in Greenland melts the consequences for Greenland and the rest of the world could be devastating. We What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf. Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?pcatid=50&catid=85. 365 Ibid. 366 What is ‘Religion, Science and the Environment’? at http://www.theobalt.org/info.pdf. 367 Ibid. 368 The Brazilian rainforest is the world's biggest carbon sink and a vital defence against the escalating problem of climate change. 369 Religion, Science and the Environment Website at http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=170&pcatid=162. 363 364 130 must act together and act now.” 370 Symposium VIII, held in 2009 traveled the Mississippi River.371 The Mississippi Basin encapsulates many of the climate issues being faced by communities around the world. With a total length of 3778 kilometres and the third largest drainage basin on earth (exceeded only by the Amazon and the Congo), it is one of the world’s most polluted water courses.372 These symposia are groundbreaking as they follow the path of pollution from the source to the point of impact, providing a real sense of the interconnectedness of the world’s waters and all its ecosystems.373 By bringing participants to the places where environmental problems are most acute and focusing on practical remedies rather than theoretical discussions, RSE symposia have inspired positive change through collective action. They have reached out across different faiths and denominations, to reveal the wisdom of diverse theological traditions, as well as a common imperative to protect the natural world. 374 In addition to communicating to a vast audience the issues related to protecting and improving the environment, each symposium enables the formation of new strategic partnerships and the strengthening of existing ones.375 The symposia introduce new ideas and provide broadened horizons for consideration of the many different areas of work and interest. They also offer the opportunity for participants to establish an efficient networking scheme that enables new ideas, collaborations and projects to emerge. 4.5.4. The Forum on Religion and Ecology (FORE) The Forum on Religion and Ecology (FORE) is the largest international multireligious project of its kind. It is engaged in exploring religious worldviews, texts, ethics, and practices in order to further an understanding of the hugely complex nature of environmental concerns.376 The objectives are to create a new academic field of study that will implicate environmental policy. The forum is also helping to identify the ethical dimensions by which the religions of the world can respond to the growing environmental crisis. 377 The work was initiated by John Grim 378 and Mary Evelyn Tucker379 with a series of conferences on religion and ecology from 370 Ibid. Religion, Science and the Environment Website at <http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=196&pcatid=184>. 372 Ibid. 373 Religion, Science and the Environment Website at <http://www.rsesymposia.org/more.php?catid=29>. 374 Ibid. 375 Ibid. 376 Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at <http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html >. 377 Ibid. 378 Professor Grim is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Scholar at Yale University where he has appointments in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies as well as the Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. He has taught courses in Native American and Indigenous religions, religion and ecology, and mysticism in the world’s religions. 379 Professor Tucker is a Senior Lecturer and Senior Scholar at Yale University where she has appointments in the school of Forestry and Environmental Studies as well as the Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. She is also Research Associate at the Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies at Harvard and a member of the Interfaith Partnership for the Environment at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). She served on the International Earth Charter Drafting Committee from 1997-2000 and is a member of the Earth Charter International Council. 371 131 1996-1998 at Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions. The conferences brought together the most diverse spectrum of individuals and institutions ever convened to discuss the topic, and the participants included in abundance of 800 environmentalists and international scholars of the world’s religions. 380 The conferences produced ten volumes on environmentalism from the perspective of major religious traditions. Several of these have been translated into other languages, including the volumes on Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism into Chinese. The Hinduism and Jain volumes are available in India. 381 They were also noteworthy for their extensive engagement of people outside of religion and religious studies. Scientists, ethicists, educators, and public policy makers all took part in the conference dialogues. The Forum recognises that religions need to be in dialogue with other disciplines (e.g. science, economics, education, public policy) so that they may seek solutions to both global and local environmental problems. 382 Emerging dialogue has already recognised that in seeking long-term environmental sustainability, there is clearly a partition between contemporary problems regarding the environment and traditional religions as resources.383 Traditional religions are not equipped to give specific guidance in dealing with complex issues such as climate change, desertification, or deforestation. However, certain perspectives and values from the world’s religions are not only useful but perhaps even vital for environmental ethics.384 There have been many major accomplishments of the Forum over the past ten years. For example, it has created a whole new field of study in religion and ecology which has been recognised by the American Academy of Religion, and represented in twelve major articles in the new Encyclopedia of Religion.385 It is also growing through the peer-viewed academic journal Worldviews. From the Forum a new form of religious environmentalism has emerged, represented by both statements and action of the world’s religions regarding the moral nature of the ecological crisis. 386 This is now depicted in a film called Renewal, which highlights eight case studies of religious engagement with environmental issues in the United States. Another major accomplishment of the Forum is the creation of a world class international website on religion and ecology, based at Yale.387 It is designed for research, education, and outreach and contains introductory articles on the world’s religions and ecology as 380 Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at <http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html >. Ibid. 382 Ibid. 383 Ibid. 384 Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html (accessed on 21 May 2009). 385 Ibid. 386 Ibid. 387 Ibid. 381 132 well as annotated bibliographies for all published monographs and articles in English on this topic. It has gathered the statements of religious leaders and organisations on the environmental crisis and features events, conferences, and news reports.388 The Forum on Religion and Ecology believes the religions of the world can develop a notable ethical premise to trigger a more sustainable ecological culture. 389 The deep values, historical perspectives, and aesthetic awareness of spirituality and religious traditions are integral to encouraging dialogue and creating a new shared pathway for nature and humans, interlinking self-interest with common interest to prompt and motivate humanity.390 Harold Attridge, dean of Yale Divinity School has stated: “The work of the Forum on Religion and Ecology underscores how much common ground exists between the faith and environmental communities. These synergies have tremendous potential toward realizing proper stewardship of God’s creation.” 391 James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies has similarly stated: “The religions of the world have a key role to play in helping to moderate values and inspire action for environmental protection, restoration, and renewal.”392 4.5.5. Parliament of World Religions and Declaration towards a Global Ethic The Parliament of the World’s Religions was held in Chicago in 1993 with approximately 6000 participants from a wide spectrum of the world’s religious and spiritual communities attending.393 Each participant was challenged to think critically and holistically about the role of religious and spiritual communities in the quest for inspired solutions to the world’s most urgent problems. It was at this time that approximately 200 signatories took the decisive step to sign Küng’s document, “Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration,” agreeing that it represented an initial effort for a world direly in need of ethical consensus.394 As Küng explained, 388 Ibid. Donald Lehr Facing Environmental Crisis, Forum on Religion and Ecology Seeks Transformation Through Language and Action 10th Anniversary Press Release (November 12, 2008) at http://google.yale.edu/search?site=Forum_Religion&q=Harold+Attridge&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe= UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxyreload=1&client=bluesite_frontend&proxystylesheet=bluesite_frontend&submit=search (accessed 3 June 2009). 390 Ibid. 391 Donald Lehr Facing Environmental Crisis, Forum on Religion and Ecology Seeks Transformation Through Language and Action 10th Anniversary Press Release (November 12, 2008) at http://google.yale.edu/search?site=Forum_Religion&q=Harold+Attridge&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe= UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxyreload=1&client=bluesite_frontend&proxystylesheet=bluesite_frontend&submit=search (accessed 3 June 2009). 392 Ibid. 393 It should be noted that although attendees represented a total of 55 nations and some 60 religions, 57 per cent of the people who attended came from the United States. Therefore, the largest religious representation came from Christianity (followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i, and Islam). Refer Jon P Bloch A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for a Parliament of the World Religions, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, December 2008 612-627. 394 Joel Beversluis “The Parliaments and the Quest for a Global Ethic” in Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality, edited by Joel Beversluis (New World Library, CA, 2000). 389 133 the aim of the document was to provide a statement of the minimal ethical consensus shared by all the world’s religions.395 As such, it is necessarily general, non-partisan, and non-doctrinal.396 The Declaration itself identifies four essential affirmations as shared principles essential to a global ethic: (1) Affirming respect for all life, (2) economic justice and solidarity, (3) tolerance and truthfulness, and (4) equal rights and partnership between men and women.397 The declaration states:398 “We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we have respect for the community of living beings, for people, animals, and plants, and for the preservation of Earth, the air, water and soil. We take individual responsibility for all we do. All our decisions, actions, and failures to act have consequences.” The document also maintains that, while the world is in turmoil, the possibility of sustainable peace and order does exist, and has always existed within a common set of core values found in the teachings of the world’s religions, and that these can form the basis of a global ethic:399 “We affirm that there is an irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations, and religions. There already exist ancient guidelines for human behaviour which are found in the teachings of the religions of the world and which are the condition for a sustainable world order.”400 The declaration imparts that law, policy and other governance systems will be unsuccessful in sustaining human rights unless they are supported by an ethic. “A better global order cannot be created or enforced by laws, prescriptions, and conventions alone.”401 “We recall the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. What it formally proclaimed on the level of ‘rights’ we wish to confirm and deepen here from the perspective of an ethic: The full realisation of the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans, and the necessary solidarity and interdependence of all humans with each other.”402 395 Ibid. Ibid. 397 Parliament of the World’s Religions Declaration toward a Global Ethic (4 September 1993, Chicago) at http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2009). 398 Ibid. 399 Stephen J McKenzie Comparative Futures: Notes on a Methodology for the Study of Sustainability, Religion and Global Ethics (Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics 12th Annual Conference, 28-30 September 2005, Adelaide) at http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/gig/aapae05/documents/mckenzie.pdf. 400 Ibid, as quoted from Declaration toward a Global Ethic. 401 Ibid. 402 Ibid. 396 134 The emphasis of the declaration is therefore on the initial development and acceptance of an ethic, rather than on the development, agreement and enforcement of policies and regulations to enforce particular aspects of that ethic.403 The authors note, “This ethic provides no direct solution for all the immense problems of the world, but it does supply the moral foundation for a better individual and global order. A vision which can lead women and men away from despair and society away from chaos.” 404 The document concludes by calling for “a transformation of consciousness,” on the basis of which men and women can work together to determine the practical meaning of these principles.405 The year 2001, in particular, was an important highpoint in the development of the Global Ethic theme. At the highest political level, under the initiative of the UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, it found entry into the agenda of the United Nations as a new paradigm of international politics. 406 After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, people the world over have become staunch believers that a “clash of civilisations” must be avoided at all costs.407 Intercultural understanding has consequently become a need of the highest political urgency.408 UN General Secretary Kofi Annan on convoking a "Group of Eminent Persons", which included Hans Küng, declared: "The UN Dialogue of Cultures represents a new paradigm of international relations, no longer based on the assumption that diversity constitutes a threat, but rather founded on the realisation that diversity is an integral component of growth and progress ... When war is born initially in the minds of men, then the conviction that diversity constitutes a threat represents the seed of war."409 The aim of the expert group was to identify the principles for a new paradigm of international relations characterized by dialogue and understanding on the basis of values shared across cultural divisions, or in other words, on the basis of a Global Ethic. 410 The report of the group was published under the title: "Crossing the Divide: Dialogue among Civilisations."411 And on 9 November 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution titled "Global Agenda for the Dialogue among Civilisations." In that resolution nine articles describe in detail the goals, the principles and the participants in this dialogue. In a second part, a global agenda and a comprehensive 403 Ibid. Ibid. Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration, Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions (CPWR) at http://www.ourtask.org/pub/strategies/pdfs/spiritual/CPWR-Ethic.pdf. 406 Global Ethic Foundation for Inter-cultural and Inter-religious Research, Education and Encounter website at http://www.weltethos.org/index-en.php. 407 Ibid. 408 Ibid. 409 Ibid. 410 Ibid. 411 Crossing the Divide: Dialogue among Civilizations This report of the “Group of Eminent Persons” for the U.N. Dialogue among Civilization (School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, 2001). 404 405 135 plan of action are laid down. 412 Alongside the UN Resolution and the report "Crossing the Divide", the Global Ethic theme has succeeded in making itself known at the highest levels of international politics. Although the Global Ethic Declaration has so far met with some success, it has also met with some criticisms along the way. Some observers, particularly those who picketed the Parliaments of the World’s Religions, both in 1993 and 1999, were concerned that the Parliament’s underlying significance was its pursuit of a convergence of beliefs into one world religion, which for many is an apocalyptic scenario. 413 Others associated the Parliament with the beginnings of one world religion and a one-world government, via the United Nations or a United Religions Organisation.414 Various protesters were merely asserting their own set of beliefs. For example, one sign in Cape Town argued that the only “global ethic” is the Qur’an, while another quoted the Bible as the only Word of God.415 However, as Beversluis states, these protests were generally ignoring the organisers’ intentions and the evidence, as most participants indicated a healthy respect for the uniqueness and diversity of religions and would not have been there if their religious identities or sacred texts were been threatened in any way. 416 Beversluis has written that: “although some religions and individuals do affirm the convergence of religions or believe in a common spiritual destiny, the presentation of these concepts was neither a goal of the Parliaments nor an overarching voice there. Organizers took pains to avoid the appearance of that agenda, and the interfaith movement in general is clearly leaning towards the goal of understanding and appreciation of diversity. Likewise, while issues of global policies and responsibilities were quite apparent, many people also affirmed the greater effectiveness of local and regional efforts for the resolution of those problems.”417 In clarifying the intent of the Declaration, Küng prudently stated what it is not meant to be as well as what it is meant to be:418 From the beginning, it was clear that a global ethic does not mean a new global ideology, or even an attempt to arrive at one uniform religion. The call for a global ethic does not aim to replace the supreme ethical demands of each individual religion with an ethical minimalism. Nor does [it] aim to invent a new morality and then impose it on the various religions from outside (and even from the ‘West’). It simply aims to make known what religions in West and 412 See <http://www.un.org/documents/ares566e.pdf>. Joel Beversluis “The Parliaments and the Quest for a Global Ethic” in Sourcebook of the World’s Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality, Joel Beversluis (ed) (New World Library, California, 2000). 414 Ibid. 415 Ibid. 416 Ibid. 417 Ibid. 418 Hans Küng (ed.) Yes to a Global Ethic, Voices from Religion and Politics (Continuum, New York, 1996) p 2. 413 136 East, North and South already hold in common…In short, the ‘Declaration toward a Global Ethic’ seeks to emphasize the minimal ethic which is absolutely necessary for human survival. It is not directed against anyone, but invites all, believers and also non-believers, to adopt this ethic and live in accordance with it. Another controversy arose out of the fact that the word “God” did not appear in the Declaration – although this was in order to avoid Judeo-Christian bias. Instead there was reference to “Ultimate Reality”. 419 This omission led to deep-seated dissatisfaction from Christian conservatives who are opposed to a pluralistic religious orientation. The conservatives see the Parliament of World Religions as a serious threat to the global future of humankind. Gary Kah, for example, has stated:420 “God, of course, has already given us His “global ethics.” These commandments for living are clearly laid out in the Bible (Exodus 20:1-17 and Mark 12:28-31). Unfortunately, as evidenced by the Parliament of World Religions, man would rather create his own set of rules catering to his personal wants and desires than submit to God’s authority. The Book of Revelation warns us of a seductive one-world religious/political system that would emerge in the last days. According to Revelation 17:13 the leaders of this Satanic system will give “their power and authority” to the beast, who will do everything within his power to oppose the living God and His true followers. Based on Jesus’ words in Mathew 24, it appears that this deception will have an outer appearance of Christianity—acting in the name of Christ, but not being of Christ.” Yet another issue arose by those who saw the entire process of creating a global ethic as primarily Western in essence. Dr Aziza Alhibri stated: “This is a document produced in the West, using Western academic categories, through a Western Committee process”.421 In response to this, John Hick422 has commented that in this first stage of the search for a global ethic, rather than getting the peoples of other cultures to debate the Western draft, agreeing or disagreeing with it as the only document on the table, we should say: “Here is the kind of draft that comes naturally to us in the industrialized West. What kind of draft comes naturally to you, and to you, and to you? And then the next stage beyond this should be to bring a plurality of drafts together and see what comes out of the interaction between them.”423 It is therefore a matter of choosing to focus on what can be done collectively, rather than 419 Jon P Bloch A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for a Parliament of the World Religions in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, 2008, 616. 420 The New World Religion – Part VII The Interfaith Agenda at http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/newage/NA1W1299.pdf . 421 Jon P Bloch A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for a Parliament of the World Religions in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, 2008, 616. 422 Professor John Harwood Hick (born Yorkshire, England, 1922) is a philosopher of religion and theologian. In the philosophy of religion he has contributed to the areas of epistemology of religion and religious pluralism. 423 John Hick Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic: Towards a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic – A Christian Comment Centre for Global Ethics (CGE) Website at <http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/hick.htm>. 137 on what cannot, in order to move ahead on a common agenda. 4.5.6. The Earth Charter The concept of an “Earth Charter” first came to light in recommendations made by the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development report Our Common Future (otherwise known as the Brundtland Report). The report called for the need for “a new charter to guide state behaviour in the transition to sustainable development” and “should prescribe new norms for state and interstate behaviour needed to maintain livelihoods and life on our shared planet.” 424 The idea of developing a charter specifically aimed at providing the ethical foundation upon which Agenda 21425 and the other agreements were to be based, was then included as part of the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992. The possibility of such a charter generated much interest and a number of governments and nongovernmental organisations submitted recommendations and proposals. 426 However, several months before the Conference (otherwise known as the Rio Earth Summit) it was apparent that intergovernmental agreement would not be reached, and the Earth Charter was removed from the agenda. It was decided instead to write what became the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development - but the idea of a Charter was not forgotten. During the Non-Governmental Organizations’ (NGO’s) Global Forum, held in unison with the Earth Summit, NGO’s from nineteen countries negotiated and drafted an Earth Charter building on the work done in the preparatory process. Maurice Strong (Chairman of the Earth Council) and Mikhail Gorbachev (the former Soviet president and President of Green Cross International) further developed the idea in 1994, with the launching of a new Earth Charter Initiative with the support of the Dutch government.427 The Charter itself was advanced as a “people’s treaty” rather than an intergovernmental document with several thousand individuals and organizations around the world taking part in a progressive process of consultation and drafting.428 Local governments, environmental and social justice NGO’s, religious, educational, and indigenous people’s organizations, scientists, ethicists, and legal experts all took part. Theologians, experts and religious organizations from Baha’i, Buddhist, 424 Mirian Vilela and Peter Blaze Corcoran Building Consensus on Shared Values from The Earth Charter in Action Website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ENG-Vilela.pdf. 425 Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the United Nations system, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans’ impact on the environment. 426 Mirian Vilela and Peter Blaze Corcoran Building Consensus on Shared Values from The Earth Charter in Action Website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ENG-Vilela.pdf. 427 Earth Charter: Charting a Course for the Future United Nations Development Programme, World Bank, World Resources Institute, 2003. 428 Ibid. 138 Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Indigenous, Islamic, Jain, Jewish, and Shinto traditions shared their visions for a just, sustainable and peaceful world. Additional to these inputs, a broad range of religious and interreligious texts, statements and declarations were reviewed and used as a basis for the Earth Charter’s inclusive global vision of shared values and common goals for sustainable living. 429 Under the leadership of Steven Rockefeller, professor emeritus of religion and ethics at Middlebury College, Vermont, the core team of drafters drew on a large variety of sources in order to give the Charter a sound foundation in existing international agreements. These included fifty existing international law instruments, the findings of the seven UN summits held during the 1990’s, and the contents of about two hundred nongovernmental declarations and people’s treaties on environment and development.430 As it progressed, the text was continuously adapted and extended to encompass the consensus view of a broad range of organizations and individuals and the wording itself was shaped by contemporary science, international law, religious teachings and philosophical traditions, the global ethics movement, and best practices for building sustainable communities.431 Rockefeller has stated that “there was a continuous tension between having a short document that would have an emotional and poetic impact and a document that would give people on the front line the concrete help they needed”.432 Many believed that a substantial document was essential as a brief document would not fulfill the expectations of many, thus it would be difficult to gain widespread support. Others wanted a short Earth Charter with ten brief principles easy to use and circulate. However, it was decided that a brief Charter would be too general, and generalities often did not address the complexity of the problems from the point of view of many groups. The Drafting Committee thus opted for a layered document and divided the charter into four parts, with a set of sixteen overarching ethical principles and sixty-one supporting principles. The full text of the Earth Charter can be found at Appendix F of this thesis. The Earth Charter stands apart from many other United Nations-driven declarations and treaties that address the environment and development. Rather than being a prescription for action, it is a set of principles for all humanity to live by. In just over 2,400 words, it lays out an ethical foundation for building a just and sustainable world. It is based on respect for nature and people, universal human rights, social and economic justice, democratic and participatory societies, and nonviolent conflict resolution rather than a purely economic and science driven 429 Ibid. Ibid. 431 Ibid. 432 Ibid. 430 139 approach that most governments take toward sustainable development. Within this holistic worldview, the strengthening of democratic institutions, the transparency and accountability of governing institutions, and inclusive participatory decisionmaking are inseparable from environmental protection and social and economic justice. 433 The Earth Charter is also largely a bottom-up rather than a top-down initiative. It is shaped and adopted primarily by civil society and local government institutions rather than central governments. Because it is not a policy-making document, which may be ratified by some governments and ignored or rejected by others, the hope is that it will have a far-reaching effect on citizens globally, generating changes in attitudes and behaviour by individuals, communities, local governments, schools and universities, nongovernmental organizations, and businesses. 434 The Charter has so far been endorsed by several thousand organizations globally including a number of states, government agencies and other organizations with large memberships.435 These include national and international non-governmental organizations, educational institutions, private sector entities, religious groups, and around 400 cities.436 Accordingly, the Earth Charter has been translated into over 40 languages from Vietnamese to Spanish, Russian, Chinese and others. 437 It has been presented and discussed in many meetings since its launch at the beginning of the new millennium - locally, nationally and internationally. There have been a number of workshops, conferences and publications specifically on the Earth Charter and many educators have incorporated it into university programmes.438 270 universities around the world now endorse it. 439 It has also been used in community development, professional training, and in schools. Bosselmann and Engel state these endorsements signify a strong commitment to the spirit and goals of the Earth Charter and to working toward the implementation of its values and principles.440 In 2003, UNESCO recognised the Earth Charter as an important ethical framework for sustainable development and an important educational instrument. This led to its recognition as the key reference document for the current United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014).441 433 Ibid. Ibid. 435 Klaus Bosselmann and J. Ronald Engel (eds) The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global Governance (KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010) 21. 436 Ibid. 437 Mirian Vilela The Earth Charter Endeavour: Building More Just and Sustainable Societies Through a New Level of Consciousness. Paper in Global Ethics: Noel Preston (ed) 2007, 34-40 at <http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/fullText;dn=200712012;res=APAFT>. 438 Ibid. 439 Universities that have endorsed Earth Charter (updated March 26th 2009) at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/attachments/4/Endorsements%20-%20Universities.pdf. 440 Klaus Bosselmann and J. Ronald Engel (eds) The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global Governance (KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010) 21. 441 Earth Charter Initative (ECI), United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, ECI website at www.earthcharterinaction.org/download/education/un_Decade_on_ESD.pdf . 434 140 In 2007-2008 the Earth Charter Initiative implemented a project on Religion and Sustainability. It focused on reaching out to religious groups and leaders in order to seek their engagement in utilizing the Earth Charter.442 The project also involved research and the development of educational materials designed specifically for religious audiences.443 In 2009, a Task Force on Religion, Spirituality and Ethics was formed with a central aim of engaging individuals, institutions, and organizations concerned with religion, spirituality, and ethics to utilize the Earth Charter as a part of their efforts toward creating a just, peaceful, and sustainable future for the planet. 444 In particular, this Task Force reaches out to leaders of religious institutions and communities; scholars and theologians of the world’s religions; ethicists; and individuals and organizations interested in linking religion and ethics to issues of sustainability. The Plan of Action states:445 There is a widespread recognition that along with science, economics, and policy the world’s religions, spiritual perspectives, and ethical values can play a catalyzing role in moving the human community toward a sustainable future. The vast majority of the world’s peoples draw inspiration and guidance from their religious beliefs and practices while many outside of formal religious institutions rely on particular spiritual paths. For millennia the world’s religious, spiritual and ethical traditions have provided ethical grounding for the shaping of various cultures throughout the world. From the indigenous traditions to the axial age religions arising in the last 3.000 years, humans have oriented themselves to the mystery of existence, to relations with other humans, and to nature itself. The Earth Charter recognizes the immense contributions that have been made by religious, spiritual, and ethical traditions. Indeed, the Earth Charter affirms the rich multicultural and multireligious expressions present in the human community. While respecting this remarkable diversity, it also invites the world’s religious, spiritual, and ethical traditions into dialogue with the emerging global ethics represented in the Earth Charter. The Task Force is building on this collaborative work to further engage the religious, spiritual, and ethical communities by foregrounding research, education, and outreach.446 “The Earth Charter Initiative: Religion and Spirituality” at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/categories/Religion%20and%20Spirituality/. 443 Ibid. 444 Ibid. 445 The Earth Charter Task Force on Religion, Spirituality, and Ethics: Plan of Action at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/attachments/12/PoA_EC_TF_Rel%20%282%29.pdf. 446 Ibid. 442 141 4.6. Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to develop an understanding of religious perspectives on climate change issues. Although there is not presently faith-wide participation in climate change initiatives, it is apparent that world faiths are increasingly acknowledging the responsibility to act. The five major world’s religions (the Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions) and their respective ethical perspectives on climate change have helped build an optimistic vision for future collaboration. Examples of interreligious initiatives have also provided evidence that faiths are developing creative ways in which to unite toward the common goal of protection of the global environment. The Earth Charter in particular, possesses a set of common environmental principles that could be utilised in any future work. The next question must ponder how religion and law may be united toward this common goal. With a strong secular bias presently presiding over international affairs, religion has been relegated to a back seat. The presumption that religion does not belong in the public sphere must therefore be dispelled. Chapter 5 discusses the nexus between religion and law, describing the history and theory of secularisation. The many concepts of secularisation make this a complicated matter, with numerous models maintaining negative connotations for religion. These range from the long-term decline in the influence of religion, particularly in politics, to an ideology that advocates marginalization of religion from other spheres of life. More positive notions, however, point to a differentiation between religion and other spheres of society (including political, economic and cultural) but not necessarily to the decline of religion’s influence. 142 The Nexus between Religion and Law 5.1. Introduction In the preceding chapter, it was observed that numerous religious groups and organizations are actively participating in climate change and other environmental issues. Although all commendable initiatives, without the support of, and collaboration with, intergovernmental bodies, this will not be sufficient to invoke the ethical changes required to alleviate climate change concerns. In the core disciplines of international relations, religion has seldom been a key focus area, especially in the decades that followed World War II. 1 However, after numerous global upsets (notably the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and a range of other violent incidents of religiously fueled tensions) the question of the place for religious organizations in world affairs and in global institutions has become a steadily increasing topic of debate.2 Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s book The Mighty and the Almighty is a prime example of the argument that systematic neglect of religious factors has been the general rule of the past and this has blinded policy makers to important forces at work in the international arena.3 The reasons for neglect are generally attributed to a strong secular bias grounded in the assumptions that, first, religion belonged in the private sphere, and second, that with modernisation of societies religion as a major factor in global politics was declining in importance.4 A broad religious ‘illiteracy’ developed within policy communities as a consequence. This began with gaps in educational programs as discussion and study of religion moved to the margins or out of the classroom, and was accentuated by a lack of professional frameworks to encourage thoughtful analysis and strategic reflections where religious actors and issues were involved.5 The aim of this chapter is to review the relationship that exists between law and religion and also to seek a pathway leading to active collaboration between the two disciplines. The chapter will discuss the history of the ‘separation of church and state’ via secularisation and will then proceed to challenge the dominant secularisation theories by maintaining religion has not disappeared from the public 1 Katherine Marshall Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers (Routledge, Oxon, 2013) 1. Ibid. 3 Ibid. See Madeleine Albright The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (Harper Perennial, New York, 2007). 4 Ibid, 2. 5 Ibid. 2 143 sphere. It has instead become increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental field, and is a veritable source of knowledge that warrants consideration as a valuable actor in the global arena. 5.2. History of secularisation Reflecting on the relationships between religious and political authority in the modern era, the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is the central juncture. Before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, religion constituted a fundamental basis for the normative rules regulating the relationship between the political powers of that period in different parts of the world. 6 However, the Thirty Years War (16181648) was to change all that. It was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history and although it commenced for religious reasons, namely the struggle between Catholics and Protestants in the Holy Roman Empire, it soon turned into an all-out struggle for military and political hegemony in Europe.7 It tore ancient societies apart with the contra claims of different sects and churches, their competing teachings and interpretations of scripture. 8 This conflict made it clear that no longer could international law and religion share the closeness that it may once have enjoyed. The practice of justifying legal principles through their accordance with religious teaching grew ever weaker because no one single source of religion now presided.9 Henry Wheaton described the conflict in his 1836 Elements: “The state of public law and European society in the beginning of the sixteenth century: one mass of dissimulation, crime, and corruption, which called loudly for a great teacher and reformer to arise, who should speak the unambiguous language of truth and justice to princes and people and stay the ravages of this moral pestilence.” 10 Hugo Grotius, the famous Dutch Protestant jurist, became this great teacher and reformer:11 [His] age was peculiarly fruitful in great men, but produced no one more remarkable for genius and for variety of talents and knowledge, or for the important influence his labors exercised upon the subsequent opinions and conduct of mankind. Almost equally distinguished as a scholar and a man of business, he was at the same time an eloquent advocate, a scientific lawyer, classical historian, patriotic statesman, and learned theologian. Mashood A Baderin “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes” Inaugural lecture delivered by the author at the School of Law, SOAS, University of London on February 18, 2009. 7 Antonio Cassesse International Law 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005) 24. 8 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 7. 9 Ibid 7. 10 H Wheaton Elements of International Law: With a Sketch of the History of the Science (Carey, Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia, 1836) 27. 11 Ibid. 6 144 His was one of those powerful minds which have paid the tribute of their assent to the truth of Christianity. Grotius had foreseen a scenario of international lawlessness emerging from the remnants of the Thirty Years War and the fall of power of the Holy Roman Empire (which had enjoyed an overarching authority over many principalities). 12 With the liberation of these principalities and their emergence as separate and independent sovereign states, the prime imperative for states was to protect themselves from encroachment or annexation by their more powerful neighbours. With no real moral authority to protect, the law of the jungle was anticipated to preside and every state set to fend for itself. Grotius’ own definition of the problem is written in the prologue to his great treatise of 1625, the Law of War and Peace:13 I have had many and weighty reasons for undertaking to write upon this subject. Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relation to war, such as even barbarous races should be ashamed of; I observed that men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law, divine or human; it is as if, in accordance with a general decree, frenzy has openly been let loose for the committing of all crimes. Confronted with such utter ruthlessness, many men who are the very furthest from being bad men, have come to the point of forbidding all use of arms to the Christian, whose rule of conduct above everything else comprises the duty of loving all men. To this opinion sometimes John Ferus and my fellow country-man Erasmus seem to incline, men who have the utmost devotion to peace in both Church and State; but their purpose, as I take it, is, when things have gone in one direction, to force them in the opposite direction, as we are accustomed to do, that they may come back to a true middle ground. But the very effort of pressing too hard in the opposite direction is often so far from being helpful that it does harm, because in such arguments the detection of what is extreme is easy, and results in weakening the influence of other statements which are well within the bounds of truth. For both extremes therefore a remedy must be found that men may not believe either that nothing is allowable, or that everything is. Grotius based a new international system, not on the authority of religious teaching, but on human experience and on the natural law or idealistic philosophies of his time.14 He utilised all literature available in search of general principles, and worked out a number of these on a secular basis. Although there were scriptural references from the Old and New Testaments in his writings, he did not place compelling 12 , C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 8-9. 13 Hugo Grotius The Law of War and Peace (1625). 14 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 9. Grotius could not rely on religious authority, as the centres of religious authority were numerous and no longer would any one interpretation or declaration by any one authority be regarded as authoritative. 145 reliance upon them.15 His explanation, forming the basis of what we now know as the classical law of nations, was based on a system of rules that mixed practical and moral elements. Westphalia’s principle of sovereignty, now embodied in Article 2(4) of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, meant that each state could choose its own religion without outside intervention, but the Treaty also included provisions calling for the protection of Catholics in Protestant states and vice versa. 16 Grotius felt that much of the law of nations bound not only Christian states, but those of Islam and China too. From this time forward, the emphasis on the substantive role and influence of religion in international law gradually declined in Europe, until modern international law became perceived as a secular positivist legal system with its foundation regarded as laying “firmly in the development of Western culture and political organization”. 17 The separation of religion and politics and the establishment of politics as a separate, independent sphere continued to develop with the French Revolution. Although its Rights of Man advanced several liberal freedoms, the revolution conceived of religious freedom narrowly and 18 individualistically. Bishops and priests were required to take an oath of loyalty and were imprisoned and killed upon refusal. Thus the state sought to control the Church. In Western Europe, anticlericalism continued in liberal republican movements and also in Latin America during the nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. 19 It continued in Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf 20 in Germany. The Church clung to a medieval doctrine that prescribed its own establishment as the religion of the realm in majority Catholic countries and the denial of religious freedom to minorities, but by the early twentieth century, liberals had eroded its influence on European politics and society considerably, especially in the area of education.21 Political philosopher Timothy Samuel Shah argues that secularisation reached its global high-point between 1917 and 1967.22 During this time, the ideologies and political movements with the greatest impetus were secular (although sometimes 15 Ibid, 9. Mark Weston Janis “Religion and International Law” (2002) ASIL Insights at http://www.asil.org/insigh93.cfm. Mashood A Baderin “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes?” in SOAS School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series: Research Paper No 4/2010 Reprinted from European Human Rights Law Review, Issue 5 (2009) (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2009)641. See also M N Shaw International Law 5th edn (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2003) 13-22; D J Bederman et al International Law in Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001); J L Brierly The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace 6th edn (H Waldock (ed) 1963)1; C A Stumpf “Christian and Islamic Traditions of Public International Law” (2005) 7 Journal of the History of International Law 69. 18 Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 188. 19 Ibid. 20 Kulturkampf was the name given to the political struggle for the rights and self-government of the Catholic Church, carried out chiefly in Prussia and afterwards in Baden,Hesse, and Bavaria. The contest was waged with great vigour from 1871 to 1877; from 1878 to 1891 it gradually calmed down. On one side stood the government, the Liberals, and the majority of the Conservatives; on the other, the bishops, the priests, and the bulk of the Catholic people. The Prussian government and Prince Bismarck were the leaders in this struggle. 21 Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 188. 22 Timothy Samuel Shah Faith on Fire: the Global Explosion of Political Religion (Hoover Institute Press, Stanford, 2011). 16 17 146 enunciated and pursued with religious enthusiasm). 23 In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution laid the foundation of a harshly secularizing regime. Nearly every Communist regime that would take power – in China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia – imposed secularism in a similar fashion.24 Fascism in Nazi Germany developed its own form of state religion, suppressed dissenters, and sought to eradicate the Jewish religion altogether. 25 Nationalist movements in colonial and other non-Western states were generally secular ones, influenced by European liberalism, sometimes socialism, and doctrines of modernisation (Nehru’s India, Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese nationalism, and movements across Africa). 26 Secular nationalist regimes arose throughout the Arab world after World War II, modeled on the Republic of Turkey, established by Kemal Ataturk in 1924.27 By 1925, almost every Latin American state had disestablished its Catholic Church, due to the influence of European liberal parties. And in Western Europe, France’s 1905 Law on the Separation of the Churches and State, establishing “laicite” as the principle for the realm, both achieved and symbolized liberalism’s gains. 28 In the United States, in the early decades of the twentieth century, the “secular revolution” rapidly swept through elite social, political, and intellectual sectors. 29 The functional differentiation of society in the 19th and 20th centuries therefore became one of the core elements of theories of the modern age and a central component of secularisation.30 5.2.1. Concepts of the secular The secular nature of the state, as described above, was rooted “in the desirability of grounding knowledge and the governance of society on non-religious foundations of scientific rationality,” and closely relates to the founding of modern states, the division of humanity into discrete, organised territories that denied the primacy of transcendent religious loyalties. 31 Secularism first cemented itself securely throughout the Christian world, and then throughout the rest of the world via colonization and conquest. Since its inception, secularism fused itself with a technocratic, scientific rationality, which denounced religion as irrational, traditional, and therefore anti-modern. It manifested itself in the constitutional arrangements, Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 189. Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Christian Smith The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularisation of American Public Life (University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003). 30 Mashood A Baderin “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes?” in SOAS School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series: Research Paper No 4/2010 Reprinted from European Human Rights Law Review, Issue 5 (2009) (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2009) 641. 31 Richard Falk Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave, New York, 2001) Manuscript, 50-1. 23 24 147 institutions, and structures of the state. Mahmood Ahmad states, “Whereas God formed the center of the Christian worldview, secularism held as its deity the notion of reason, the idea that statements could be verified by reference to ordinary human experience or by reasoning from objective, empirical premises.” 32 Secularism became known as a humanizing and liberating tradition due to its conscious dislocation from the tyrannical, non-reasonable dictates of religious faith. 33 As a result of it’s weaving into the fabric of reason and thought, the “religious dimension of human experience has been generally excluded from the serious study and practice of governance.”34 The term ‘secular’ is infamously ambiguous. As Daniel Philpott says – the term is sometimes used descriptively, sometimes predictively, sometimes prescriptively, sometimes ideologically, sometimes implying hostility to religion, sometimes carrying a neutral or positive connotation. 35 Philpott states that at least nine concepts can be distinguished (see table 1 below), of which four are neutral or positive and five are negative. Table 1 Nine Concepts of the Secular36 Positive or Neutral Negative 1. Secular means pertaining to the world outside the monastic sphere 2. Secular means a concept or use of language that makes no specific reference to religion or revelation but is not necessarily hostile to them 3. Secular means a differentiation between religion and other spheres of society (political, economic, cultural, etc.) but not necessarily the decline of religion’s influence 4. Secular describes a social context in which religious faith is one of many options rather than an unproblematic feature 5. Secularisation is a decline in the number of individuals who hold religious beliefs 6. Secularisation is a decline in religious practice and community 7. Secularisation is a differentiation between religion and other spheres of society (political, economic, cultural, etc.) in a way that entails, and is part and parcel of, a long-term decline in the influence of religion 8. Secularisation involves a decline of religious influence on politics, not because of a general long-term decline in religion but rather because of the intentional efforts of Mahood Ahmad “Religious Resurgence in an Era of Globalisation: Islam’s Quest for Global Participation” (2005) Futuristic Forum: A Policy Research Organisation Paper at http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html . 33 Ibid. 34 Richard Falk Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave, New York, 2001) 17. 35 Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 185. 36 Ibid. 32 148 of the universe (Taylor, 2007) regimes to suppress it. This concept does not imply a decline in religious belief or practice 9. Secularism is an ideology or set of beliefs that advocates the marginalization of religion from other spheres of life Philpott explains the meaning behind each concept:37 Positive or neutral meanings (1) The earliest meaning of the word secular comes from medieval Europe, where it referred to the world outside of the monastic sphere. (2) Secular can simply mean a concept or use of language that makes no specific reference to religion or revelation but is not necessarily hostile to them. The injunction “do not steal” is expressed in secular language, but as one of the Ten Commandments, it is obviously not inimical to religion. (3) Secular can mean the differentiation of religion from other spheres of society, but not necessarily the decline of religion’s public influence. Differentiation, at least in the political sense, can be defined as the degree of mutual autonomy between religious bodies and state institutions in their foundational legal authority. Thus, when religion and state evolve from being intertwined in their authority, as in medieval Europe, to a condition where religion is disestablished, differentiation has occurred. However, this may not lead to disuse as religion can still be quite influential in politics even from a differentiated position. (This is the central insight of Casanova’s (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World). What may be found, however, within the broad category of “religion-friendly” differentiation, in liberal democracies are a wide variety of relationships between religion and state, including states with established churches and varying degrees of “government involvement in religion.” (4) Taylor, in his recent book, A Secular Age (2007) stated that secular is not the decline of religion but a type of social context, developed most distinctively in the North Atlantic, in which religious faith is held in an awareness that it is one of many options rather than simply an unproblematic feature of the architecture of the universe. Philpott states that for most people, however, the more intuitive concepts of the secular are ones that carry negative connotations for religion:38 37 38 Ibid 185-186. Ibid. 149 (5) Secularisation means a decline in religion as a belief that individuals hold. This occurs when fewer people adhere to the tenets of religious faiths. (6) Secularisation is a decline in religious practice and community, which can occur even without a decline in individual belief. (7) Secularisation is one in which differentiation leads to the decline of religion’s influence. Contrary to concept (3), not only does religious authority become disconnected from political authority but religion also has less and less influence over politics altogether. Differentiation under this concept becomes a phase in the long collapse of a supernova. (8) Secularisation means that religion loses its political influence, but not through spontaneous decline. Instead, political regimes intentionally suppress it. Such secularisation does not necessarily relate to the decline of religious belief or practice but is the product of deliberate efforts to marginalize it. It is found in most Communist regimes. Another version resides in the French Revolution and its liberal republican legacy in European politics, emblematized in France’s 1905 Law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which seeks not to eradicate religion but to subject it to strict state controls. A more sweeping version was then planted in Muslim soil in the Republic of Turkey, founded by Kemal Ataturk in 1923, and replicated in Arab nationalist regimes following World War II. (9) Secularism takes the form of a normative or ideological claim. It is a set of beliefs that advocates the marginalization of religion from other spheres of life. These dominant theories, according to Philpott, “all assume that the states, nations, international organizations, parties, classes, businesses, interest groups, nongovernmental organizations, and lobbies that carry on politics pursue ends that include power, conquest, freedom, wealth, a redistribution of wealth, welfare provision, human rights, justice, environmental cleanliness, and other goals, but they do not pursue religious ends and are not influenced by religious actors.” Philpott suggests that such theories reason as if religion has disappeared from politics.39 He questions why these theories are secular in this way and surmises they were formed in response to the historical political developments, in which religion declined in its influence on the state, whether because of its overall decline or because of the efforts of the politically powerful to subordinate it. 40 The two processes, modernisation and secularisation, carried a shared assumption for international relations analysis: sovereign states are the key actors in international relations, characterised by a key attribute, state sovereignty, and a fundamental 39 40 Ibid 187. Ibid. 150 principle, international non-intervention. 41 According to Philpott, the Treaty of Westphalia was a ‘structure of political authority that was forged centuries ago by a sharply secularizing set of events and that has endured in its secular guise ever since.’42 Its overall impact was to remove religion as a justification for war. It was widely believed that secular modernisation and the rise of science and rationality would combine to put relentless pressure on religious faith, resulting in its steady demise and the emergence, globally, of decidedly secular polities and societies. 43 However, these theories may no longer be adequate or useful as a resurgence of religion as a political force appears to be currently occurring. 44 5.2.2. Rejecting secularist theories It was Hadden, in 1987, who stated: “few forecasts have been uttered with more unshakable confidence than sociology’s belief that religion is in the midst of its final death throes.” He argued that this belief reached the level of a doctrine or ideology that resulted in the idea rarely being subjected to any real scrutiny.45 With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to understand how the presuppositions of the discipline have radically affected our thinking about religion. But only of late have scholars begun to explore how the discipline’s theoretical presuppositions, emanating from the secularisation model, have clouded clear-headed observation of data as well as theory construction. The social science assumption of a secular world, he states, has come under increasing scrutiny. By the late 1980’s/early 1990’s sociologists began to reassess secularisation theory. Events including the rise of the religious right in the United States and the Iranian revolution had a profound influence that simply could not be ignored. Similarly, it could not be ignored that people continued to be religious and religion continued to influence social institutions and behaviour. 46 Fox states, ironically, this reassessment of the role of religion in society has resulted in an argument that is nearly exactly opposite to the argument made by modernisation and secularisation theory: modernisation, rather than causing religion’s demise, is responsible for its resurgence.47 This means in practice it represents a complete reversal in the role religion is believed to play in modern society in politics. This 41 Jeffrey Haynes Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics (Routledge, New York, 2008) 293. Ibid. Ibid. 44 Ibid. Although in some places such as Britain, it is somewhat struggling, in other places it is burgeoning. For example, the Christian Church has grown fivefold in Africa over the last 40 years. See also D Belshaw, R Calderesi, and C Sugden, (eds) Faith in Development: Partnership between the World Bank and the Churches of Africa (Oxford: Regnum, Washington DC, 2002). 45 Jeffrey K Hadden “Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory” (1987b) Social Forces, 65(3) 597. 46 Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 11-12. 47 Ibid 12. 42 43 151 reassessment, posits Fox, is multifaceted and has identified multiple ways in which processes associated with modernisation have contributed to the revitalization of religion. He lists them as thus: (1) In many parts of the Third World, efforts at modernisation have failed causing a religious backlash against the Western secular ideologies that were the basis for the governments which were in charge of these unsuccessful efforts at modernisation. Furthermore, due to the processes of colonialism and culture colonialism, Western secular ideas are considered foreign and, therefore, illegitimate, leaving only religion as a basis for legitimacy.48 (2) Modernisation has undermined traditional lifestyles, community values, and morals, which are based in part on religion, thus contributing to this religious backlash against modernity.49 (3) Modernisation has allowed both the state and religious institutions to increase their spheres of influence, thus resulting in more clashes between the two.50 (4) Modern political systems allow for mass participation in politics, which has allowed the religious sectors of society a means to impose their views on others.51 (5) Modern communications has allowed religious groups to export their views more easily and the international media has made religious groups aware of the activities of other religious groups, often inspiring similar actions.52 (6) A new trend in the sociology of religion, known as the rational choice or economic theory of religion, posits that the freedom of choice in many modern societies to select one’s own religion has led to an increase in religiosity. The basic argument is that when religious monopolies are broken down, as they have been in much of the modern world, people engage in a cost–benefit analysis in selecting their religion. At the same time religious “producers” have an incentive to make their religions as attractive as possible to the body of “consumers” in the religious “market- place.” The resulting “free market” has made religion more attractive to the “consumers” of religion, resulting in an increase in religiosity.53 Ibid. See also Mark Juergensmeyer The New Cold War? (University of California, Berkeley, 1993); Scott M Thomas “Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Society” (2000) Millennium, 29 (3), 817–819. 49 Ibid. See also Emile Sahliyeh (ed) Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State University of New York Press, New York, 1990) 9; Jeff Haynes Religion in Third World Politics (Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 1994) 34; Scott M Thomas “Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Society” (2000) Millennium 29 (3) 816. 50 See also Anson Shupe “The Stubborn Persistence of Religion in the Global Arena” in Emile Sahliyeh (ed) Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State University of New York Press, New York, 1990) 23-26. 51 See also Barry Rubin “Religion and International Affairs” in Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson (eds) Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994) 22-23. 52 See also Anson Shupe “The Stubborn Persistence of Religion in the Global Arena” in Emile Sahliyeh (ed) Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State University of New York Press, New York, 1990) 22. 53 See also Laurence R Iannaccone “Voodoo Economics? Reviewing the Rational Choice Approach to Religion” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34 (1), 1995a,b; R. Stephen Warner “Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States” American Journal of Sociology, 98 (5), March 1993, 1044–1093. 48 152 (7) Modern religious organisations contribute to political activity. On a general level, some form of organisation is necessary for political mobilisation and religious institutions provide ready-made organisations for this purpose that often have access to the media, considerable economic assets, and international communications networks. In fact, in many non-democratic regimes the protected status of religious institutions makes them the only format in which people are allowed to organise. People who are active in religious organisations tend to develop organisational and leadership skills that are also useful for political activities. They are also often exposed to mobilisation efforts by their religious organisations as well as political messages and morality messages, which, themselves, are not so different from political messages. Religious organisations also help to develop interpersonal networks that are useful for political mobilisation. However, it should be noted that under many circumstances religious organisations are conservative and prefer to support the status-quo.54 (8) Modernity does cause secularisation in some parts of the religious economy in that many mainstream and dominant religions become worldlier. However this process results in a countervailing trend of other parts of the religious economy because there is a demand for less worldly religions. Thus secularisation is one of two interrelated processes. First, mainstream organisations become worldlier as they and their elites become more intertwined with the establishment, which often desires to partake in religion without being overly restricted by religious precepts. Second, those who desire a more spiritual and otherworldly religious experience flee the mainstream religions to either sects that broke off from the mainstream religions or to different faiths altogether. 55 These dual trends are reflected in the decline of mainstream faiths in Europe while at the same time Evangelical and postmodernist faiths are thriving there.56 Fox states that although many political scientists today do not openly include religion in their theories and explanations, very few deny that it influences the political process. Thus, the modernisation theory’s rejection of religion as a thing of the past is itself a thing of the past.57 Sociologists have, however, been more reluctant to entertain this notion. Nevertheless, despite the long history of secularisation theory See also Jonathon Fox “Do Religious Institutions Support Violence or the Status Quo?” (1999) Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 22(2), 119-139; Jeffrey K Hadden “Toward Desacralising Secularization Theory” (1987) Social Forces 65(3), 587-611; Fredrick C Harris “Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-American Political Activism” (1994) Journal of Politics 56(1), 42-68; Hank Johnston and Jozef Figa “The Church and Political Opposition: Comparative Perspectives on Mobilization Against Authoritarian Regimes” (1988) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 27(1), 32-47; Sidney Verba, Kay L Scholzman, Henry Bradey and Norman H Nie “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Resources: Participation in the United States” (1993) British Journal of Political Science 23(4), 453-497. 55 Ibid. See also Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation (University of California Press, Berkeley,1985) 1–2. 56 Jeffrey Haynes Religion in Global Politics (Longman, London, 1998) 66–67, 215–216. 57 Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 14. 54 153 in the social sciences and the fact that it played a central role in the development of the sociology of religion,58 …recent theoretical and empirical papers on the sociology of religion appearing in top journals have generated interest and controversy. Indeed, for the first time since the 1960s, scholars who typically specialize in other substantive areas are doing research on, or theorizing about, the sociology of religion. This development is a tremendous surprise to many sociologists, who accepted the expectations of secularisation theories that promised declining importance of religion in social life, diminished strength for religious organisations, and waning religious commitment among individuals. However, Fox upholds, many sociologists continue to argue that secularisation is taking place. 59 This has resulted in a spirited debate among sociologists that revolves around: (1) whether secularisation means people are becoming less religious or whether it means a decline in religion’s influence over public institutions; or (2) whether either of these processes is, in fact, occurring. 60 This debate is so pivotal to the study of religion by sociologists that a volume of Sociology of Religion was dedicated wholly to this debate with extensive arguments on both sides of both of the aforementioned issues.61 The rejection of religion by international relations scholars is perhaps more profound than its rejection by political scientists and sociologists. While sociologists had a body of theory explaining why religion was believed to be of declining significance, there is no such theory in international relations. Rather, the study of international relations simply ignores religion. Erin Wilson, a Research Fellow at the School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning at RMIT University, recently added valuable discussion to this contentious topic. 62 Wilson’s article aims to expand knowledge and understanding of the reasons why religion has been largely overlooked as a contributor to theories and practices around justice. Her article explores why religion is neglected, despite its potential for constructive involvement in the pursuit of global justice.63 As climate change can be directly related to justice, the article is an appropriate starting point for new dialogue. Ibid. See also Daren E Sherkat and Christopher G Ellison “Recent Development and Controversies in the Sociology of Religion” (1999) Annual Review of Sociology 25, 364. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 14. 62 Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 733-754. 63 Wilson defines global justice as pertaining primarily to efforts to equalise and reconcile economic, political, socio-cultural, and ecological relationships between the global North and the global South. She understands global justice as focusing primarily on issues of extreme poverty, hunger, conflict, mass human rights abuses, and, increasingly, unequal use of and damage to the global environment as well as unequal exposure to the consequences of global environmental change. Global justice, she says, is also the promotion of equality, social justice and reconciliation, diversity, democracy, nonviolence, solidarity, ecological sustainability, and planetary citizenship. 58 154 Wilson states that recent global justice debates within International Relations (IR) focus on legal, moral, and theoretical arguments. The idea of global justice has emerged primarily from within cosmopolitan moral theory which has strong connections with liberalism, particularly through the writings of Immanuel Kant. 64 Liberalism holds that religion is a source of division and intolerance and therefore must be excluded from the public sphere. Liberal scholars, such as Thomas and Hurd, point to the wars of religion and the violence and chaos provoked in Europe around the time of the emergence of the modern state as evidence for religion’s role in promoting division and intolerance and the subsequent need for religion’s exclusion and privatisation. 65 The problem this presents, however, is that contemporary positive contributions of religion toward theories and practices of global justice are often not considered. Wilson points out that although religion has already made a substantial contribution to global justice, theoretically and practically, throughout history and in current politics, an even greater potential may be realised if existing understandings of religion and global justice are addressed.66 In the first section of Wilson’s article, she discusses why creating space for a partnership across religion and IR is beneficial for the pursuit of global justice. She remarks that contributions of religion in IR since the early 1990’s have been significant. These range from discussions of foreign policy, violence, conflict resolution and peace building, human rights, IR theory, and democratic statebuilding. This research was and continues to be highly significant in “bringing religion back in” to IR. However, Wilson says, two key problems remain. First, despite all this literature on religion and IR, much of the work remains peripheral, published in lower-tier journals, overlooked by policy-makers and practitioners.67 Second, many authors continue to use a limited definition of religion. 68 So although these publications brought religion back into IR, it was only on terms acceptable to IR scholarship. As Wilson notes, “a tendency remained to focus on the influence of religious institutions, the religious beliefs of individuals, and to “rationalize” religion, 64 According to Kant, all rational beings are members in a single moral community. They are analogous to citizens in the political (republican) sense in that they share the characteristics of freedom, equality, and independence, and that they give themselves the law. Their common laws, however, are the laws of morality, grounded in reason. 65 Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 733-754. 66 Ibid. 67 Daniel Philpott in “The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations” (2002) 55 (1) World Politics 69 points out that between 1980 and 1999, only six articles on religion appeared out of a possible 1,600 in four leading IR journals (International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, World Politics, and International Security). A database search of these four journals between 1999 and 2009 yields similar results, listing only seven articles specifically on religion and/or secularism. 68 Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 733-754. 155 excluding to a large extent religion’s ideational, communal and irrational or spiritual elements.”69 5.2.3. Dualism In exploring religion’s continued exclusion from global justice debates in IR, Wilson says it also draws attention to another limitation – dualism. Dualism or dichotomous thinking is a dominant theory in Western thought, language, and academic traditions and works to separate concepts that often exist in symbiotic relationships.70 Dualism can be a useful tool to help make sense of the world we live in, but it also has the power to result in hierarchical privileging of certain characteristics, events, and representations of history being valued over others.71 Julia Kristeva refers to this as “monological discourse,” a discourse in which one object, experience, or perspective is presented as the only object, experience or perspective. 72 In this respect, politics and religion are not valued equally. Instead they are hierarchically placed whereby politics is openly discussed and valued, while religion is either excluded or denigrated as “bad” within monological discourse. 73 Walzer has highlighted this tendency in the context of liberal politics, specifically with reference to reason and passion. Passion is separated from and subordinated to reason.74 And as Gatens has discerned, dichotomies are not neutral ways of dividing up the world, but instead contain “implicit assumptions that assign a prominence and a dominant value to the term in the position A at the expense of not-A.” 75 Wilson suggests that viewing the world through these practical oppositions, means one side of each opposition becomes privileged while the other is subordinated. These relationships are managed in Western society by the public/private divide where privileged concepts are situated in the public realm, while subordinate terms are privatized.76 What this means for religion is that it is not only subordinated at the “world” level but also at the level of scholarship. Approaches to religion within IR, Wilson argues, operate around three dichotomies which relate to how scholars perceive religion’s influence on politics and society. These perceptions in turn affect 69 Ibid. Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 739. 71 Ibid. See also Julia Kristeva “Word, Dialogue and Novel in The Kristeva Reader, edited by Toril Moi (Columbia University Press, New York, 1986) 49. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. See also Michael Walzer Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2004). 75 Moira Gatens Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1991) 93. 76 Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 739. 70 156 how scholars consider religion to be in IR analysis. The three dichotomies are institutional/ideational, individual/communal, and irrational/rational. 77 (1) institutional/ideational – relates to religion as an institution or religion as a set of ideas. Although the overall tendency within IR is to focus on religion as an institution, Wilson proposes it is both an institution and ideational. The institutional element of religion, she maintains, is observable and tangible, and, thus, easier to examine, in contrast to religion’s ideational influences, which are more subtle, implicit, and intangible. The existence of religious institutions is more common in the Judeo-Christian religious traditions of the West. Other religions, says Wilson, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, do not have the organised institutionalized structures that characterize Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and to a lesser extent, Islam.78 This focus on the institutional element of religion, along with the separation of church and state and the international level public/private divide, emphasizes, to some extent, why religion, particularly its ideational features, continues to be largely ignored in public international debates such as those about global climate change. (2) individual/communal – revolves around religion’s primary relevance to either individuals or communities. Wilson argues that religion’s influence operates at both individual and communal levels. She states that up until the end of the Cold War, IR scholars tended to assume that the influence of religion functioned primarily at the individual level in modern society,79 having been privatized and excluded from the public sphere. Only in the area of development studies did IR scholars consider religion’s influence on communities as a whole. 80 Although recent literature has dedicated further interest to religion’s communal interest, this has mainly been focused on non-Western and developing countries. Seldom have IR scholars investigated the influence of religion within the West or within the broader international community and emerging global identity. 81 (3) irrational/rational - a tremendous amount of IR scholarship has viewed religion as irrational. This attitude is carried over from the influence of liberalism on the social sciences and the West generally. The irrational/rational dichotomy is problematic as both terms are highly contested. From a Western liberal perspective, says Wilson, 77 Ibid 742. T N Madan “Hinduism” in Global Religions: An Introduction, edited by Mark Juergensmeyer (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003) 54. 79 Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 743. But also see Richard Little and Steve Smith (eds) Belief Systems and International Relations (Blackwell, Oxford, 1988). 80 Ibid. See also David E Apter The Politics of Modernization (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965) and Donald E Smith “Religion and Political Modernization: Comparative Perspectives” in Religion and Political Modernization, edited by Donald E Smith (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1974). 81 Ibid 743. 78 157 irrational refers to any concept, belief or value not arrived at by human reason that must be taken on faith. Rational connotes principles and ideas justified by secular human reason alone, even though they may have had their origin in religion. 82 This dichotomy is a central part of how religion has been understood and why religion has been neglected in IR. It has meant that religion has been considered relevant only to analyses of “pre-modern” societies and to considerations of other “irrational” factors such as ethnicity, culture, identity, and emotion, long regarded as marginal to IR. Lapid and Wendt state this neglect is largely because these concepts are highly contested and variable, rather than fixed and unchanging. 83 Accordingly, ethnicity, culture, identity, and emotion have also been excluded from IR. Even though greater efforts have been made to engage more critically with these aspects since the end of the Cold War, it still continues to be relegated to the fringes in IR. 84 The focus instead remains on religious nationalism, conflict, and terrorism. This emphasis reinforces the apparently irrational nature of religion and the need to exclude it from public political life because of the chaos and intolerance it creates when allowed in the public sphere. As a result, IR scholars have made little effort to extend the research agenda on religion to public international debates.85 5.3. Conclusion Appleby has considered whether scholars investigating religion’s role in IR have overlooked its fundamental contribution, spiritual wisdom, because they have been unwilling to examine religion’s irrational and less tangible aspects.86 This suggests a deeply embedded bias against religion, particularly religion’s spiritual/transcendental aspects, within the social sciences and IR. 87 However, there are a number of reasons emerging from global justice literature suggesting religion should be openly considered: 88 First, for a theory of global justice to be morally acceptable, it cannot exclude any group from its reasoning and debates. Therefore, any arguments and experiences of religious thinkers and actors must be incorporated into global justice discussions in IR for such conversations to be 82 Ibid. See also Anthony Arblaster The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984) 79 and Raymond Geuss History and Illusion in Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001) 57-58. 83 Yosef Lapid “Culture’s Ship: Returns and Departures in International Relations Theory” in The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, edited by Yosef Lapid and Frederich Kratochwil (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1996) and Alexander Wendt “Identity and Structural Change in International Politics” in The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, edited by Yosef Lapid and Frederich Kratochwil (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1996) 62. 84 Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 743. 85 Ibid. 86 Scott Appleby “Is Spiritual Wisdom Religion’s Contribution to Global Politics?” Presentation at the 50th Anniversary ISA Convention, “Exploring the Past, Anticipating the Future,” New York City, Feb 15-18, 2009. 87 Erin K Wilson “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 737-739. 88 Ibid. 158 considered just. 89 Second, religion is already implicit within many global justice theories used in IR.90 Third, religion encompasses a range of ideas and practices that can be used as resources in the pursuit of global justice. 91 Finally, a large number of religious NGOs already carry out crucial work in efforts toward achieving global justice. 92 For example, World Vision, Tearfund, Muslim Aid, Jewish Aid, Hindu Aid, and International Justice Mission. These organisations are among numerous others who work for positive change with some of the poorest, most disadvantaged communities throughout the world. Wilson suggests that given the vast range of theoretical and practical resources that can be employed in the pursuit of global justice, it seems counter-productive to exclude religion from discussions.93 By failing to adequately acknowledge and explore the connection between global justice and the world’s religious traditions, options for creative insights that could offer productive contributions to IR efforts are being obstructed. The next chapter attempts to fill that gap by examining the present position of religion within the international arena. In particular, it examines the standing and relevance of religion at the United Nations. The UN is the intergovernmental organisation that has most openly recognised and endorsed the need to collaborate with the non-governmental sector; therefore how it accounts for religion and religious NGOs is of immense importance to the proposal for the establishment of a religious organisation at the UN. 89 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Of course, religion should not be the central justification for global justice theory and practice as this would involve moving from one extreme to another – towards an overvaluing of religious influence. A point somewhere between the two extremes would be most desirable. 90 91 159 160 Placing Religion within the International Arena Whether liked or disliked, ‘religious’ actors shape governance issues in a global world and awareness of their involvement, value and contribution is vital for justice, peace and reconciliation on a wide range of policy issues. Religious values and concerns inform and shape decision-making and there is much need for more public awareness of the work and significance of religious actors at the UN in achieving (or sometimes subverting) the goals of justice and human rights.1 6.1. Introduction Although faith institutions and interreligious organisations within the climate change domain are becoming increasingly active participants, religion still struggles to find a place in the public realm. However, some progress has been evidenced in recent years. For example, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan has set a tone of appreciation for religion and the work of religious groups at the UN. Citing Pope John Paul II’s speech to the UN upon its 50 th anniversary in 1995, Annan declared that “[t]he politics of nations…can never ignore the transcendent, spiritual dimension of the human experience.” 2 Annan has made significant advances to religious communities, calling on them to support and strengthen the work of the United Nations. These advances should not be seen as simple gestures of spirituality removed from their political context and a larger plan for UN reform, but of religion’s increasing role in an evolving UN system.3 Although legitimacy of religious voice has been acknowledged to a certain extent, an explicit “role” for religion has never been clearly established. 4 This is most likely given the widely differing approaches to religion among the member nations that constitute the UN. 5 Although there are still many voices who would reject religion’s right to a place at all, these do appear to be less prominent than those who extol religion’s role and those who simply do not know what that role should be.6 Not only do the various actors composing the UN system hold broadly varying views of religion and religious actors, but the UN as an institution is struggling with issues about its own identity and philosophy that impact on the place accorded religion and the work of religious NGOs.7 The UN is seeking its place in a world where civil society plays a much larger role than in the past, and religious NGOs J Carrette and H Miall “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN” Briefing Paper, 2012. Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002. Ibid. 4 Katherine Marshall Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers (Routledge, Oxon, 2013) 147. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 1 2 3 161 include a large portion of today’s civil society. 8 Furthermore, the UN must now accommodate new religious views and groups, especially from conservative circles that once avoided the UN.9 Marshall avers the history of religious engagement in the UN context highlights both contestation and changes that have taken place over the years and it can be viewed as a continuing dialogue and drama.10 The purpose of this chapter is to examine religion’s present standing and relevance at the UN. For if religion is to play a much larger role in climate change policymaking, as this thesis proposes, it must be seen as a meaningful and beneficial actor within the highest of international arenas. First, the extent of current interactions with religious organisations at the UN is discussed. The discourse continues through a series of accounts, commencing with the Religion Counts report whose sole purpose was the analysis of religion at the UN.11 The report sought to broaden constructive religious participation in the international arena by explaining how religion operates, analyzing the relationship between religious and secular actors, and highlighting “best practices” among religious groups.12 Its goal was to positively enhance religion’s voice in the public realm by providing valuable practical information for religious groups and their secular partners in dialogue. The second account is the Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy.13 The Chicago Council on Global Affairs sponsored this independent task force in 2008 in order to advance understanding of the role of religion in world affairs and to develop a framework to appropriately integrate religion into U.S. foreign policy. The third account examines the World Bank and the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD).14 Established by James D. Wolfensohn, then President of the World Bank, and Lord George Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, the purpose of the WFDD organisation was to bridge the gap between the worlds of faith and secular development by engaging in dialogue and action on poverty, culture and diversity, services to the poor, and equity. The chapter concludes by discussing the obstacles facing religious engagement in the international arena. 8 Ibid. Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002. 12 Ibid. 13 R. Scott Appleby and Richard Cizik (co-chairs) Report of the Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy Sponsored by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago, 2010. 14 World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about. 9 162 6.2. The extent of current interactions with religious organisations at the UN The extent of interactions with religious organisations at the UN may differ today, but religious involvement is not a new phenomenon. The UN has long had an institutionalised relationship with selected non-governmental organisations. 15 Article 71 of the UN Charter states that the UN will ‘consult’ with NGOs in order to carry out related work through ECOSOC. ECOSOC seeks to facilitate ‘international cooperation on standards-making and problem-solving in economic and social issues.’16 Additionally, the UN Charter includes a reference to religion, albeit in the context of a fundamental UN focus: human rights. 17 In this context, the UN recognises religious belief as part of human rights and human freedom. In 1972, a ‘Committee of Religious NGOs’ was established, three decades after the founding of the UN, followed in 2004 by creation of a ‘NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values, and Global Concerns’. 18 The existence of these two bodies highlights that even though the UN was founded on secular values, religious and spiritual entities have sought to influence it for 40 years. 19 However, it is only since the 1990s that religious organisation numbers have grown considerably, including institutionalised presence to UN committees in New York and Geneva, as well as interactions with many UN Committees and UN Commissions, including, inter alia, the UN Commission for Social Development.20 The growing religious presence at the UN reflects two main developments. First, there is a well-documented, recent increase in significance of religion in international relations. 21 Second, following the end of the Cold War and the expansion of globalization, there has been an increased international focus on ‘values’, norms’ and ‘behaviour.’ This has coincided with an international religious resurgence and increased prominence of ethical and moral (often overlapping with religious) concerns in debates about values, norms and behaviours. 22 In particular, many religious organisations have an interest in various aspects of human rights at the UN, including an interest in how poverty-stricken people in poor and undeveloped Jeffrey Haynes “Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations” EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2013/70, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, RELIGIOWEST. 16 Ibid. Refer also http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. Also refer J Carrette and H Miall “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN”, Briefing Paper, 2012. 21 Ibid. Also refer J Fox and S Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 2004); J Haynes An Introduction to International Relations and Religion (2nd ed) (Pearson, London, 2013a); S Thomas The Global Transformation of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations. The Struggle for the Soul of the TwentyFirst Century (Palgrave Macmillan, New York/Basingstoke, UK, 2005). 22 Ibid. Also refer J Haynes Comparative Politics in a Globalising World (Polity, Cambridge, 2005); J Haynes, Religion and Development: Conflict or Cooperation? (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York, 2007); J Haynes An Introduction to International Relations and Religion (2nd ed) (Pearson, London, 2013a). 15 163 countries can improve their positions. Consequently, religious views and opinions are often heard today in relation to ethical and moral discourses regarding increasingly divided international development outcomes, as well as ‘climate change, global finance, disarmament, inequality, pan-epidemics and human rights.’23 Religion (particularly through its moral attributes) is therefore increasingly influencing the focus, values and content of global public policy at the UN. Discussions of international religious resurgence and its impact on global public policy overlap with another current debate in international relations: the extent to which today’s international environment is no longer significantly secular but is instead increasingly affected by religious norms, beliefs and values, leading to ‘postsecular’ international relations. 24 The UN has thus shifted over time from a position where ‘religion’ was principally absent from its deliberations to one where it is more prominent. 25 Reflecting this change, global public policy debates and discussions at the UN have undergone a shift in emphasis from exclusively secular and material, to including moral and ethical issues which frequently overlap with religiously-based concerns. 26 6.3. The Religion Counts Report In 2002, Religion Counts, an internationally recognised group of scholars and experts organised to provide religious perspectives in the development of international public policy produced a report regarding the analysis of religion at the United Nations. 27 Religion Counts sought to broaden constructive religious participation in the international arena by explaining how religion operates, analyzing the relationship between religious and secular actors, and highlighting “best practices” among religious groups. 28 Its goal was to positively enhance religion’s voice in the public realm by providing valuable practical information for religious groups and their secular partners in dialogue.29 Three facts emerged from the field research: (1) religion is indeed present at the UN; (2) religion’s role at the UN is unclear to many people; and (3) religious individuals and groups at the UN do not have a unified perspective on either the issues before the UN or the appropriate role of religion in the UN.30 Ibid. Also refer J Carrette and H Miall “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN” Briefing Paper, 2012:3. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 23 164 The Religion Counts report proclaims most sociologists have abandoned the once-influential secularisation theory that religion would inevitably recede in importance in all modern societies. 31 Religion continues to play a major role in individual lives, inter-group relations, and international politics.32 The UN, however, does not promote any one religion in allowing participation by many religions. Neither does the UN promote “religion” per se; rather it accepts it as one worldview among others in the forum of international activity. 33 The situation becomes extremely complex when religious and political structures mesh, even though political structures will always interlink with one worldview or philosophy, such as secularism and the notion of the “separation of church and state.” As one UN official quoted, “Despite my strong belief in secularism I do believe that we have to be liberal when it comes to the registration of non-governmental organisations. And if there are non-governmental organisations which are religious in origin, I think we cannot make that a basis for excluding them.” 34 Another UN official emphasized religious NGOs, “have every right to be in the panorama of the UN, just as much as other NGOs there.” 35 However, this right of participation is contingent: “If they are found to be violating the basic rules of the UN, then of course they have to leave, but otherwise I have not noticed an overabundance of religious NGOs or religious extremism in the UN. Religions have much to offer the UN, in that they have codified the fundamental ethics by which people seek better lives.”36 Hilario G Davide, the former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Philippine Mission to the UN, has stated, “The UN is an intergovernmental mechanism, and governments are wary of directly cooperating with religions. On the other side, religions do not believe that they are inferior or subordinate to governments or even to other religions because they function in a world distinct from the secular concerns of intergovernmental cooperation.” 37 What has changed, stated Ambassador Davide, is the emergence of a new understanding that closer collaboration with religions is critical to a wide range of UN efforts, not only in development but also to the UNs main mission of promoting peace and security. 38 “If we are to go over the statements of the more than 80 high-level personalities who attended the High-Level Dialogue on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace [October 2007],” said Ambassador Davide, “we will note that several speakers alluded to the importance for the interaction between the UN 31 Ibid. Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 One Country: The Online Newsletter of the Baha’I International Community Volume 19, Issue 2, January-March 2008. 38 Ibid. 32 165 system and the faith communities in the discharge of the three pillars of the UN goals, namely, the promotion of peace, development and human dignity.” 39 “One of the conclusions that could be drawn,” he added, “is that the partnership between and among governments, the UN system and religious NGOs or faith communities is no longer an option but a necessity.” 40 New initiatives are now arising from a vast range of issue areas, involving many UN bodies and agencies. For example, the UNDPs initiative with the ARC on climate change aims at concrete action. Under the terms of that initiative, Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Sikh and Zoroastrian leaders have committed their communities to projects that address climate change and the protection of the natural environment in “practical ways.” 41 The number of religious NGOs at the UN is also visibly increasing. Religious voices multiplied and strengthened as global civil society matured in the 1990’s following a general lull during the Cold War years. The Religion Counts Report states many sources point to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, or the “Earth Summit”) and the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) as important milestones of increased religious NGO participation at the UN.42 Religion has even been said to have become ‘fashionable’ according to Marie Juul Petersen. 43 For example, there have been an increasing number of conferences, seminars, reports and books dealing with the subject, with an analogous sum of researchers taking a strong interest.44 Petersen states there are a number of reasons for this ‘religious turn’ among scholars and practitioners. First, events and phenomena testifying to the continued importance of religion in public life have questioned both the secularisation theory as well as the modernisation theory often laying the ground for these assumptions. 45 Instead of disappearing altogether, religion has become even more visible (for example, the 1979 Iranian revolution, the emergence of the Evangelical right as a political force in the United States, the role of the Catholic Church in the democratic transitions in Eastern Europe, and the growth of the Pentecostal movement in Latin America, and also the events of September 11 and the emergence of militant Islamism).46 39 Ibid. See Appendix H for Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society of the High Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002. 43 Marie Juul Petersen, “International Religious NGOs at the United Nations: A Study Group of Religious Organizations” Journal of Humanitarian Assistance (November 2010) sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/847#_ednref51. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. See also Jose Casanova Public Religions in the Modern World (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994). 46 Ibid. 166 Second, there has been a huge increase in the number and visibility of religious organisations involved in humanitarian aid and development. Although religious organisations have throughout history provided aid to the poor, in recent years contemporary religious organisations such as NGOs, charities and community associations have achieved particular prominence. 47 For example, in the United States, government funding for religious based organisations almost doubled from 10.5 per cent in 2001 to 19.9 per cent in 2005.48 Likewise, states Petersen, some of the largest international NGOs are religious with World Vision alone retaining an annual budget of 1.6 billion US dollars. 49 Locally, religious organisations are often some of the most important service providers. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the World Bank estimates that as much as 50 per cent of all health and education services are provided by religious organisations.50 Third, the failures of the structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s and 1990s prompted much criticism from NGOs, grassroots movements and religious organisations, accusing the World Bank and other major actors for promoting a narrow economic conception of development.51 This resulted in a move away from state and market-led approaches to a broader holistic conception of development, focusing on ‘civil society’, ‘human development’, and ‘participation’. Religious organisations were thus seen as legitimate actors in the field of development and humanitarian aid.52 In 2000, this was cemented further by the World Bank’s study Voices of the Poor which concluded that many poor people had more confidence in religious organisations than in government or secular organisations.53 Petersen states these trends and events have prompted a reconceptualisation of aid discourses and practices, with a greater recognition of religion and religious organisations as important and indispensable factors.54 This has been shown in the creation of various initiatives to strengthen cooperation with religious organisations, including the Dutch Knowledge Forum for Religion and Development Policy, established in collaboration between NGOs, researchers and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the World Bank’s Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics (see section 6.5 below); and the UK Department for International Development’s seminar 47 Ibid. Ibid. See also Rick James “What is Distinctive about FBOs?” INTRAC Praxis Paper no. 22 (2009) p 5. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. See also Duncan McDuie-Ra and John A Rees (2008) “Religious Actors, Civil Society and the Development Agenda: the Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion” Arts Papers and Journal Articles University of Notre Dame Australia, p 2. 53 Ibid. See Deepa Narayan et al Voices of the Poor (World Bank, Washington DC, 2000). 54 Ibid. 48 167 series Faith and Development, hosted in cooperation with the Tony Blair Foundation, Islamic Relief, World Vision and Oxfam.55 6.4. Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy In order to advance understanding of the role of religion in world affairs and to develop a framework to appropriately integrate religion into U.S. foreign policy, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs sponsored an independent Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy in 2008.56 For the purposes of the report, religion was defined as an established system of belief, practice, and ritual based in a collective affirmation of a transcendent or otherworldly reality that encompasses and gives ultimate meaning to earthly existence.57 During the five Task Force meetings, which comprised thirty-two high-level and influential policymakers, academics, constitutional lawyers, religious leaders, and members of the media, participants engaged in conversations about how to best use all the tools available to more successfully engage religion internationally.58 The Executive Summary stated that although religion has been a major force in the daily lives of individuals and communities for millennia, recent data indicates the salience of religion is increasing the world over. 59 Once considered a “private” matter by Western policymakers, religion is now playing an increasingly influential role – both positive and negative – in the public sphere on many different levels.60 Religious actors are central players in local, national, and international life, from providing basic services in impoverished areas of the world to influencing larger social, economic, and political developments; shaping important international debates; and advancing the goals of peace, justice, and freedom.61 However, just as globalisation and communication technologies have supported positive religious developments, they have also facilitated the growth of extremist religious views and the development of dangerous terrorist networks.62 Thus events such as the September 11 attacks and the struggle with intra-religious conflict in Iraq have more recently concentrated the attention of many policymakers on religion as a “problem” or 55 Ibid. For further information about the Dutch Knowledge Forum for Religion and Development Policy, see www.religie-enontwikkeling.nl. For the Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics, www.worldbank.org; and for the seminar series Faith and Development, www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org. 56 R. Scott Appleby and Richard Cizik (co-chairs) Report of the Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy Sponsored by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago, 2010. 57 Ibid. While indigenous faiths and new religions or sects are very much part of the global reality, the report was more focused on multigenerational, transnational religions organised around institutions, leaders, and disciples or followers – adherents who normally number in the millions worldwide, but who are supremely local in their influence and impact. This included Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, which are all self-consciously missionary religions, and other religious traditions that have become global through their diasporas, including Judaism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 168 threat.63 But, a focus on religion through the lens of terrorism and counterterrorism strategy is too narrow – and even then still poorly understood. This limited focus has caused many U.S. decision makers to overlook and undervalue the influential role of religious leaders and communities in helping address vexing global problems and promoting peace.64 The report states that although it is clear religious actors will continue to present major challenges to security issues, there will also be enormous opportunities to create new alliances and forge new paths. 65 Therefore, the United States government will not only need to develop a far greater understanding of religion’s role in politics and society around the globe – including a detailed knowledge of religious communities, leaders, and trends – it must also move beyond traditional state-to-state relations to develop effective policies for engaging religious communities within and across nations. 66 A clear framework that allows actors within and outside government to better understand and respond to religiously inspired actors and events in a way that supports those doing good, while isolating those that invoke the sacred to sow violence and confusion is now required.67 The Task Force identified six principal patterns that together reflect religion’s increasing importance in international affairs:68 1. The influence of religious groups is growing in many areas of the world and affects virtually all sectors of society, from politics and culture to business and science. 2. Changing patterns of religious identification in the world are having significant political implications. 3. Religion has benefitted and been transformed by globalisation, but it also has become a primary means of organising opposition to it. 4. Religion is playing an important public role where governments lack capacity and legitimacy in periods of economic and political stress. 5. Religion is often used by extremists as a catalyst for conflict and a means of escalating tensions with other religious communities. 6. The growing salience of religion today is deepening the political significance of religious freedom as a universal human right and a source of social and political stability. 63 Ibid. Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 64 169 The report states that although each of these trends is interesting, they are not necessarily consequential when taken alone. 69 Yet they combine to become a powerful force on the local, national, and international stage, making them impossible to ignore in the conduct of foreign policy if the United States is to achieve its strategic aims. It will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve important goals, including development objectives, conflict resolution, and the promotion of social and human rights, without understanding the religious context. 70 Thus, the United Nations, its major specialized agencies like UNICEF and UNESCO, the World Bank, and others would benefit from a better understanding of religious dynamics in the contemporary world as they carry out their respective missions. 71 The United Nations has taken a step in the right direction by including religious organisations in the Millennium Development Goals. Nevertheless, more needs to be done to institutionalize and broaden the links between the United Nations and religious institutions. 72 The Task Force report states the United States should encourage these efforts and play a leading role in interfaith dialogue that occurs in multilateral forums (both governmental and nongovernmental) such as the UN’s Alliance of Civilizations, the Parliament of World Religions, and meetings of the G8 and the G-20.73 The consultations should include cooperation on specific issues, where religious leaders can play an important role in the broader international effort to tackle these challenges.74 6.5. The World Bank and the World Faiths Development Dialogue The issue of how the World Bank relates to civil society, including faith institutions, is an important and long-standing area of concern.75 The Bank is an institution that is profoundly respectful of its relations with the governments that are its shareholders. It works in partnership with them to determine how to structure loans, credits, and grants and who will implement programs.76 The primacy of the World Bank’s relationships with governments gains much attention, particularly in countries where democratic institutions and traditions are not well developed, but also in countries with active public inclusion.77 The World Bank of the past had been 69 Ibid. Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Katherine Marshall “Faith and Development: Rethinking Development Debates” speech, Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics, The World Bank, June, 2005 at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/PARTNERS/EXTDEVDIALOGUE/0,,contentMDK:20478626~men uPK:64192472~pagePK:64192523~piPK:64192458~theSitePK:537298,00.html. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 70 170 exceedingly limited in its relations with most entities outside governments, only relating to them through the lens of government guidance. 78 Meetings with civil society were in many countries rare and often artificial.79 Katherine Marshall states the enduring propensity by the World Bank to employ dry, technical economics-speak contributed to an impression of exclusiveness.80 Although the Bank recognized that accessible language is critical for the public engagement that underlies development success, it did not always put that precept into practice.81 World Bank circles also seldom used the language of ethics and values, and of spirituality, which faith institutions reasonably expect to hear. 82 Marshall maintains this deepens misperceptions as development institutions are strongly ethical in their origins. 83 They are also strongly ethical in the rules governing financial management, procurement and project evaluation, among other aspects of their work. 84 But misperceptions are difficult to refute, given institutional design, which tends to be data-laden and "preachy” in the certainty of tone and tendency to prescribe.85 Finally, states Marshall, there is the perception and the reality of the “balance of power” among institutions.86 “Faith institutions often describe a David-and-Goliath situation, wherein the mighty World Bank evinces little regard for poor governments facing the Damocles sword of acute fiscal crisis with limited resources and voice, and for smaller institutions and actors.” 87 Such perceptions are undeniably factors in how relationships between faith and development organisations take form.88 Over recent years, however, this situation has changed considerably and the World Bank now has various partnerships and relationships with a large array of institutions.89 Among the most dynamic are those with civil society organisations.90 One result is the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD), a small, autonomous institution founded in 1998, which engages in dialogue and action on poverty, culture and diversity, services to the poor, and equity. Established by James D. Wolfensohn, then President of the World Bank, and Lord George Carey, then Archbishop of Canterbury, the purpose of the organisation was to bridge the gap between the worlds of faith and secular development. 91 Wolfensohn particularly, 78 Ibid. Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. However, financing relationships for normal Bank business will always be the province of governments which decide when and for what purpose they will borrow or accept grants and how the programs will be executed. 91 World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about. 79 171 had increasingly recognised the limits of state and government-centred development approaches.92 As President, he was hearing a lot of criticism from faith institutions concerning the Bank. 93 The Jubilee 2000 provided one of the most prominent examples of criticism but there were many religious voices in the 50 Years is Enough campaign, the anti-globalisation protests, and critiques of structural adjustment of privatisation of water. Wolfensohn had a sense that the religious community and the Bank shared many interests but were continually at loggerheads over numerous issues. This realisation inspired Wolfensohn to openly engage and discuss issues of opposition. 94 Wolfensohn also saw religious or faith organisations as the largest distribution system in the world, with a presence in virtually every community.95 He was inspired by the Voices of the Poor results and the trust levels of faith leaders, leading to an understanding that it was imperative to engage with religion on important issues.96 Wolfensohn was also impressed by data regarding the role of faith organisations in education and health. Since education and health are so central to the Millennium Development goals and to the poverty mandate of the development institutions, it appeared illogical that faith and development organisations were not working together more effectively in these areas.97 The idea of the WFDD was first introduced at a meeting at Lambeth Palace, London, in February 1998.98 The meeting brought together a small group of senior leaders from nine major world faiths.99 A practical outcome of the meeting was the founding of an office in Oxford, England. The organisation had two immediate mandates: (1) To pursue work involving both World Bank staff and faith representatives on several themes at the country level, including hunger and food security; environmental sustainability; preservation of cultural heritage (including sacred sites); violence and post-conflict reconstruction; and education and social service delivery; and (2) religious communities were invited to “influence the thinking of the World Bank by participating in the studies and discussions embodied in the Bank's annual World Development Reports.” 100 Katherine Marshall “Religion and International Development” Interview with Pew Research: Religion and Public Life Project, March 6, 2006, Washington D.C. at http://www.pewforum.org/2006/03/06/religion-and-international-development/. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid. Discussions about WFDD’s roles were shaped by the global discussions around the turn of the new millennium, including the formulation in late 2000 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). WFDD was invited to take a lead role in organizing the segment on poverty during an unprecedented global gathering of world religious leaders at the United Nations which preceded the Millennium Summit of world leaders. As the MDGs took form over the next year, WFDD’s network engaged in reflections and articulated a series of ideas about how faith communities could and should be involved. 98 World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. 92 172 A second meeting was convened in November 1999, in Washington, D.C. The Washington meeting included many of the leaders who had participated at Lambeth, but was broadened to include Michel Camdessus, then Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a much extended group of World Bank senior staff.101 The strategic importance of maintaining discourse between leaders from the faith and development communities was again highlighted. 102 The participants of the meeting agreed on the need for a formal organisational base and adequate resources to do the job. They commissioned a strategic review, undertaken on a pro bono basis by Bain & Company.103 The review culminated in a decision in May 2000 to move forward with a small but properly constituted and funded organisation.104 Much of the funding for the initial launch of the new World Faith Development Dialogue was contributed by the leaders represented at the meeting.105 A decision that WFDD would be UK-based and be a legally registered charity under UK law was established. A series of seminars were undertaken at Harvard University (financed by His Highness the Aga Khan) to discuss the foundation of the work, as well as a study of various possible headquarters locations. 106 With substantial World Bank support, pilot work designed to test different models of engagement proceeded in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Guatemala. 107 A consultation process about faith approaches to poverty in several world regions resulted in a paper that fed into the 2000-2001 World Development Report.108 From late 2000 to early 2001, the World Bank’s Executive Directors were briefed about the proposals for WFDD and planned World Bank involvement.109 Discussion ensued as to the nature of the World Bank’s partnership with world religions generally and the WFDD more specifically.110 The faith leaders who had participated in the two initial dialogue events were then invited to participate. The result was a restructuring of the concept and governance structure of the WFDD.111 The most significant change was an agreement that the World Bank would not associate itself formally or be a party to the governance of the organisation, though it would actively participate in dialogue and action led by the WFDD.112 101 Ibid. Ibid. 103 Ibid. Bain and Company are a management consulting firm employed by many of the world’s business leaders. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. See also World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty (Oxford University Press, USA, 2000). The report argues that major reductions in all dimensions of poverty are indeed possible—that the interaction of markets, state institutions, and civil societies can harness the forces of economic integration and technological change to serve the interests of poor people and increase their share of society's prosperity. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. 102 173 Table 1 below summarises the various critiques that were put forward by the World Bank’s executive directors, then representing over 180 countries. 113 In sum, they perceived the dialogue effort as entering into “dangerous political waters given the controversies around religion.”114 They were also concerned by the patriarchal approaches that characterized many religious institutions.115 Many still clung to the long-accepted assumption that religion’s roles in public matters had declined and would continue to decline with modernisation.116 Table 1: Issues That Often Feature in Secular-Faith Dialogue Issues that often feature in secular-faith dialogue Gaps: Secular perceptions/questions about the work of faith-based groups Concern Issues Examples Response Political and Divisive Competition among groups makes cooperation impossible, proselytizing is the primary motivation, complexity, religion contributes to conflicts Religious conflict, “sheep stealing,” jealousies within faith communities, engagement with political parties, desire for power, concerns about finance, which is often untransparent Importance of religious communities and leaders in peace building and conflict resolution, examples of cooperation, important contributions to social cohesion, trust that communities express for religious leaders and institutions Dangerous to progress and modernisation Gender roles, reproductive health and women’s health rights, association of religion and patriarchy, links to status quo HIV and AIDS debates, lack of women in formal religious leadership and in community structures Religious voices are often at forefront of social progress, represent prophetic voices calling for reform and social justice 113 Katherine Marshall Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers (Routledge, Oxon, 2013) 192-193. Ibid. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 114 174 Low priority, religion is essentially defunct in modern societies or relegated to private sphere Assumption that religiosity declines with modernisation Many dismiss religion as a factor in development, “radar screen turned off” Increasing evidence of staying power of religion in modern life, albeit often in new forms Emotional and personal approach to religion Experience of parallels in early and subsequent approaches to gender issues, limited evidence a roadblock, approaches to religion shaped by personal views of leaders Institutional leaders and strategies in international bodies tend to reflect individual views rather than a wellarticulated approach Garner and present facts, need for a professional approach, thoughtful exploration of diverse roles Gaps: Religious perceptions/questions about work of secular development institutions Query/issue Concern Examples Response Development is about Empire Power of US and wealthy countries, multinationals, seen as driving their approach and agendas Agricultural subsidies, weight of power in international institutions Slow progress is being made in shifting balance, focus on country-led processes, efforts at empowerment and voice Institutions are often mute on ethics, or worse, seen as Godless and without values Greed is the creed, development undermines cultures and traditions Consumption and western style flaunted in the media, support for large land purchases, GMO promotion Dams, decline in traditions and families Recognise and address contending ethical dimensions, purposeful dialogue Effects of development Damage to communities, disruptions from change, undermining families Dams, decline in traditions and families Recognise complexity Economics as theology Mysterious and seemingly rigid Push for privatisation, free trade Dialogue 175 The discipline and institutions are enigmatic Can’t understand how financing works Bewildering jargon “grandmother economics”: make sure concepts are clear and understandable Development is simply dangerous Beware those who urge and profess it Behaviour and attitudes of institutions and economists Dialogue The faith and development institution leader meetings would continue but under World Bank leadership. Joint activities, including tailored training events for faith community leaders on development topics and research on areas of poverty reduction of common concern, were projected in areas which fit the World Bank’s mandate and instruments.117 These agreements were formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding signed in May 2002.118 As a legally constituted UK-charity, WFDD, with Dr. Michael Taylor as its new Executive Director, began operations in late 2000 at Birmingham University.119 The organisation focused its work on a series of consultations on the World Development Reports and on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. 120 WFDD also undertook a consultation process on faith roles in service delivery and on culture, religion, and development. At this time, WFDD functioned principally as a modest, informal network and as a policy think-tank offering advice and support to the World Bank and faith leaders.121 The World Bank has continued to maintain an office responsible for relationships with faith communities, (first called the Office on Faiths, and later renamed the Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics (DDVE)).122 The DDVE focused on an expanding set of partnerships, interfaith and faith specific, on high level leadership meetings, and on case studies of cooperation between the worlds of faith and development.123 It provided a wide range of operational support but the mandate of the office and its director were focused on engaging with those outside the Bank, to learn from their perspectives, and to build on positive engagement between the worlds of faith and development at the country and global levels.124 Around this time 117 World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about. Ibid. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers provide the basis for World Bank and IMF assistance as well as debt relief under the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) Initiative. PRSPs should be country-driven, comprehensive, partnership-oriented, and participatory. A country only needs to write a PRSP every three years; however, changes can be made to the content of a PRSP using an Annual Progress Report. 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 118 176 the World Bank also engaged with an early WFDD partner, Martin Palmer and the Alliance of Religions for Conservation (ARC), on a series of global meetings and country-based actions on religion and the environment.125 A third meeting of faith and development leaders was called in Canterbury, England, in October 2002.126 It was inspired both by the MDGs and by a renewed awareness following the events of September 11 of religion’s roles in international affairs. The agenda for the Canterbury meeting, largely organized and financed by the World Bank, was centered on the question of how religious leaders and organisations could work more effectively with development organisations to advance the MDGs.127 In preparing for the Canterbury meeting, the DDVE at the World Bank undertook an inventory of work within the Bank that involved partnerships with faith organisations. The inventory work highlighted the major gaps in existing information, including the dearth of evaluation work carried out by faith organisations.128 These kinds of evaluations were and are crucial to understanding the potential role of faith organisations in addressing development challenges and in “mapping” the contributions of faith organisations. The years 2005-2008 were a transition period for the WFDD. It wound down its operations in England, after Wolfensohn’s departure from the World Bank, and it was reconstituted in the U.S.129 The centre of activity shifted to the World Bank, where knowledge and partnership has continued as the central focus. 6.6. Obstacles facing religious engagement in the international arena As the World Bank example has illustrated, attitudes and biases at the international level can pose obstacles to religious participation and effectiveness. Marshall maintains there are four major reasons why people react so negatively to specifically religious participation in a secular international scenario. 130 First, religion is viewed by many in the secular development world as potentially divisive and potentially political. 131 Considerable tensions are brought about by religious organisations contesting among themselves. They are seen as competing for adherents, competing for resources, and generating or contributing to conflicts within society. 125 Ibid. Ibid. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 129 WFDDs trustees decided in 2005 that the United Kingdom location was not optimal for achieving WFDDs objectives and therefore decided to reconstitute the WFDD as a US-based organisation. The reasons were to allow WFDD to work more closely with the World Bank and other major development organisations, and to develop stronger links with the United States administration and the United Nations. This process was supported by the World Bank and proceeded as planned. 130 Katherine Marshall “Religion and International Development” Interview with Pew Research: Religion and Public Life Project, March 6, 2006, Washington D.C. at http://www.pewforum.org/2006/03/06/religion-and-international-development/. 131 Ibid. 126 177 Since the international financial organisations are explicitly required to avoid involvement in internal political affairs, and since for so many governments or states, the separation of church and state is an important principle, an active religious presence is a cause for much concern.132 The second complex set of issues, states Marshall, is that for many in the secular development world, religion has been seen as dangerous.133 It has been seen as counter to modernisation and counter to the kinds of developments that are being promoted. Religions tend to support the continuation of traditional, often patriarchal societal structures, and of not being open to evidence and to the kind of universal rights that underpin the development world. 134 Marshall gives the example of reproductive health rights and the rights of women, in which a number of different religious organisations (the Vatican but also Islamic groups) have come together in opposition to some developments for women’s reproductive health rights. 135 One effect of this, says Marshall, is that some in the development world hesitate to have any engagement with religious organisations because their view is tainted by tensions that have been generated around these specific issues and the wider rights of women.136 Marshall contends the third objection stems from the often unspoken idea that religion is basically defunct or not very relevant; that religion with modernisation becomes less important; and from the conclusion that religion is essentially a lower priority than other areas and is therefore not an area that is explicitly engaged in. 137 People approach religion based on their own experiences and their own views or faith. This presents difficulties in bringing the objective importance of the issues to the fore or to have a reasoned discussion about where faith and development come together than would appear obvious from looking at some of the numbers and the dynamics in the world.138 Many in the development world have a stereotyped view of what faith means in faith organisations. They believe it is essentially about preaching and services and sometimes about the old opiate-of-the-masses types of argument.139 The fourth and more complex issue emphasizes the disparity between development and religious organisations. Development organisations are profoundly evidence-based whereas the tradition within faith communities is to infer 132 Ibid. Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 133 178 from a theological perspective (as opposed to what is actually seen and can be demonstrated).140 6.7. Conclusion Although there is still hesitation on behalf of some international institutions and religious entities to work together, along with complex issues requiring resolutions, the research this chapter presented testifies to the growing importance and relevance of religion in public life. Instead of disappearing altogether, as presumed by secular theorists, religion has become even more visible. The number of religious NGOs at the UN is also visibly increasing. For example, Caritas Internationalis (CI), Religions for Peace (RfP), and the United Methodist Church (General Board of Church and Society) (UMC) are all working with UN agencies and programmes at headquarters level, as well as having an extensive international network with a local presence in many countries. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has also stressed the particular contribution which religious communities and religious NGOs can make to strengthen a value-oriented UN and its democratic accountability:141 Only a morally robust UN can, realistically, draw up and help to realise the elements of a democratic compact. For this, the contribution of religious communities will be essential – though it is also a challenge to those communities to develop with appropriate rigour a theology of democratic accountability and environmental care. Although the United Nations has taken a step in the right direction by including religious organisations in the Millennium Development Goals,142 more needs to be done to institutionalise and broaden the links between religious groups and United Nations bodies. A shift from statements and expressions of intent to supportable collaborations will require a great deal of cooperation and a consensus which is able to accommodate a worldwide and very diverse coalition of stakeholders. Consensus will remain difficult to achieve as long as religious and secular actors remain locked in separate epistemic communities. The most important step requires a conceptual 140 Ibid. Rowan Williams ‘Internationalism and Beyond’ (speech given on June 18, 2004, Greenwich, CT). See archives:http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1204. 142 Given the strong moral approach of RNGOs and their widely held belief in the duty to serve the whole of humankind, it is not surprising that the MDGs are of specific interest for the religious NGOs at the UN and provide a focus for their work and advocacy. Religions for Peace (RfP – previously known as World Conference of Religions for Peace (WCRP)), a globally operating, inter-religious NGO with ECOSOC consultative status, has together with the UN Millennium Campaign and the UN Development Programme produced a booklet entitled Faith in Action: Working Towards the Millennium Development Goals. This short booklet, organised as a toolkit for religious leaders and communities, states as its purpose the equipping of ‘religious leaders and inter-religious councils to carry out advocacy and action campaigns – at the community, national, regional and global levels – to support achievement of the MDGs’. In 2005, the Temple of Understanding (an RNGO accredited at the UN with ECOSOC consultative status) convened a conference with a group of other organisations (the Consultation on Interfaith Education) On the Role of American Religious Communities in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: A Consultation. More than 40 religious organisations, among them major national and international RNGOs, attended it. 141 179 breakthrough acknowledging the security of our planet and the shared responsibility for managing the global commons demands the kind of solidarity that transcends the conventional nation state and laissez-faire market mechanisms. The present efforts for genuine dialogue and learning between secular international bodies and religious organisations are a promising and welcoming sign for future cohesion and inclusive religious presence in the international arena. The following chapter completes the dialogue by proposing several options for a religious environmental organisation within the United Nations system. 180 Proposals for the Establishment of a Religious Body at the UN 7.1. Introduction An argument often expressed by prominent religious leaders, religious NGOs, scholars and politicians maintains the unique ethical, material and spiritual resources of the world’s religious communities can make a major contribution to tackling the critical issues of our time, especially through collaborative efforts in multi-stakeholder coalitions. 1 The preceding chapter has indicated that the UN, although still struggling with some complex issues, is becoming more receptive toward involvement and collaboration with religious organisations, particularly in areas such as development and humanitarian concerns. It is upon this argument that the ambitious proposal for a religious environmental body at the UN rests. The first option places the organisation within the current UNFCCC framework, set up as a separate body parallel to the IPCC, with a Secretariat administered through the COP. This civil society body would comprise religious membership, in addition to other members of civil society with expertise in global ethical concerns. The second option is to position a religious organisation directly within the United Nations system either as a traditional NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ via the General Assembly or the Security Council. These propositions will be discussed in turn below. 7.2. Establishment of an interreligious organisation under UNFCCC 7.2.1. Current structure of the UNFCCC The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty that was established at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (informally known as the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992. The treaty is aimed at stabilizing greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. 2 As originally framed, the treaty set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations and contained no enforcement provisions. It is therefore Josef Boehle “The UN System and Religious Actors in the Context of Global Change” CrossCurrents, Volume 60, Issue 3, 9 Sep 2010: 391-392. 2 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php. 1 181 considered legally non-binding. 3 By 1995, countries realised that emission reductions provisions in the Convention were inadequate. Negotiations were launched to strengthen the global response to climate change, and by 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.4 The Kyoto Protocol legally binds developed countries to emission reduction targets. The Protocol’s first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. The second commitment period began on 1 January 2013 and will end in 2020.5 There are now 195 Parties to the Convention and 192 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. 6 The UNFCCC secretariat supports all institutions involved in the international climate change negotiations, particularly the Conference of the Parties (COP), the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP), the subsidiary bodies (which advise the COP/CMP), and the COP/CMP Bureau (which deals mainly with procedural and organisational issues arising from the COP/CMP and also has technical functions).7 See Figure 1 below: Figure 1 Organisational Structure of UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol 8 Since the UNFCCC entered into force, the parties have been meeting annually in Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. The Conference of the Parties is the supreme decision-making body of the 3 Ibid. Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/bodies/items/6241.php. 4 182 UNFCCC. 9 All states are represented at the COP, at which they review the implementation of the Convention and any other legal instruments that the COP adopts and take decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the Convention, including institutional and administrative arrangements.10 The Convention divides countries into three main groups according to differing commitments:11 Annex I Parties include the industrialised countries that were members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), including the Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States. Annex II Parties consist of the OECD members of Annex I, but not the EIT Parties. They are required to provide financial resources to enable developing countries to undertake emissions reduction activities under the Convention and to help them adapt to adverse effects of climate change. In addition, they have to “take all practicable steps” to promote the development and transfer of environmentally friendly technologies to EIT Parties and developing countries. Funding provided by Annex II Parties is channeled mostly through the Convention’s financial mechanism. Non-Annex I Parties are mostly developing countries. Certain groups of developing countries are recognised by the Convention as being especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, including countries with low-lying coastal areas and those prone to desertification and drought. Others (such as countries that rely heavily on income from fossil fuel production and commerce) feel more vulnerable to the potential economic impacts of climate change response measures. Several categories of observer organisations also attend sessions of the COP and its subsidiary bodies. These include representatives of United Nations secretariat units and bodies, such as UNDP, UNEP and UNCTAD, as well as its specialised agencies and related organisations, such as the GEF and WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 12 Other observer organisations include intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), such as the OECD and International Energy Agency (IEA), along with non-governmental organisations (NGOs).13 9 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6383.php. Ibid. 11 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 10 183 7.2.2. Articles 2 and 3 of the UNFCCC (objective and principles) The two provisions most clearly relevant to future action under the UNFCCC are Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 establishes the objective of not only the Convention itself, but “any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt.” Any legal instrument that helped address climate change would arguably be consistent with this objective, even if it did not fully achieve it. 14 Pursuant to Article 2, the ultimate objective is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. 15 To achieve the objective and to implement its provisions, Article 3 states the Parties should be guided inter alia, by the following: 3:1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.16 Inclusion of the term ‘inter alia’ suggests that the list of principles is not intended to be exhaustive, and that future actions by the Parties might also be guided by other considerations not explicitly elaborated.17 7.2.3. Establishment of an Ethical Panel for Climate Change under UNFCCC The first proposal for religious involvement pursuant to the UNFCCC process is for the establishment of an Ethical Panel for Climate Change (EPCC). This Panel would work in parallel with the IPCC as a civil society, rather than intergovernmental, entity. However, rather than establishing it as a completely religious-based body, the Panel would consist of members across all disciplines of civil society with expert knowledge on the ethical issues of climate change. There are numerous religious environmental organisations that could participate (for example, the World Council of Churches, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, and the Forum on Religion and Ecology). Nominated members of the Earth Charter Initiative would also be significant civil society actors within this Panel. The Earth Charter provides Daniel Bodansky “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center on Global Climate Change Paper, April 2009:5. 15 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Full Text of the Convention at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php. 16 Ibid. 17 Daniel Bodansky “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center on Global Climate Change Paper, April 2009:5. 14 184 fundamental ethical principles for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global society through an integrated ethical framework. This framework could become the foundational structure on which to build a comprehensive Ethical Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations and set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).18 It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. Similarly, an EPCC would be an ethical body under the auspices of the United Nations and set up by the United Nations Environment Program. It would review and assess the ethical implications of climate change and compile information relevant to understanding the ethical nature of climate change. Although ethical implications have been widely discussed at the international level, they have remained subordinate to economic interests of nations. In 2009, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, stated the inequities and injustices that are likely to occur on a global level because of climate change mean that world leaders must carefully examine the moral and ethical dimensions of global warming. The impacts of climate change are going to be inequitable, unequal, and severe in many parts of the world. We have to think at a much higher level. And I think this is where ethics comes in so critically as the missing dimension in this debate. An Ethical Panel could be established pursuant to Articles 7 and 15 of the UNFCCC. Article 7:2 (i) states the Conference of the Parties, as the supreme body of the Convention, shall keep under regular review the implementation of the Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt, and shall make, within its mandate, the decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the Convention. To this end it shall establish such subsidiary bodies as are deemed necessary for the implementation of the Convention. Article 7:2 (l) states the Parties shall seek and utilise, where appropriate, the services and cooperation of, and information provided by, competent international organisations and intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies. Under Article 15 of the UNFCCC, the COP may adopt an amendment to the Convention (other than an annex) by a three-quarters majority vote. The UNFCCC does not impose any substantive limitations on what the COP might agree as an amendment. Thus, an amendment could specify new commitments, change 18 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website at http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml#.Upf6OMTI2So. 185 existing commitments, or establish new institutions or procedures.19 Refer Figure 2 below for proposed amended structure of UNFCCC. Figure 2: Amended Structure of UNFCCC (author’s elaboration) Established as a new institution, the EPCC’s initial task would involve preparation of a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the ethics of climate change and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. A proposed Subsidiary Body for Ethical Advice would join the two permanent subsidiary bodies to the Convention established by the COP/CMP. This new body would support the work of the COP through the provision of information and advice on ethical matters as they relate to the Convention. The subsidiary body for ethical advice would be open to participation by all Parties and would be multidisciplinary. Comprising of non- governmental and civil society representatives competent in the relevant field of expertise it would report regularly to the Conference of the Parties on all aspects of its work. Under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties, and drawing upon existing competent international bodies, this body would provide advice on ethical programmes related to climate change. It would also respond to ethical and methodological questions that the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies may put to the body. The functions and terms of reference of this body may be further elaborated by the Conference of the Parties. Daniel Bodansky “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center on Global Climate Change Paper, April 2009:3. 19 186 7.3. Establishment of Interreligious Council at the UN This second proposal recommends establishment of an interreligious council at the United Nations. It focuses on the United Nations because: (1) it is the largest intergovernmental organisation, with 193 member states, (2) it is the most important global public policy focus, and (3) hundreds of religious organisations already have an institutionalised presence at the UN, via official status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).20 Overall, the UN regularly engages with more than 3000 non-governmental organisations afforded ‘official’ UN status.21 Around 10 per cent are classified as religious organisations, implying that their activities and goals are significantly moulded by religious orientations and principles. 22 This, however, does not necessarily imply that religious organisations at the UN are ‘religiously pure’, and unwilling to work with non-religious entities, including both state and non-state actors.23 Many are willing to interact at the UN with both state and non-state bodies who share their ideological, although not religious, inclinations.24 Although many religious organisations are entitled presently to speak with officials and policymakers at the UN via their institutionalised status afforded by ECOSOC registration, this does not suggest that they are able to exert influence consistently on global public policy debates. 25 This becomes particularly visible when religious organisations act alone, utilising exclusively religious arguments. In this context, religious organisations struggle to be taken seriously at the UN, with no automatic right to be heard in global policy debates. To gain and exercise influence at the UN necessitates that they seek partners and allies, including other religious organisations, secular NGOs, and states who are in pursuit of shared ideological goals.26 For example, in 2012 UNEP stated the challenges facing the environment today have created a new urgency within faith communities to build a global consciousness around sustainable development. 27 In addition, religious organisations must learn to adapt to UN norms and conventions in order to be heard and accepted.28 This means that to be significant players in global public policy 20 Jeffrey Haynes Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2013/70 European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Religiowest, 2013. 21 Ibid, Abstract. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid, 6. 26 Ibid. See also C Bob The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012). 27 United Nations Environment Programme “Global Peace Initiative of Women Convenes Environmental Conference in Kenya” at UNEP website: http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2676&ArticleID=9061. 28 Jeffrey Haynes Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2013/70 European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Religiowest, 2013. 187 debates, they must necessarily adopt and adapt to the terms and rationale of liberal (non-religious) discourse, even when they do not agree with it. 29 Since UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan emphasized the role of religion and culture in his Renewing the United Nations report and in the UN Millennium Development Goals,30 there have been numerous discussions about more actively involving religions in the UN (as indicated in the previous chapter). There have also been discussions regarding particular roles of religious organisations at the United Nations. For instance, in 2003 Vladimir Petrovsky was invited to participate in a meeting of the Interreligious and International Peace Council (IIPC) in order to provide his analysis of why the UN is presently ill-equipped to address issues of religion, and what would be required to organize an Interreligious Council at the UN.31 While assuming that the UN operates under certain restrictions, it is important to note that by failing to recognise the importance of religions and spirituality altogether, the UN chose a path that could not but compromise its influence.32 The result is that in analyzing the issues and trying to solve them, the UN has had a secular bias.33 The meeting brought together activists and experts in international organisations, interreligious cooperation, conflict resolution, human security and human development, from 25 countries of all continents. 34 Effectiveness and objectives of a newly created Council were discussed, as well as its possible organisational structures, programmes and initiatives. 35 Petrovsky suggests the effectiveness of an Interreligious Council at the UN would depend entirely on its ability to cooperate with national governments, international organisations, and civil society institutions. 36 The key objective would be to transform the UN from the traditional “diplomatic club” and arena of national governments’ dealings into an inclusive international body representing different nations, ethnic, social and professional groups with a direct influence on the decision-making process. 37 29 Ibid. The Millennium Development Goals are to: (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; (2) achieve universal primary education; (3)promote gender equality and empower women; (4) reduce child mortality; (5) improve maternal health; (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease; (7) ensure environmental sustainability; and (8) develop a global partnership for development. On environmental protection, the Millennium Declaration stated that no efforts must be spared to counter the threat of the planet being irredeemably spoiled by human activities. Therefore, the participants of the Summit resolved to adopt a new ethic of conservation and stewardship. 31 Vladimir Petrovsky “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and Constraints” International Journal on World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 49. The IIPC was inaugurated in October 2003 as a prototype of a new UN body, as proposed by Dr. Sun Myung Moon, to enrich the current UN activities with spiritual and moral principles. The proposal by Reverend Moon to establish an Interreligious Council at the United Nations complies with the mission of the United Nations and its Millennium Development Goals, which are to provide for international peace and security and to contribute to the solution of the global problems. Assuming the essential spiritual nature of humanity, the IPCC maintains that any successful strategy for peace must take into account the substantial, spiritual dimension of our human identity, experience and interactions. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid, 52. 30 188 Creation of an Interreligious Council would also offer an ethical voice whereby the United Nations could be guided by universal spiritual and moral principles in addition to state interests. The council could develop into an integrated model of cooperation of diplomats, government officials, academics, journalists, clerics, and businesspersons concerned with the future of the world. 38 Such a council could become a critical agent of change within the international regime, both in terms of philosophy and practical framework. Petrovsky considered a model of network communication and pluralistic dialogue to be most appropriate with the Council employing guidelines of principles, emphasizing goals rather than structure.39 It would thus be a conscience-building rather than a legislative form of legitimacy. 40 The organisational framework should combine a degree of centralisation and discipline with democracy and pluralism, being built from the grass-roots, with local and regional branches augmenting the work of the Council executive bodies.41 Membership selection should also have a flexible approach, to involve all existing and willing faiths and religious institutions, as well as social and professional groups, and individuals. In this way the Council could benefit from a variety of political, professional and moral authority and/or experience.42 In 2010, the idea of an Interreligious Council at the UN was again raised. The Universal Peace Federation’s United Nations Office in Geneva (UPF-UN) convened a series of three consultations in Geneva and Bonn on the proposal. 43 It was felt that Geneva could provide a broader perspective on the topic by proposing recommendations of a more decentralized nature, in keeping with the structure of the UN in Geneva.44 The structures of the new UN Human Rights Council and the World Council of Churches were both discussed as possible models of an Interreligious Council, with expert input from members of both.45 While the United Nations was founded in response to conflict, an Interreligious Council should be founded as an affirmation of humanity’s potential for peaceful coexistence and its 38 Ibid. Ibid, 53. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Carolyn Handschin “Considering an Interreligious Council at the UN” October 4, 2010, UPF-UN Office in Geneva at http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Handschin/Handschin-101004.htm. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. The members of the General Assembly elect the members who occupy the UNHRC's forty-seven seats. The General Assembly takes into account the candidate States’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard. The term of each seat is three years, and no member may occupy a seat for more than two consecutive terms. The seats are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC), and seven for the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). The previous CHR had a membership of 53 elected by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) through a majority of those present and voting. The General Assembly can suspend the rights and privileges of any Council member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of membership. The suspension process requires a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly. The resolution establishing the UNHRC states that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights". 39 189 role as caring stewards of the environment.46 Carolyn Handschin, Director of UPFUN Office-Geneva, stated that although the notions of spirituality and ethics are embedded in the UN Charter and other normative documents, they are rarely referred to or applied. 47 In histories of the UN the spiritual dimension of the organisation is often not acknowledged. Yet, a pervasive sense of a spiritual as well as a practical task of world organisation can be traced to the Atlantic Charter of 1941 and many of the speeches at the San Francisco conference in 1945 which led to the founding of the UN. 48 An Interreligious Council could aid in reviving those essential aspects, whereby the depth of personal commitment and ownership associated with religion and culture could be harnessed to support the fundamental rights and freedoms that are a pillar of the work of the UN.49 7.3.1. Function and mandate The General Assembly could request an Interreligious Council to work on certain issues such as environmental concerns, human rights, conflicts over resources, and differing cultural values.50 It could serve as an advisory committee, as a mid-level structure providing data or local knowledge essential to assess the real needs. 51 The mandate could cover a more humanitarian area as well, with religious leaders likely being aware of the needs of vulnerable groups in a timely way before their unrest turns violent.52 For example, the General Assembly could turn to this council and ask for insights into why certain Millennium Development Goals are not likely to be met. It has been inferred by governments that states are eager to have access to local information as they realise there is a gap between resolutions and implementations and look for impartial mediators.53 7.3.2. Covenant/Charter A covenant or charter would be important not only as a guideline for the work of the council but also in setting standards for membership. 54 During the consultation discussions in Geneva the participants considered it was very important that council delegates be able to demonstrate their personal integrity and commitment to world 46 Ibid. Ibid. 48 Hans-Martin Jaeger “Considering the Proposal for an Interreligious Council” May 7, 2009, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Canada at http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks1/Jaeger/Jaeger-090507.htm. 49 Carolyn Handschin “Considering an Interreligious Council at the UN” October 4, 2010, UPF-UN Office in Geneva at http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Handschin/Handschin-101004.htm. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 47 190 peace and development above and beyond their duties to their own faith communities.55 The charter would also have to answer the question of what is religion. How can the combined moral authority of all religions be consolidated and focused into an implementation-oriented agenda? 56 The UN usually pursues quantifiable needs, and religion can learn from that focus. 57 For example, religion can promote fundamentals such as compassion, sacrifice, ideals, solidarity, motivation, and will. It was noted that most people involved in UN work personally hold these qualities in high esteem in their private lives but may experience disconnect from them while carrying out their tasks.58 An Interreligious Council where these fundamentals are given priority and addressed without restrictions might beneficially influence persons in other UN bodies.59 Supporting a tradition of widely-accepted values and inclusive language would be essential for the discussions, proposals, and outcomes of the council; however, there should be no discussion of dogma. 60 Ideally, decisions should be reached by consensus and therefore it would be advisable that delegates have a broad understanding of and experience with religions and cultures other than their own.61 7.3.3. Structure and representation Although in general, UN reform is usually slow and painstaking, it is likewise conceivable the opposite is also possible. 62 For example, the institution-building process of the Human Rights Council in Geneva had to be completed in one year and it was achieved within that time frame. 63 There is no reason why an Interreligious Council at the UN could not also be coordinated in a similarly short time frame. Questions on representation of an Interreligious Council are very important. In particular, how to include small, local, or unrecognized religious traditions. For example, religion is the most important focus for social mobilisation in Africa – through traditional African religion, African Christianity, and African Islam. Any 55 Ibid. Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. The Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council (formerly called the "Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights" of the Human Rights Commission) was discussed as a possible model. This think tank's purpose is to ensure that the best possible expertise is made available to the Human Rights Council. Its 18 members are elected by states and by regions; however, they represent their area of expertise and not their government's views. They are mandated to give advice on thematic issues and give implementation-oriented recommendations. An example of a recent mandate was to review the draft "Declaration on Human Rights Education and Learning," which was being tabled at the Council. This included defining the term "human rights education," agreeing on indicators, and giving practical advice on means of monitoring global progress. 56 191 externally sourced adaptation initiatives which ignore, overlook or denigrate African religiosity will not succeed, because they will be rejected as alienating innovations by the majority of African communities to whom religion is the essence of life and the basis for personal and communal identity. An additional question focuses on how to ensure that people would identify this council as a real "voice of and for the people," possibly bridging the gap felt currently by many in developing countries toward the United Nations.64 Many people in Africa do not relate to the UN as theirs but consider it a top-heavy network that seeks to impose western culture on them.65 A council of religious leaders having an influence on the UN agenda could help to bridge that gap, if there were a large enough representation within it.66 Several options were discussed at the consultations in Geneva and Bonn and these are summarized below. 1) The terms of the Interreligious Council charter would need to be accepted by all religions wishing for a seat.67 One vote per state would not necessarily be allocated, but possibly a certain number of delegates per regional grouping. It should also take into consideration the different concerns of members of the same religion or faith (for instance, Muslims in Jordan may have different concerns than those in Indonesia). 68 The size of the religious communities would hold significance, but consideration would be given to successes in the field. 69 A certain number of seats could be assigned to smaller communities, with rotating membership. Regarding individual delegates, being a leader in a religious community wouldn't be sufficient as a criterion for membership. 70 Delegates would have to present personal credentials that meet the criteria of the council's standard as specialists in fields of peace and development, which are the mandates of the UN.71 2) It would be imperative to promote religious values and not the religions themselves. In other words, delegates would be nominated because of the core values they represent.72 3) A small group of advisors who would work directly with the UN Secretary-General could be established.73 Meetings would be convened as particular situations arose in which their advice and their positions might be beneficial. Such a group could be 64 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 65 66 192 set up comparatively quickly, since the Secretary-General can select advisors as part of his function.74 Such an advisory group could demonstrate the very practical ways that religion can influence positive change and promote social development and cohesion.75 The general terms addressed above could be tailored in order to accommodate a specifically climate change oriented Interreligious Council. Although it would need broad expansion, a brief outline of what might be required follows: Formulation of a charter setting up the standards for membership. (The World Council of Churches is a global leader in religious environmental concerns and would be an important resource in preparing such a charter). Terms of the Charter would have to be accepted by all religious groups wishing for a seat. Delegates must first meet the criteria of the Council’s standard as specialists in fields of peace and development (mandates of the UN) as well as personal credentials that meet the criteria of the Council’s standard as specialists in the field of climate change (and other environmental issues). Delegates must promote environmental values and not the dogma and ritual of their respective religions. Delegates must be willing to acknowledge and engage with delegates from other religions in order to seek consensus on environmental determinations. The Council must contain delegates from each regional grouping in order for it to be accepted as a truly global conglomeration. Individuals, groups and communities may not place their trust in a Council with only partial global representation. Clearly, not any and all self-ascribed religious communities should be welcomed into such a partnership. Religious groups who do not meet the Charter’s strict criteria would not be accepted – thus ruling out membership of any ‘dubious’ religious groups. It would also not be expected that religious groups with no or little interest in environmental issues would wish to participate. 7.3.4. Incorporation into the UN system Within the current UN Charter, the Council could become a “traditional” international NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, performing merely an advisory function. 76 In 74 Ibid. Ibid. 76 Vladimir Petrovsky “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and Constraints” International Journal on World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 53. 75 193 order to achieve its goals and objectives, the Council could refer to Article 68 of the Charter, which reads: The Economic and Social Council shall set up commissions in economic and social fields and for the promotion of human rights, and such other commissions as may be required for the performance of its functions.77 The Charter further reads the ECOSOC: may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters within its competence.78 An Interreligious Council could take both a “soft” and “hard” approach to the United Nations reformation.79 The “soft” approach would entail “built-in” attempts to exploit possibilities of the current Charter and of the present UN system, with no aim of changing them drastically.80 To such an extent, the provisions of Articles 22 and 29 of the Charter could be referred to, that the General Assembly and the Security Council may establish subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of their functions.81 In the case of the Security Council, such an attempt could bring substantial changes to the vast range of UN activities related to international peace and security. Civil society institutions such as an Interreligious Council could make a difference, keeping in mind weaknesses and constraints of the UN, which have been in contention for many years.82 For instance Herbert Nicholas wrote in 1962: The UN perfectly embodies in institutional form the tragic paradox of our age; it has become indispensable before it has become effective. Power politics – within and outside the organisation – is alive and well, and the entirely predictable persistence of conflicts of interest and value among member states means that the Council is, at one level, inescapably doomed to “ineffectiveness.” This is true, above all, when the core or vital interests of states are seen to be at stake.83 Petrovsky claims that in addition to its formal role, the Security Council has performed a number of other unacknowledged functions. He writes: “First, the UN and its associated organs and agencies can always be relied upon to act as a scapegoat for the vanities and follies of statesmen, and as “cheap and convenient cover for the failure of their own policies.” Second, the Security Council serves as 77 Ibid. Also refer UN Charter at www.un.org. Ibid. 79 Ibid, 54. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. Quoted from Mats Berdal “The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable” Survival Vol 45, #2, Summer 2003, p 7. 78 194 an instrument for collective legitimisation of state action. Third, it provides the “Permanent Five States with a mechanism through which their separate and distinctive interests can be more effectively advanced, concessions or quid pro quos from other member states secured, and likely international criticism of what are in fact unilateral policies or actions deflected.” 84 Petrovsky thus suggests if an Interreligious Council were allowed to join the debates at the UN Security Council, it could make this body less cynical, and more transparent and effective by counterbalancing self-interest and power with a sense of morality.85 In order to further develop the position of civil society players at the UN a more preemptive “hard” approach could be taken.86 This would mean a shift from civil society’s current advisory position to a decision-making function. This would ultimately require lobbying certain amendments to the UN Charter, giving at least international NGOs the same (or nearly the same) status as representatives of national governments.87 Petrovsky suggests a first step, a broader interpretation of international subjects, as mentioned in Article 57 of the Charter, could be introduced.88 For example, Article 57.1 could read: The various specialized agencies and/or other organisations established by intergovernmental agreement or otherwise, having wide international responsibilities, as defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, religious, educational, health, and related fields, shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 63. Consequently, Article 63 of the Charter could establish a more regular mechanism of interaction between governmental and non-governmental players within the UN system, reading: The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies and/or organisations referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which the agency and/or organisation concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly. If amended as mentioned, Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter would enable the Interreligious Council and other international NGOs to join advisory and governing boards of the UN specialised agencies, and to affect the decision-making process related to their budgeting, programming etc.89 84 Ibid, 55. Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid, 56. 89 Ibid. 85 195 Furthermore, the Interreligious Council could play a unique role of a model civil society institution bringing together governmental and non-governmental actors, for the purposes of the renewed United Nations, by integrating interreligious and intercultural dimensions of their respective projects and programs.90 The Council would also request international and regional organisations to strengthen their support for the efforts of civil society to tackle the root causes of global problems and to promote peace.91 The “soft” and “hard” approaches to the UN reformation could thus create the opportunity for an Interreligious Council (whether a part of the UN or as an external player), that would bring the UN closer to a model international organisation that addresses the interests of all humanity and creating truly a United Nations.92 In bringing together actors representing governments, religions, civil society, business and academia, it would serve as a model of integrated governance. It would draw on core spiritual and moral principles to provide solutions to climate change and to other critical global problems. Its authority would depend on the personal standing, status and actions of its members. There have been numerous scholars who have voiced their support for an Interreligious Council at the UN. For instance, Dr Juozas Satas, Professor, Kaunas Technical University, Lithuania, stated: The present structure of the United Nations is based on representation of states and their political interests. Its activity is directed towards solving political and economic issues. Such a basic factor of society as religion (morality) and structures that represent it are eliminated from the UN structure and activity. Partly because of this, the organisation is in deep crisis, unable to solve issues of international importance and perform the functions laid down in its bylaws. The way out of this situation can be found in the proposal for establishing within its framework an interreligious council made of representatives of the world’s major religions. It is evident that the difficulties inherent in the UNs present structure could be removed more easily if the moral and ethical teachings of the world’s major religions are heard and if their representative hierarchies’ viewpoints are taken into consideration. Dr Hans-Martin Jaeger, Associate Professor of Political Science at Carleton University, Canada, stated: A potential benefit of an interreligious council at the UN would be to broaden attention to religion as a subject of and contribution to international cooperation. Attention to religion has arguably been too narrowly focused, in the UN context. Religion has generally only been considered in terms of the individual freedom of religion stipulated in the UN Charter and in 90 Ibid. Ibid. 92 Ibid, 56-57. 91 196 UN Human Rights documents. What is perhaps needed is a greater recognition for the concerns of religions as communities and understanding the right of a group or community. Another way of thinking about the contribution of an interreligious council would be in terms of collective security. Along with a number of other dimensions (military, economic, ecological, etc.), collective security certainly also relates to “minds and hearts” of people. Dr. Edvardas Rudy, Chief of Department, Institute of Agriculture, Lithuania, declared: There must be an opportunity at the United Nations for leaders of different religious groups to work together. God is one. Although people from different nations and continents worship Him in different ways, they pray for the same things: happiness, peace, health and coexistence. There needs to be an institution at the United Nations where people from different religious groups can find peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. Dr. Leo Gabriel, a social anthropologist and journalist in Vienna, Austria; and member of the International Council of the World Social Forum: An interreligious council at the UN should recognise the diversity of currents not only among the different religious institutions but also within these institutions. Representation should centre on the diversity of people. The decision-making process should reflect the wisdom of indigenous peoples, for whom consensus is more important than majority rule. 7.4. Obstacles to the proposal for a religious/civil society organisation at the UN The notion of ‘separation of church and state’ (as discussed in chapter 5) is one of the major obstacles presently standing in the way of full religious participation within the international arena. Even so, this may not be a permanent obstacle as secularisation theory has been largely dispelled and religious organisations are gradually gaining a place within the public realm, particularly in the areas of the environment, humanitarian affairs, and development. The greatest obstacle is perhaps the United Nations itself. As an intergovernmental organisation, member States are highly protective of their prominence within it. Although the debates are ongoing, the foremost priority for the UN is to retain its intergovernmental structure. However, the major bodies of the UN, and the UN Security Council are presently failing to find a mechanism strong enough to stand up to the most critical problems of today, particularly global security. For example, the UN itself is not able to carry out many of the Declarations and Resolutions it produces based on its own principles because of the political composition of the Security Council. Besides the five permanent members - China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and the 197 United States of America (the victorious powers of the Second World War), the UNSC also has ten non-permanent members which are elected on a rotating basis and through the vote of the members of the General Assembly. 93 According to Article 27 of the UN Charter, a draft resolution on non-procedural matters is adopted if nine or more of the fifteen members of the UNSC vote for the resolution, provided that none of the permanent members veto it. 94 If one of the ‘Big 5’ veto it, its adoption will be precluded.95 This has been seen to be a discriminatory and biased privilege given to the five permanent members to dictate their own will as they wish.96 Small and weak states have no comparable leverage. Although there have been attempts to put forward alternatives to the right of veto, the UNSC has shown very little flexibility with regards to reformation of its structure. 97 It has instead become an instrument for the five superpowers to further their political will in the arena of international politics and to alter it according to their own interests. 98 This is apparent in the current Middle Eastern conflicts. The US is helping one side, while Russia is supporting the other in a bid to balance powers.99 For example, within the Syrian conflict, the US is supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia for their influence on the outcome of the war in Syria. 100 Through its indirect support of the Syrian Free Army, the US not only seeks to destroy the regime of Bashar al-Assad, but also to get Russia out of Syria altogether.101 By doing so, Russia will lose its foothold in the region. The most important difference between the politics and strategies of Russia and the US are their geographical interests. 102 Both seek to expand their own regional influence while diminishing that of the other.103 The conflict in the Ukraine is yet another area of confrontation between Russia and the US.104 While Russia supports the separatist movements with weapons and fighters, American Special Forces are advising the Ukrainian army in their engagement against the separatists.105 The US has an interest in the membership of Ukraine in NATO and the EU, but Russia cannot accept such a possibility and is therefore destabilising the country.106 Thomas Weiss further suggests that the United States, global in reach and power, has actually become a second “world organisation” standing alongside the 93 United Nations Security Council website. Found online at http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/. Charter of the United Nations, Chapter V: The Security Council, Voting, Article 27. 95 Ibid. 96 Diana Diaz “The Security Council at an Impasse” Global Politics. Found online at http://www.globalpolitics.co.uk/Archive/Security%20Council%20Impasse.htm. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Dr Albert Alexander Stahel “The Geopolitical situation of Europe” in Global Gold Outlook No. 7, September 2014. 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid. 94 198 UN.107 Its military, economic, and cultural predominance has no precedent, even with the rise of China and India. 108 As one of the main factors influencing US attitudes to the world, American exceptionalism is extremely difficult to reconcile with the changing dynamics of geopolitics. 109 Exceptionalism implies that of all sociopolitical systems, the US has created the best system of governance – one that focuses on the protection of the civilian and places the individual, his freedoms, rights, and interests at its heart.110 Exceptionalism does not allow for dialogue on equal terms or for the US to become simply one centre of power among many.111 Weiss states that too often experts overlook how the UN system serves American interests and gives the US cause to proceed with international agreement. 112 Against this setting, Ted Sorensen, a former speechwriter for President F Kennedy asks: “What is more unrealistic than to believe that this country can unilaterally decide the fate of others, without a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, or for the judgment of world institutions and our traditional allies?” The events following 11 September 2001 are a case in point in terms of American selective engagement, when the US learned that the UNSC could be one of the best avenues through which to address its crisis of security. 113 However, its preferred resolutions were not always supported by all members of the Council and when confronted by opposition it aborted multilateral bargaining, utilising instead its unilateral power.114 With this attitude America explicitly showed that ‘acting through the Security Council is always a policy option but should not be a road that Washington always takes’, especially when Council resolutions are related to American interests and concerns of national security. 115 The power and hegemonic position the US commands has meant that Washington has been able to choose between unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral strategies and also able to select the institutions which suits its interests the most.116 Although Barack Obama’s election in 2009 signaled a revitalised US commitment to multilateralism, unilateral tendencies still endure from the former Bush administration. 117 Thus American exceptionalism remains an ongoing issue – predominantly in the realm of international peace and security. 118 Before the war in 107 Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012). Ibid. 109 Dmitry Suslov “Can American exceptionalism adjust to a multipolar world? Russia Direct. Found online at http://www.russiadirect.org/opinion/can-american-exceptionalism-adjust-multipolar-world. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012). 113 Diana Diaz “The Security Council at an Impasse” Global Politics. Found online at http://www.globalpolitics.co.uk/Archive/Security%20Council%20Impasse.htm. 114 Ibid. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012). 118 Ibid. 108 199 Iraq, for example, the US was already spending more on its military than the next 15-25 countries, and its spending is now about seven times that of China.119 UN-led or UN-approved operations with considerable military requirements proceed only when Washington approves or agrees.120 The US sheer might and willingness to resort to unilateralism dominates every level of UN affairs – normative, legal, and operational.121 It also has a drastic effect. The current Iraq crisis has, for example, first and foremost shown the US Middle East policy has failed miserably and the US has achieved the very thing that it supposedly went to Iraq to prevent in the context of the War on Terror.122 The US destroyed Iraq’s political, social, and institutional infrastructure, eventually rendering it a puppet-state of Iran under a government that has further polarised the Iraqi society and led it into more conflict. 123 In spite of the many calls for reform, the state-centric world organisation continues to stumble along as it has since its inception in 1945. 124 In spite of decolonisation processes and a massive membership expansion, along with fundamental geopolitical and other changes, the UNs basic structure and institutional make-up has remained fundamentally the same. 125 Similarly, the assorted divisions of the UN organisation, and the numerous bodies of the broader system, have evolved, but have not undergone the level of changes which the world urgently requires.126 Mark Malloch Brown, former UN deputy secretary-general, has stated that for this to occur, member States “would have to rise above their own current sense of entrenched rights and privileges and find a grand bargain to allow a new more realistic governance model for the UN.” 127 Until this occurs, the Security Council and the wider UN bodies will continue to act on political realities rather than on legal, never mind moral, norms. This is perhaps the gravest difficulty faced by those committed to finding a remedy for climate change. Although the nature of collective problems such as environmental degradation urgently requires humanity to create a more robust intergovernmental institution with a much wider scope than is presently available, States are steadfastly unwilling to relinquish their authority. Although States remain essential for national, regional, and global problem-solving, they cannot address transnational issues sufficiently in their current form and Ibid. Washington spends more (approximately $670 billion) than the rest of the world’s militaries combined. With regards to softer power – economic might and cultural influence – the United States will remain a major player on the world stage for the foreseeable future. 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid. 122 Zenonas Tziarras “The Iraq Crisis and Its Geopolitical Implications” E-International Relations. Found online at http://www.eir.info/2014/07/29/the-iraq-crisis-and-its-geopolitical-implications/. 123 Ibid. 124 Thomas G Weiss Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it 2nd ed (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012). 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 Ibid. 119 200 therefore must learn to embrace new models of global cooperation within the UN such as the proposal this thesis presents. In October 2004, the UN General Assembly took up agenda item 54, on strengthening the United Nations system under which Member States spoke on UNcivil society relations.128 The report of Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil Society Relations (the Cardoso Report) and the Secretary-General’s report in response to the Panel’s recommendations were discussed. Although numerous Member States recognised the contribution made over the years by civil society organisations and expressed an interest in enhancing civil society participation in the UNs work, it was recommended that a cautious approach be taken in reforming current UN practices so that the UN retains its intergovernmental nature.129 During the meeting, UN Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette observed that where once global conferences were largely the realm of governments, today, staging such events would be unthinkable without the unique advocacy and mobilization of civil society. 130 As has been evidenced in earlier chapters of this thesis, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are making increasingly important contributions to global policy debates and intergovernmental deliberations in areas ranging from the environment to gender mainstreaming. Although Member States explicitly stated the United Nations would remain an intergovernmental organization where decisions are taken exclusively by its Member States, two important proposals arose from the reports. First, the United Nations must become more outward-looking, expanding its global reach and impact. 131 Second, the United Nations needed to do more to “connect the global with the local,” so that people felt that their agenda was the UNs agenda.132 Member States presented their views on the reports and recommendations. The following represents a selection of those views. Ambassador Dirk Jan van den Berg of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, emphasized that the UN had to adapt to changing conditions by undertaking reform to make the Organisation stronger.133 He stated the European Union favored innovative forms of interaction with civil society, including hearings before major policy-setting events.134 He suggested looking into the possibility of allowing NGOs to take part in certain Assembly debates.135 Ambassador John Dauth of Australia, “United Nations General Assembly Debate” UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service website at http://www.unngls.org/orf/UNreform.htm. 129 Ibid. 130 Ibid. 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. 128 201 speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said enhancing participation of NGOs would ensure better outreach and better implementation of the Organization’s initiatives on the ground, including humanitarian assistance and peace and security activities. development 136 efforts, Ambassador Ronaldo Sardenberg of Brazil, said the Rio Group would participate in discussions on UNcivil society relations as long as the focus was upon promoting integration of civil society in a way that strengthened the work of the Organization. 137 Ambassador Peter Maurer of Switzerland stressed relations with civil society should not be restricted by bureaucratic and centralizing approaches.138 He also stated that room for maneuver of specialized organizations, funds and programmes should be preserved, while maintaining positive existing practices.139 Ambassador Dumisani S. Kumalo of South Africa said his country placed a very high premium on the contribution that civil society could and had made in analyzing, evaluating and shaping debates at the UN. 140 Accordingly, he argued it was important for the Organization to enhance its cooperation with civil society in order for Member States to draw on the best and most up-to-date information on which to base their discussion.141 Ambassador Zhang Yishan of China recognized the importance of considering the participation of civil society in the work of the United Nations along with other reform issues. He recommended that Member States should look back at the contributions such groups had made to the United Nations over the past 60 years to map out the way forward.142 Although Ambassador Sichan Siv of the United States recognized that NGOs provided valuable input to the work of the United Nations, he did not believe that a compelling argument had been made to broaden the relationship beyond the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).143 ECOSOC, he said, continued to be the appropriate venue for meaningful NGO participation, and NGOs had ample opportunities to participate in ECOSOC and United Nations conferences. 144 Ambassador Anand Sharma of India asserted that a convincing case had not been made for opening the regular work of the Assembly to increased participation by accredited NGOs, and that the nature of the participation and the benefits to be derived from that were not apparent.145 He also stated that NGOs were unable to satisfy the intergovernmental principle 136 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid. 137 138 202 and the principle of democratic representation so important to the General Assembly because they were not, in the strict meaning of the term, elected.146 Article 71 of the Charter determined that the principal relationship between the United Nations and civil society would be through the Economic and Social Council, and India would be hesitant to tamper with the Charter.147 Ambassador Danesh-Yazdi of Iran echoed India’s concerns.148 The views of Member States make clear statements regarding the intergovernmental nature of the UN. However, they also make clear statements regarding the hugely beneficial nature of civil society at the UN. Rapidly increasing knowledge of the harm climate change is causing to the planet combined with the ineffective responses of intergovernmental agencies is leading to more radical reform options such as the one this thesis proposes. 7.5. Conclusion This chapter has sought to illustrate how a religious organisation might be established at the UN level in order to improve the effective implementation of international environmental agreements. It also illustrated the obstacles which make establishment difficult, particularly the obstinacy of Member States to retain the UNs intergovernmental nature. The creativity, flexibility, and capacity for vision and long-term thinking often sets religious organisations apart from governmental bodies. A revitalized and more ethically-based global environmental governance regime would thus benefit from greater participation of religious NGOs (and other members of civil society) in global policy processes. Although only limited progress has been made in this regard to date, it is hoped that with an ever increasing role played by religious organisations in environmental concerns, along with an increase of public participation in diverse forums, pressure may be exerted to reflect such interests institutionally. The latest UN Climate Conference in Warsaw, in 2013, has illustrated the omnipresent wavering stance of governments and international institutions to reach global consensus on environmental issues. The United Nations must forge new alliances with civil society if just solutions to global concerns are to be reached. 146 Ibid. Ibid. 148 Ibid. 147 203 204 Thesis Summary 8.1. Introduction To conclude my dissertation I will briefly discuss the contributions my research makes to scholarship concerning the engagement of religion and its interface between ethics, policy and law within the climate change arena. I will recap my research objectives and the argument developed throughout the thesis along with the research outcomes. I will then consider recommendations for further research before concluding the dissertation. 8.2. Contribution of my research The primary objective of this thesis was to consider how religious voice could improve the quality of decision-making within the climate change regime and how this could be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms. I began my research with the assumption that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to solve global climate change problems without employing an ethical dimension to work alongside the economic, technological, and scientific components. Although the importance of an ethical dimension to climate change governance has drawn extensive attention from academia and policymakers in recent years, scholars have struggled to locate a tangible reform option that deals adequately with ethics. I have posited that religion could improve the quality of decision-making through the development of a religious organisation within the United Nations system ultimately responsible for employing ethical guidelines in policymaking. First, I highlighted the importance of religion for the climate change arena as a source of political morality, a topic that has been largely neglected by mainstream environmental law scholarship. Although Posas discussed the importance of religion to climate change in her award-winning essay “Roles of Religion and Ethics in Addressing Climate Change,” she did not go so far as discussing particular roles for religious organisations within the international arena. 1 Second, I examined secularisation theories which suggest that religion does not belong in the public sphere. Daniel Philpott and Jeffrey Hadden wrote extensively on secularisation theories and the concepts of the secular, concluding that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere as predicted. 2 Fox states, ironically, the Paula J Posas “Roles of Religion and Ethics in Addressing Climate Change” ESEP 2007: 31-49. Daniel Philpott “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 185; Jeffrey K Hadden “Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory” (1987b) Social Forces, 65(3) 597. 1 2 205 reassessment of the role of religion in society has resulted in an argument that is nearly exactly opposite to the argument made by modernisation and secularisation theory: modernisation, rather than causing religion’s demise, is responsible for its resurgence.3 Third, I suggested ways in which religious voice could be implemented within the international arena, either under the umbrella of the UNFCCC, or alternatively, as a United Nations organisation. By illustrating the potential role of religion within the international regime, this study provides a new lens through which we can understand and improve upon the climate change regime. 8.3. Research objectives and research outcomes In section 1.3 I presented the following research objectives, to determine: The importance of religion for combating climate change; How religious voice could improve the quality of decision-making within the climate change regime and how this could be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms. Drawing from my research findings I explain the outcomes of my research in light of each of these objectives. I commence with the secondary research question, as the response to this question is a precursor to the primary research question. How is religion important for combating climate change? Systematic neglect of a religious contribution has blinded policymakers to the importance of religious voice in the international arena. The reasons for neglect are generally attributed to a strong secular bias that has prevailed in leading academic institutions. It has been widely assumed that, first, religion belongs in the private sphere, and second, that with the modernisation of societies, religion as a major factor in global politics has diminished in importance. My thesis has argued that the presumptions are erroneous. It has challenged those dominant theories by positing that religion has not disappeared from the public sphere. It has instead become increasingly visible, particularly in the environmental field, and contains a veritable wealth of knowledge. In order to ascertain the importance of religion for combating climate change, it was imperative to initially assess the differing perspectives of the world’s religions on the issue. Research revealed that the world’s major religions are proactive in climate change initiatives (to differing degrees both within and between faith groups) and these initiatives are progressively increasing in volume. Perhaps this increase 3 Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004) 11-12. 206 in volume could be understood as a natural progression of religions toward a more enlightened position. Watling and Tucker and Grim have written extensively on this subject and consider this to be currently occurring. With an understanding that religions are focused on facilitating successful outcomes, the next question focused on religion’s importance for combating climate change. Reasoning lies in such matters as the sheer number of adherents, unity of purpose amongst religions, sustainability practices that are undertaken by religious groups, notions of justice, reverence for nature and the high moral authority held by religious leaders. Possessing such a large global membership, religion has the potential to create a considerable impact in the global effort to curb climate change. 4 Gary Gardner states that degrees of adherence among the billions of religious people vary greatly, as does the readiness of adherents to translate their faith into political action or lifestyle choices. 5 And many believers within the same religion, he says, may interpret their faith in conflicting ways, leading them to act at cross-purposes.6 Even so, the sheer numbers are so large that mobilising even a fraction of adherents to the cause of building a just and environmentally healthy society could advance the sustainability agenda dramatically. It is this common purpose which helps to explain how religions from widely different global regions and with widely divergent beliefs and theologies can work together on climate justice. Christopher Weeramantry has stated, “Whereas organised religions once tended to shut out perspectives of the wisdom of other religions, today’s multicultural world has opened up a dialogue between the religions whereby they reach out to each other to discuss the core values they teach in common.”7 Over the past several decades, engagement on environmental sustainability matters by religions and spiritual traditions has grown. Many religions are becoming increasingly aware of their potential for environmental good, and many are taking action to introduce sustainable practices. The notion of justice is of most importance for religious action for the environment. Climate justice implies just and fair instruments, decisions, actions, sharing of the burden and accountability in order to prevent, mitigate and adapt to 4 Although data are estimates, roughly 85 per cent of people on the planet belong to one of 10,000 or so religions, and 150 or so of these faith traditions have at least a million followers each. Adherents of the three largest traditions – Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism – account for about two-thirds of the global population today. Another 20 per cent of the world’s people subscribe to the remaining religions, and about 16 per cent are non-religious. This information is based on the following: Adherents, www.adherents.com/Religions_by_Adherents.html; population data from US Census Bureau, International Data Base, www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html. 5 Gary Gardner Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006) 49. 6 Ibid. 7 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009) 11. 207 climate change. The notion of justice from within a religious perspective derives from a sense of responsibility to care for Creation. And for some religious groups, justice is at the heart of their environmental concerns. As has been evidenced throughout the thesis, religious leaders have begun to play key leadership roles on the environmental stage. Roger Gottlieb has suggested that it is one of the great accomplishments of the world’s religious leaders that ecological responsibility has become a key topic of discussion.8 For example, in a statement in 1997, Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch stated:9 To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin ... to cause species to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation ... to degrade the integrity of the Earth by causing changes in its climate, stripping the Earth of its natural forests, or destroying its wetlands ... to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life with poisonous substances – these are sins. The fact that Bartholomew’s powerful theological language directly contradicts any presupposition that the environmental crisis is merely a technical problem or a flawed policy is important. His assertion that environmental degradation is a sin puts human relation to nature in the category of religious morality and, as such, is a direct expansion of both religion and environmental concern.10 Can religious voice improve the quality of decision-making within the climate change regime and if so, how can this be achieved in practical (legal, institutional) terms? This question stood as the primary research objective of my thesis. As previously discussed, ethical considerations are imperative to configuring a climate change response strategy that will prevent a catastrophic outcome. I thus proposed that religion has the potential to fill the ethical and/or moral gap in policy formation by utilising its moral attributes and shared environmental values. Religion has the capacity to greatly strengthen the basic principles of international law by providing a universal appeal and a vast range of reinforcing concepts and arguments. Based on this conjecture, religion could improve the quality of climate change decisionmaking by developing into an ethical “voice” for policy discourse. Undeniably, this does not come without its own set of challenges. For instance, many would decry religion as an ‘ethical’ body that could decide the nature of ethical issues and how Roger S Gottlieb “Religion and the Environment” in John Hinnells (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion 2nd ed (Routledge, London, 2010) pp 492-508. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid 497. 8 208 to resolve them. Ethical issues in any debate, whether individual or collective in essence, are hugely subjective and any discussion on how to establish ethical guidelines will remain a contentious topic. Nevertheless, an ethical dimension requires deliberation, and religion, with its billions of adherents, is worthy of consideration. After reflection on the capacity of religion to improve the quality of climate change decision-making, I proposed several options for the establishment of a religious body within the international arena. Creation of a religious body would offer an ethical voice whereby the United Nations could be guided by universal spiritual and moral principles in addition to state interests. The organisation could become a critical agent of change within the international regime, both in terms of philosophy and practical framework. The first option placed the organisation within the current UNFCCC framework, set up as a separate body parallel to the IPCC, with a Secretariat administered through the COP. Climate change issues would accordingly remain the organisation’s central focus. The second option placed a religious organisation directly within the United Nations system either as a traditional NGO, affiliated with the ECOSOC, or as a subsidiary organ via the General Assembly or the Security Council. Undoubtedly, these recommendations will evoke many critics, particularly those scholars and policymakers who believe that religion has no place in the public sphere and that the UN should retain its status as an intergovernmental organisation. Nevertheless, climate change has become a very serious issue with extremely serious consequences and ethical considerations must constitute an equal part of the solution-making process. Religion, with an immense wealth of environmental wisdom and a willingness to unite for global environmental concerns, has the capacity to bring these ethical considerations prominently into the international arena. 8.4. Recommendations for future research Several recommendations for future investigation arise from my research. First, I suggest a feasibility study that would examine the possibility of religious and civil society environmental organisations working together as a unified organisation with the aim of providing an ethical/moral perspective for global concerns. Interactions between religious groups globally have increased in recent years, with numerous international meetings, national networks of interreligious activism, religiously sponsored environmental advocacy and education programs, collaborations between religious and environmental groups, and grassroots religious and 209 environmental advocacy flourishing. The increased activity and commitment represented by the initiatives suggests that environmentalism is not just a passing interest for religious groups and unified action is a possibility. Second, I suggest further research encompassing the views of UN Member States regarding the possibility of increased involvement by civil society actors (including religious organisations) for climate change governance. An ethical perspective is urgently required but presently largely neglected. 8.5. Conclusion At the commencement of this thesis I positioned climate change as a complex issue which presents as not only potentially the greatest challenge to humankind but the greatest ethical challenge. At the core of climate change concerns are deeply ethical considerations such as fairness, justice, and equity, all of which I have touched on in this thesis. The current international environmental regime is failing to provide effective solutions to ongoing and worsening global environmental issues (as summarised in chapter 2). The latest climate talks indicate that nation states are still unable to make the shift away from self-interested options, characterized internationally by competitive and conflictual expressions of power among sovereign states. These notable shortcomings argue strongly for a transformation of the international environmental regime where a more unified vision of the needs of the world and of governance for mutual benefit is urgently required. This thesis has argued that ethics must be at the heart of any new framework (chapter 3). It has also suggested that religion has the capacity to carry ethical values more prominently into the international climate change system (chapter 4). Secularisation theory and the assumption held by many that religion does not belong in the public sphere is slowly dissipating, paving the way for active collaboration and cooperation between secular and religious institutions (chapter 5). On the strength of these findings, the thesis proposed there is a place within the UN system for religion to reside and suggested machinery by which to achieve collaborative status in future climate change policymaking and law (chapters 6 and 7). A religious organisation at the UN could ultimately become the leading moral authority in all matters concerning the ethical implications of climate change. Although achieving the objectives of this proposal may not yet appear viable, continued dialogue and research in this area will assist in its development. 210 The final word should accordingly be left to Christopher Weeramantry who has so aptly stated:11 “It matters not whether we are atheists or believers in God. It matters little whether we are followers of this religion or that. What is important is that despite this cornucopia of wisdom being available to us; it is lying unrecognized and unused. Let us delve into its richness and strengthen from its resources the basic principles which are needed for protection of the environment and of future generations.” 11 C G Weeramantry Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009)17. 211 212 APPENDICES 213 214 APPENDIX A: The Evangelical Climate Initiative Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action1 PREAMBLE As American evangelical Christian leaders, we recognize both our opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.2 Whether we will enter the public square and offer our witness there is no longer an open question. We are in that square, and we will not withdraw. We are proud of the evangelical community’s long-standing commitment to the sanctity of human life. But we also offer moral witness in many venues and on many issues. Sometimes the issues that we have taken on, such as sex trafficking, genocide in the Sudan, and the AIDS epidemic in Africa, have surprised outside observers. While individuals and organisations can be called to concentrate on certain issues, we are not a single-issue movement. We seek to be true to our calling as Christian leaders, and above all faithful to Jesus Christ our Lord. Our attention, therefore, goes to whatever issues our faith requires us to address. Over the last several years many of us have engaged in study, reflection, and prayer related to the issue of climate change (often called “global warming”). For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority. Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough to offer the following moral argument related to the matter of human-induced climate change. We commend the four simple but urgent claims offered in this document to all who will listen, beginning with our brothers and sisters in the Christian community, and urge all to take the appropriate actions that follow from them. Claim 1: Human-Induced Climate Change is Real Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Evidence gathered since 1995 has only strengthened this conclusion. Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data. As evangelicals we have hesitated to speak on this issue until we could be more certain of the science of climate change, but the signatories now believe that the evidence demands action: • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative body of scientists and policy experts on the issue of global warming, has been studying this issue since the late 1980s.(From 1988-2002 the IPCC’s assessment of the climate science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian.) It has documented the steady rise in global temperatures over the last fifty years, projects that 1 The Evangelical Climate Initiative at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/. Cf. “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” approved by National Association of Evangelicals, October 8, 2004 2 215 the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes “most of the warming” to human activities. • The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, as well as all other G8 country scientific Academies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia), has concurred with these judgments. • In a 2004 report, and at the 2005 G8 summit, the Bush Administration has also acknowledged the reality of climate change and the likelihood that human activity is the cause of at least some of it.3 In the face of the breadth and depth of this scientific and governmental concern, only a small percentage of which is noted here, we are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity’s responsibility to address it. Claim 2: The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest The earth’s natural systems are resilient but not infinitely so, and human civilisations are remarkably dependent on ecological stability and well-being. It is easy to forget this until that stability and well-being are threatened. Even small rises in global temperatures will have such likely impacts as: sea level rise; more frequent heat waves, droughts, and extreme weather events such as torrential rains and floods; increased tropical diseases in now-temperate regions; and hurricanes that are more intense. It could lead to significant reduction in agricultural output, especially in poor countries. Low-lying regions, indeed entire islands, could find themselves under water. (This is not to mention the various negative impacts climate change could have on God’s other creatures.) Each of these impacts increases the likelihood of refugees from flooding or famine, violent conflicts, and international instability, which could lead to more security threats to our nation. Poor nations and poor individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major challenges and threats. The consequences of global warming will therefore hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected first are in the poorest regions of the world. Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors. Claim 3: Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001, Summary for Policymakers; http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm. (See also the main IPCC website, www.ipcc.ch.) For the confirmation of the IPCC’s findings from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, see, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001); http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html. For the statement by the G8 Academies (plus those of Brazil, India, and China) see Joint Science Academies Statement: Global Response to Climate Change, (June 2005): http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf. Another major international report that confirms the IPCC’s conclusions comes from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. See their Impacts of a Warming Climate, Cambridge University Press, November 2004, p.2; http://amap.no/acia/. Another important statement is from the American Geophysical Union, “Human Impacts on Climate,” December 2003, http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html. For the Bush Administration’s perspective, see Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, p.47; http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm. For the 2005 G8 statement, see http://www.number 10.gov.uk/output/Page7881.asp. 216 While we cannot here review the full range of relevant biblical convictions related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points: • Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God’s world, and any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16). • Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46). • Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28). Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action. Claim 4: The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change -- starting now. The basic task for all of the world’s inhabitants is to find ways now to begin to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels that are the primary cause of human-induced climate change. There are several reasons for urgency. First, deadly impacts are being experienced now. Second, the oceans only warm slowly, creating a lag in experiencing the consequences. Much of the climate change to which we are already committed will not be realized for several decades. The consequences of the pollution we create now will be visited upon our children and grandchildren. Third, as individuals and as a society we are making long-term decisions today that will determine how much carbon dioxide we will emit in the future, such as whether to purchase energy efficient vehicles and appliances that will last for 1020 years, or whether to build more coal-burning power plants that last for 50 years rather than investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy. In the United States, the most important immediate step that can be taken at the federal level is to pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost-effective, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade program. On June 22, 2005 the Senate passed the DomeniciBingaman resolution affirming this approach, and a number of major energy companies now acknowledge that this method is best both for the environment and for business. We commend the Senators who have taken this stand and encourage them to fulfill their pledge. We also applaud the steps taken by such companies as BP, Shell, General Electric, Cinergy, Duke Energy, and DuPont, all of which have moved ahead of the pace of government action through innovative measures implemented within their companies in the U.S. and around the world. In so doing they have offered timely leadership. Numerous positive actions to prevent and mitigate climate change are being implemented across our society by state and local governments, churches, smaller businesses, and 217 individuals. These commendable efforts focus on such matters as energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy, low CO2 emitting technologies, and the purchase of hybrid vehicles. These efforts can easily be shown to save money, save energy, reduce global warming pollution as well as air pollution that harm human health, and eventually pay for themselves. There is much more to be done, but these pioneers are already helping to show the way forward. Finally, while we must reduce our global warming pollution to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, as a society and as individuals we must also help the poor adapt to the significant harm that global warming will cause. Conclusion We the undersigned pledge to act on the basis of the claims made in this document. We will not only teach the truths communicated here but also seek ways to implement the actions that follow from them. In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, we urge all who read this declaration to join us in this effort. 218 APPENDIX B: World Scientists' Warning to Humanity World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity4 Warning issued November 18, 1992 Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The Warning was written and spearheaded by UCS Chair Henry Kendall. Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about. The Environment The environment is suffering critical stress: The Atmosphere Stratospheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level, and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests and crops. Water Resources Heedless exploitation of depletable ground water supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40% of the world's population. Pollution of rivers, lakes and ground water further limits the supply. Oceans Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the coastal regions which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste -- some of it toxic. Soil Loss of soil productivity, which is causing extensive Land abandonment, is a widespread byproduct of current practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. Since 1945, 11% of the earth's vegetated surface has been degraded -- an area larger than India and China combined -- and per capita food production in many parts of the world is decreasing. Forests Tropical rain forests, as well as tropical and temperate dry forests, are being destroyed rapidly. At present rates, some critical forest types will be gone in a few years and most of the tropical rain forest will be gone before the end of the next century. With them will go large numbers of plant and animal species. Living Species The irreversible loss of species, which by 2100 may reach one third of all species now living, is especially serious. We are losing the potential they hold for providing medicinal and other benefits, and the contribution that genetic diversity of life forms gives to the robustness of the world's biological systems and to the astonishing beauty of the earth itself. Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” at http://fore.research.yale.edu/publications/statements/union/. 4 219 deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks are very great. Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand. Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat. Population The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair. Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion; while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition. No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished. WARNING We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated. What We Must Do Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously: 1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on. We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to third world needs -- small scale and relatively easy to implement. We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species. 2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively. We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling. 3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning. 4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty. 5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions. 220 The developed nations are the largest polluters in the world today. They must greatly reduce their over-consumption, if we are to reduce pressures on resources and the global environment. The developed nations have the obligation to provide aid and support to developing nations, because only the developed nations have the financial resources and the technical skills for these tasks. Acting on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike. Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the gravest threats they face, and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse. Success in this global endeavour will require a great reduction in violence and war. Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war -- amounting to over $1 trillion annually -- will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted to the new challenges. A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement; convince reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes. The scientists issuing this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many. We require the help of the world community of scientists -- natural, social, economic, political; We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders; We require the help of the world’s religious leaders; and We require the help of the world's peoples. We call on all to join us in this task. 221 APPENDIX C: Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration 5 Parliament of the World’s Religions 4 September 1993, Chicago, U.S.A. Introduction The text entitled ‘Introduction’ was produced by an Editorial Committee of the ‘Council’ of the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago on the basis of the Declaration itself composed in Tubingen (here headed ‘Principles’). It was meant to serve as a brief summary of the Declaration for publicity purposes. The world is in agony. The agony is so pervasive and urgent that we are compelled to name its manifestations so that the depth of this pain may be made clear. Peace eludes us ... the planet is being destroyed ... neighbors live in fear ... women and men are estranged from each other ... children die! This is abhorrent! We condemn the abuses of Earth's ecosystems. We condemn the poverty that stifles life's potential; the hunger that weakens the human body; the economic disparities that threaten so many families with ruin. We condemn the social disarray of the nations; the disregard for justice which pushes citizens to the margin; the anarchy overtaking our communities; and the insane death of children from violence. In particular we condemn aggression and hatred in the name of religion. But this agony need not be. It need not be because the basis for an ethic already exists. This ethic offers the possibility of a better individual and global order, and leads individuals away from despair and societies away from chaos. We are women and men who have embraced the precepts and practices of the world's religions: 5 Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration at http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf. 222 We affirm that a common set of core values is found in the teachings of the religions, and that these form the basis of a global ethic. We affirm that this truth is already known, but yet to be lived in heart and action. We affirm that there is an irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations, and religions. There already exist ancient guidelines for human behavior which are found in the teachings of the religions of the world and which are the condition for a sustainable world order. We Declare: We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we have respect for the community of living beings, for people, animals, and plants, and for the preservation of Earth, the air, water and soil. We take individual responsibility for all we do. All our decisions, actions, and failures to act have consequences. We must treat others as we wish others to treat us. We make a commitment to respect life and dignity, individuality and diversity, so that every person is treated humanely, without exception. We must have patience and acceptance. We must be able to forgive, learning from the past but never allowing ourselves to be enslaved by memories of hate. Opening our hearts to one another, we must sink our narrow differences for the cause of the world community, practicing a culture of solidarity and relatedness. We consider humankind our family. We must strive to be kind and generous. We must not live for ourselves alone, but should also serve others, never forgetting the children, the aged, the poor, the suffering, the disabled, the refugees, and the lonely. No person should ever be considered or treated as a second-class citizen, or be exploited in any way whatsoever. There should be equal partnership between men and women. We must not commit any kind of sexual immorality. We must put behind us all forms of domination or abuse. We commit ourselves to a culture of non-violence, respect, justice, and peace. We shall not oppress, injure, torture, or kill other human beings, forsaking violence as a means of settling differences. We must strive for a just social and economic order, in which everyone has an equal chance to reach full potential as a human being. We must speak and act truthfully and with compassion, dealing fairly with all, and avoiding prejudice and hatred. We must not steal. We must move beyond the dominance of greed for power, prestige, money, and consumption to make a just and peaceful world. Earth cannot be changed for the better unless the consciousness of individuals is changed first. We pledge to increase our awareness by disciplining our minds, by meditation, by prayer, or by positive thinking. Without risk and a readiness to sacrifice there can be no fundamental change in our situation. Therefore we commit ourselves to this global ethic, to understanding one another, and to socially beneficial, peace-fostering, and nature-friendly ways of life. We invite all people, whether religious or not, to do the same. 223 THE PRINCIPLES OF A GLOBAL ETHIC Our world is experiencing a fundamental crisis: a crisis in global economy, global ecology, and global politics. The lack of a grand vision, the tangle of unresolved problems, political paralysis, mediocre political leadership with little insight or foresight, and in general too little sense for the commonweal are seen everywhere: too many old answers to new challenges. Hundreds of millions of human beings on our planet increasingly suffer from unemployment, poverty, hunger, and the destruction of their families. Hope for a lasting peace among nations slips away from us. There are tensions between the sexes and generations. Children die, kill, and are killed. More and more countries are shaken by corruption in politics and business. It is increasingly difficult to live together peacefully in our cities because of social, racial, and ethnic conflicts, the abuse of drugs, organized crime, and even anarchy. Even neighbors often live in fear of one another. Our planet continues to be ruthlessly plundered. A collapse of the ecosystem threatens us. Time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression, fanaticism, hate, and xenophobia -- even inspire and legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for purely power-political goals, including war. We are filled with disgust. We condemn these blights and declare that they need not be. An ethic already exists within the religious teachings of the world which can counter the global distress. Of course this ethic provides no direct solution for all the immense problems of the world, but it does supply the moral foundation for a better individual and global order: a vision which can lead women and men away from despair and society away from chaos. We are persons who have committed ourselves to the precepts and practices of the world's religions. We confirm that there is already a consensus among the religions which can be the basis for a global ethic -- a minimal "fundamental consensus" concerning binding "values," irrevocable "standards," and fundamental" moral attitudes." I. No new global order without a new global ethic! We women and men of various religions and regions of Earth therefore address all people, religious and non-religious. We wish to express the following convictions which we hold in common: * We all have a responsibility for a better global order. * Our involvement for the sake of human rights, freedom, justice, peace, and the preservation of Earth is absolutely necessary. * Our different religious and cultural traditions must not prevent our common involvement in opposing all forms of inhumanity and working for greater humaneness. * The principles expressed in this global ethic can be affirmed by all persons with ethical convictions, whether religiously grounded or not. * As religious and spiritual persons we base our lives on an Ultimate Reality, and draw spiritual power and hope therefrom, in trust, in prayer or meditation, in word or silence. We have a special responsibility for the welfare of all humanity and care for the planet Earth. We do not consider ourselves better than other women and men, but we trust that the ancient wisdom of our religions can point the way for the future. 224 After two world wars and the end of the cold war, the collapse of fascism and nazism, the shaking to the foundations of communism and colonialism, humanity has entered a new phase of its history. Today we possess sufficient economic, cultural, and spiritual resources to introduce a better global order. But old and new ethnic, national, social, economic, and religious tensions threaten the peaceful building of a better world. We have experienced greater technological progress than ever before, yet we see that worldwide poverty, hunger, death of children, unemployment, misery, and the destruction of nature have not diminished but rather have increased. Many peoples are threatened with economic ruin, social disarray, political marginalisation, ecological catastrophe, and national collapse. In such a dramatic global situation humanity needs a vision of peoples living peacefully together, of ethnic and ethical groupings and of religions sharing responsibility for the care of Earth. A vision rests on hopes, goals, ideals, standards. But all over the world these have slipped from our hands. Yet we are convinced that, despite their frequent abuses and failures, it is the communities of faith who bear a responsibility to demonstrate that such hopes, ideals, and standards can be guarded, grounded, and lived. This is especially true in the modern state. Guarantees of freedom of conscience and religion are necessary but they do not substitute for binding values, convictions, and norms which are valid for all humans regardless of their social origin, sex, skin color, language, or religion. We are convinced of the fundamental unity of the human family on Earth. We recall the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. What it formally proclaimed on the level of rights we wish to confirm and deepen here from the perspective of an ethic: the full realisation of the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the inalienable freedom and equality in principle of all humans, and the necessary solidarity and interdependence of all humans with each other. On the basis of personal experiences and the burdensome history of our planet we have learned * that a better global order cannot be created or enforced by laws, prescriptions, and conventions alone; * that the realisation of peace, justice, and the protection of Earth depends on the insight and readiness of men and women to act justly; * that action in favor of rights and freedoms presumes a consciousness of responsibility and duty, and that therefore both the minds and hearts of women and men must be addressed; * that rights without morality cannot long endure, and that "there will be no better global order without a global ethic." By a global ethic we do not mean a global ideology or a single unified religion beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others. By a global ethic we mean a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes. Without such a fundamental consensus on an ethic, sooner or later every community will be threatened by chaos or dictatorship, and individuals will despair. II. A fundamental demand: every human being must be treated humanely. We all are fallible, imperfect men and women with limitations and defects. We know the reality of evil. Precisely because of this, we feel compelled for the sake of global welfare to express what the fundamental elements of a global ethic should be – for individuals as well as for communities and organisations, 225 for states as well as for the religions themselves. We trust that our often millennia-old religious and ethical traditions provide an ethic which is convincing and practicable for all women and men of good will, religious and non-religious. At the same time we know that our various religious and ethical traditions often offer very different bases for what is helpful and what is unhelpful for men and women, what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. We do not wish to gloss over or ignore the serious differences among the individual religions. However, they should not hinder us from proclaiming publicly those things which we already hold in common and which we jointly affirm, each on the basis of our own religious or ethical grounds. We know that religions cannot solve the environmental, economic, political, and social problems of Earth. However they can provide what obviously cannot be attained by economic plans, political programs, or legal regulations alone: a change in the inner orientation, the whole mentality, the "hearts" of people, and a conversion from a false path to a new orientation for life. Humankind urgently needs social and ecological reforms, but it needs spiritual renewal just as urgently. As religious or spiritual persons we commit ourselves to this task. The spiritual powers of the religions can offer a fundamental sense of trust, a ground of meaning, ultimate standards, and a spiritual home. Of course religions are credible only when they eliminate those conflicts which spring from the religions themselves, dismantling mutual arrogance, mistrust, prejudice, and even hostile images, and thus demonstrating respect for the traditions, holy places, feasts, and rituals of people who believe differently. Now as before, women and men are treated inhumanely all over the world. They are robbed of their opportunities and their freedom; their human rights are trampled underfoot; their dignity is disregarded. But might does not make right! In the face of all inhumanity our religious and ethical convictions demand that "every human being must be treated humanely!" This means that every human being without distinction of age, sex, race, skin color, physical or mental ability, language, religion, political view, or national or social origin possesses an inalienable and untouchable dignity, and everyone, the individual as well as the state, is therefore obliged to honor this dignity and protect it. Humans must always be the subjects of rights, must be ends, never mere means, never objects of commercialisation and industrialisation in economics, politics and media, in research institutes, and industrial corporations. No one stands "above good and evil" -- no human being, no social class, no influential interest group, no cartel, no police apparatus, no army, and no state. On the contrary: possessed of reason and conscience, every human is obliged to behave in a genuinely human fashion, to do good and avoid evil! It is the intention of this global ethic to clarify what this means. In it we wish to recall irrevocable, unconditional ethical norms. These should not be bonds and chains, but helps and supports for people to find and realize once again their lives' direction, values, orientations, and meaning. There is a principle which is found and has persisted in many religious and ethical traditions of humankind for thousands of years: "What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others." Or in positive terms: "What you wish done to yourself, do to others!" This should be the irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations, and religions. Every form of egoism should be rejected: all selfishness, whether individual or collective, whether in the form of class thinking, racism, nationalism, or sexism. We condemn these because they prevent humans from being authentically human. Self-determination and self-realisation are thoroughly legitimate so 226 long as they are not separated from human self-responsibility and global responsibility, that is, from responsibility for fellow humans and for the planet Earth. This principle implies very concrete standards to which we humans should hold firm. From it arise four broad, ancient guidelines for human behavior which are found in most of the religions of the world. III. Irrevocable directives. 1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive to lead lives not determined by egoism but by commitment to their fellow humans and to the world around them. Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless hatred, envy, jealousy, and violence, not only between individuals but also between social and ethnic groups, between classes, races, nations, and religions. The use of violence, drug trafficking and organized crime, often equipped with new technical possibilities, has reached global proportions. Many places still are ruled by terror "from above;" dictators oppress their own people, and institutional violence is widespread. Even in some countries where laws exist to protect individual freedoms, prisoners are tortured, men and women are mutilated, hostages are killed. a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive: "You shall not kill!" Or in positive terms: "Have respect for life!" Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: All people have a right to life, safety, and the free development of personality insofar as they do not injure the rights of others. No one has the right physically or psychically to torture, injure, much less kill, any other human being. And no people, no state, no race, no religion has the right to hate, to discriminate against, to "cleanse," to exile, much less to liquidate a "foreign" minority which is different in behavior or holds different beliefs. b) Of course, wherever there are humans there will be conflicts. Such conflicts, however, should be resolved without violence within a framework of justice. This is true for states as well as for individuals. Persons who hold political power must work within the framework of a just order and commit themselves to the most nonviolent, peaceful solutions possible. And they should work for this within an international order of peace which itself has need of protection and defense against perpetrators of violence. Armament is a mistaken path; disarmament is the commandment of the times. Let no one be deceived: There is no survival for humanity without global peace! c) Young people must learn at home and in school that violence may not be a means of settling differences with others. Only thus can a culture of nonviolence be created. d) A human person is infinitely precious and must be unconditionally protected. But likewise the lives of animals and plants which inhabit this planet with us deserve protection, preservation, and care. Limitless exploitation of the natural foundations of life, ruthless destruction of the biosphere, and militarisation of the cosmos are all outrages. As human beings we have a special responsibility -- especially with a view to future generations -- for Earth and the cosmos, for the air, water, and soil. We are all intertwined together in this cosmos and we are all dependent on each other. Each one of us depends on the welfare of all. Therefore the dominance of humanity over nature and the cosmos must not be encouraged. Instead we must cultivate living in harmony with nature and the cosmos. e) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical traditions means that in public as well as in private life we must be concerned 227 for others and ready to help. We must never be ruthless and brutal. Every people, every race, every religion must show tolerance and respect – indeed high appreciation -- for every other. Minorities need protection and support, whether they be racial, ethnic, or religious. 2. Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order Numberless men and women of all regions and religions strive to live their lives in solidarity with one another and to work for authentic fulfillment of their vocations. Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless hunger, deficiency, and need. Not only individuals, but especially unjust institutions and structures are responsible for these tragedies. Millions of people are without work; millions are exploited by poor wages, forced to the edges of society, with their possibilities for the future destroyed. In many lands the gap between the poor and the rich, between the powerful and the powerless is immense. We live in a world in which totalitarian state socialism as well as unbridled capitalism have hollowed out and destroyed many ethical and spiritual values. A materialistic mentality breeds greed for unlimited profit and a grasping for endless plunder. These demands claim more and more of the community's resources without obliging the individual to contribute more. The cancerous social evil of corruption thrives in the developing countries and in the developed countries alike. a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive: "You shall not steal! " Or in positive terms: "Deal honestly and fairly! "Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: no one has the right to rob or dispossess in any way whatsoever any other person or the commonweal. Further, no one has the right to use her or his possessions without concern for the needs of society and Earth. b) Where extreme poverty reigns, helplessness and despair spread, and theft occurs again and again for the sake of survival. Where power and wealth are accumulated ruthlessly, feelings of envy, resentment, and deadly hatred and rebellion inevitably well up in the disadvantaged and marginalized. This leads to a vicious circle of violence and counter-violence. Let no one be deceived: there is no global peace without global justice! c) Young people must learn at home and in school that property, limited though it may be, carries with it an obligation, and that its uses should at the same time serve the common good. Only thus can a just economic order be built up. d) If the plight of the poorest billions of humans on this planet, particularly women and children, is to be improved, the world economy must be structured more justly. Individual good deeds, and assistance projects, indispensable though they be, are insufficient. The participation of all states and the authority of international organisations are needed to build just economic institutions. A solution which can be supported by all sides must be sought for the debt crisis and the poverty of the dissolving second world, and even more the third world. Of course conflicts of interest are unavoidable. In the developed countries, a distinction must be made between necessary and limitless consumption, between socially beneficial and non-beneficial uses of property, between justified and unjustified uses of natural resources, and between a profit-only and a socially beneficial and ecologically oriented market economy. Even the developing nations must search their national consciences. Wherever those ruling threaten to repress those ruled, wherever institutions threaten persons, and wherever might oppresses right, we are obligated to resist -- whenever possible non-violently. e) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical traditions means the following: 228 * We must utilize economic and political power for service to humanity instead of misusing it in ruthless battles for domination. We must develop a spirit of compassion with those who suffer, with special care for the children, the aged, the poor, the disabled, the refugees, and the lonely. * We must cultivate mutual respect and consideration, so as to reach a reasonable balance of interests, instead of thinking only of unlimited power and unavoidable competitive struggles. * We must value a sense of moderation and modesty instead of an unquenchable greed for money, prestige, and consumption. In greed humans lose their "souls," their freedom, their composure, their inner peace, and thus that which makes them human. 3. Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive to lead lives of honesty and truthfulness. Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless lies and deceit, swindling and hypocrisy, ideology and demagoguery: * Politicians and business people who use lies as a means to success; * Mass media which spread ideological propaganda instead of accurate reporting, misinformation instead of information, cynical commercial interest instead of loyalty to the truth; * Scientists and researchers who give themselves over to morally questionable ideological or political programs or to economic interest groups, or who justify research which violates fundamental ethical values; * Representatives of religions who dismiss other religions as of little value and who preach fanaticism and intolerance instead of respect and understanding. a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive: "You shall not lie!" Or in positive terms: "Speak and act truthfully!" Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: No woman or man, no institution, no state or church or religious community has the right to speak lies to other humans. b) This is especially true * for those who work in the mass media, to whom we entrust the freedom to report for the sake of truth and to whom we thus grant the office of guardian -they do not stand above morality but have the obligation to respect human dignity, human rights, and fundamental values; they are duty-bound to objectivity, fairness, and the preservation of human dignity; they have no right to intrude into individuals' private spheres, to manipulate public opinion, or to distort reality; * for artists, writers, and scientists, to whom we entrust artistic and academic freedom; they are not exempt from general ethical standards and must serve the truth; * for the leaders of countries, politicians, and political parties, to whom we entrust our own freedoms -- when they lie in the faces of their people, when they manipulate the truth, or when they are guilty of venality or ruthlessness in domestic or foreign affairs, they forsake their credibility and deserve to lose their offices and their voters; conversely, public opinion should support those politicians who dare to speak the truth to the people at all times; 229 * finally, for representatives of religion -- when they stir up prejudice, hatred, and enmity towards those of different belief, or even incite or legitimize religious wars, they deserve the condemnation of humankind and the loss of their adherents. Let no one be deceived: there is no global justice without truthfulness and humaneness! c) Young people must learn at home and in school to think, speak, and act truthfully. They have a right to information and education to be able to make the decisions that will form their lives. Without an ethical formation they will hardly be able to distinguish the important from the unimportant. In the daily flood of information, ethical standards will help them discern when opinions are portrayed as facts, interests veiled, tendencies exaggerated, and facts twisted. d) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical traditions means the following: * We must not confuse freedom with arbitrariness or pluralism with indifference to truth. * We must cultivate truthfulness in all our relationships instead of dishonesty, dissembling, and opportunism. * We must constantly seek truth and incorruptible sincerity instead of spreading ideological or partisan half-truths. * We must courageously serve the truth and we must remain constant and trustworthy, instead of yielding to opportunistic accommodation to life. 4. Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women Numberless men and women of all regions and religions strive to live their lives in a spirit of partnership and responsible action in the areas of love, sexuality, and family. Nevertheless, all over the world there are condemnable forms of patriarchy, domination of one sex over the other, exploitation of women, sexual misuse of children, and forced prostitution. Too frequently, social inequities force women and even children into prostitution as a means of survival, particularly in less developed countries. a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive: "You shall not commit sexual immorality!" Or in positive terms: "Respect and love one another!" Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: no one has the right to degrade others to mere sex objects, to lead them into or hold them in sexual dependency. b) We condemn sexual exploitation and sexual discrimination as one of the worst forms of human degradation. We have the duty to resist wherever the domination of one sex over the other is preached -- even in the name of religious conviction; wherever sexual exploitation is tolerated, wherever prostitution is fostered or children are misused. Let no one be deceived: There is no authentic humaneness without a living together in partnership! c) Young people must learn at home and in school that sexuality is not a negative, destructive, or exploitative force, but creative and affirmative. Sexuality as a life-affirming shaper of community can only be effective when partners accept the responsibilities of caring for one another's happiness. d) The relationship between women and men should be characterized not by patronizing behavior or exploitation, but by love, partnership, and trustworthiness. Human fulfillment is not identical with sexual pleasure. 230 Sexuality should express and reinforce a loving relationship lived by equal partners. Some religious traditions know the ideal of a voluntary renunciation of the full use of sexuality. Voluntary renunciation also can be an expression of identity and meaningful fulfillment. e) The social institution of marriage, despite all its cultural and religious variety, is characterized by love, loyalty, and permanence. It aims at and should guarantee security and mutual support to husband, wife, and child. It should secure the rights of all family members. All lands and cultures should develop economic and social relationships which will enable marriage and family life worthy of human beings, especially for older people. Children have a right of access to education. Parents should not exploit children, nor children parents. Their relationships should reflect mutual respect, appreciation, and concern. f) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical traditions means the following: * We need mutual respect, partnership, and understanding, instead of patriarchal domination and degradation, which are expressions of violence and engender counter- violence. * We need mutual concern, tolerance, readiness for reconciliation, and love, instead of any form of possessive lust or sexual misuse. Only what has already been experienced in personal and familial relationships can be practiced on the level of nations and religions. IV. A Transformation of Consciousness! Historical experience demonstrates the following: Earth cannot be changed for the better unless we achieve a transformation in the consciousness of individuals and in public life. The possibilities for transformation have already been glimpsed in areas such as war and peace, economy, and ecology, where in recent decades fundamental changes have taken place. This transformation must also be achieved in the area of ethics and values! Every individual has intrinsic dignity and inalienable rights, and each also has an inescapable responsibility for what she or he does and does not do. All our decisions and deeds, even our omissions and failures, have consequences. Keeping this sense of responsibility alive, deepening it and passing it on to future generations, is the special task of religions. We are realistic about what we have achieved in this consensus, and so we urge that the following be observed: 1. A universal consensus on many disputed ethical questions (from bio- and sexual ethics through mass media and scientific ethics to economic and political ethics) will be difficult to attain. Nevertheless, even for many controversial questions, suitable solutions should be attainable in the spirit of the fundamental principles we have jointly developed here. 2. In many areas of life a new consciousness of ethical responsibility has already arisen. Therefore we would be pleased if as many professions as possible, such as those of physicians, scientists, business people, journalists, and politicians, would develop up-to-date codes of ethics which would provide specific guidelines for the vexing questions of these particular professions. 231 3. Above all, we urge the various communities of faith to formulate their very specific ethics: what does each faith tradition have to say, for example, about the meaning of life and death, the enduring of suffering and the forgiveness of guilt, about selfless sacrifice and the necessity of renunciation, about compassion and joy? These will deepen, and make more specific, the already discernible global ethic. In conclusion, we appeal to all the inhabitants of this planet. Earth cannot be changed for the better unless the consciousness of individuals is changed. We pledge to work for such transformation in individual and collective consciousness, for the awakening of our spiritual powers through reflection, meditation, prayer, or positive thinking, for a conversion of the heart. Together we can move mountains! Without a willingness to take risks and a readiness to sacrifice there can be no fundamental change in our situation! Therefore we commit ourselves to a common global ethic, to better mutual understanding, as well as to socially beneficial, peace-fostering, and Earth-friendly ways of life. We invite all men and women, whether religious or not, to do the same. NOTE: This interfaith declaration is the result of a two-year consultation among approximately two hundred scholars and theologians from many of the world's communities of faith. On September 2-4, 1993, the document was discussed by an assembly of religious and spiritual leaders meeting as part of the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago. Respected leaders from all the world's major faiths signed the "Declaration", agreeing that it represents an initial effort -- a point of beginning for a world sorely in need of ethical consensus. The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions and those who have endorsed this text offer it to the world as an initial statement of the rules for living on which the world's religions can agree. 232 APPENDIX D: World Charter for Nature World Charter for Nature1 United Nations A/RES/37/7 General Assembly Distr. GENERAL 28 October 1982 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH A/RES/37/7 48th plenary meeting 28 October 1982 37/7. World Charter for Nature The General Assembly, Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the revised draft World Charter for Nature, Recalling that, in its resolution 35/7 of 30 October 1980, it expressed its conviction that the benefits which could be obtained from nature depended on the maintenance of natural processes and on the diversity of life forms and that those benefits were jeopardized by the excessive exploitation and the destruction of natural habitats, Further recalling that, in the same resolution, it recognized the need for appropriate measures at the national and international levels to protect nature and promote international co-operation in that field, Recalling that, in its resolution 36/6 of 27 October 1981, it again expressed its awareness of the crucial importance 1 United Nations website “World Charter for Nature” at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm. 233 attached by the international community to the promotion and development of co-operation aimed at protecting and safeguarding the balance and quality of nature and invited the Secretary-General to transmit to Member States the text of the revised version of the draft World Charter for Nature contained in the report of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the draft World Charter for Nature, as well as any further observations by States, with a view to appropriate consideration by the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session, Conscious of the spirit and terms of its resolutions 35/7 and 36/6, in which it solemnly invited Member States, in the exercise of their permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, to conduct their activities in recognition of the supreme importance of protecting natural systems, maintaining the balance and quality of nature and conserving natural resources, in the interests of present and future generations, Having considered the supplementary report of the Secretary-General, Expressing its gratitude to the Ad Hoc Group of Experts which, through its work, has assembled the necessary elements for the General Assembly to be able to complete the consideration of and adopt the revised draft World Charter for Nature at its thirty-seventh session, as it had previously recommended, Adopts and solemnly proclaims the World Charter for Nature contained in the annex to the present resolution. ANNEX World Charter for Nature The General Assembly, Reaffirming the fundamental purposes of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations among nations and the achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, technical, intellectual or humanitarian character, Aware that: (a) Mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which ensure the supply of energy and nutrients, (b) Civilization is rooted in nature, which has shaped human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific achievement, and living in harmony with nature gives man the best opportunities for the development of his creativity, and for rest and recreation, 234 Convinced that: (a) Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action, (b) Man his action or recognize the of nature and can alter nature and exhaust natural resources by its consequences and, therefore, must fully urgency of maintaining the stability and quality of conserving natural resources, Persuaded that: (a) Lasting benefits from nature depend upon the maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems, and upon the diversity of life forms, which are jeopardized through excessive exploitation and habitat destruction by man, (b) The degradation of natural systems owing to excessive consumption and misuse of natural resources, as well as to failure to establish an appropriate economic order among peoples and among States, leads to the breakdown of the economic, social and political framework of civilization, (c) Competition for scarce resources creates conflicts, whereas the conservation of nature and natural resources contributes to justice and the maintenance of peace and cannot be achieved until mankind learns to live in peace and to forsake war and armaments, Reaffirming that man must acquire the knowledge to maintain and enhance his ability to use natural resources in a manner which ensures the preservation of the species and ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations, Firmly convinced of the need for appropriate measures, at the national and international, individual and collective, and private and public levels, to protect nature and promote international co-operation in this field, Adopts, to these ends, the present World Charter for Nature, which proclaims the following principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged. I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired. 2. The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the population levels of all life forms, wild and 235 domesticated, must be at least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded. 3. All areas of the earth, both land and sea, shall be subject to these principles of conservation; special protection shall be given to unique areas, to representative samples of all the different types of ecosystems and to the habitats of rare or endangered species. 4. Ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine and atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the integrity of those other ecosystems or species with which they coexist. 5. Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities. II. FUNCTIONS 6. In the decision-making process it shall be recognized that man's needs can be met only by ensuring the proper functioning of natural systems and by respecting the principles set forth in the present Charter. 7. In the planning and implementation of social and economic development activities, due account shall be taken of the fact that the conservation of nature is an integral part of those activities. 8. In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population growth and the improvement of standards of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term capacity of natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of the populations concerned, recognizing that this capacity may be enhanced through science and technology. 9. The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses shall be planned, and due account shall be taken of the physical constraints, the biological productivity and diversity and the natural beauty of the areas concerned. 10. Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with a restraint appropriate to the principles set forth in the present Charter, in accordance with the following rules: (a) Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration; (b) The productivity of soils shall be maintained or enhanced through measures which safeguard their long-term fertility and the process of organic decomposition, and prevent erosion and all other forms of degradation; 236 (c) Resources, including water, which are not consumed as they are used shall be reused or recycled; (d) Non-renewable resources which are consumed as they are used shall be exploited with restraint, taking into account their abundance, the rational possibilities of converting them for consumption, and the compatibility of their exploitation with the functioning of natural systems. 11. Activities which might have an impact on nature shall be controlled, and the best available technologies that minimize significant risks to nature or other adverse effects shall be used; in particular: (a) Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided; (b) Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed; (c) Activities which may disturb nature shall be preceded by assessment of their consequences, and environmental impact studies of development projects shall be conducted sufficiently in advance, and if they are to be undertaken, such activities shall be planned and carried out so as to minimize potential adverse effects; (d) Agriculture, grazing, forestry and fisheries practices shall be adapted to the natural characteristics and constraints of given areas; (e) Areas degraded by human activities shall be rehabilitated for purposes in accord with their natural potential and compatible with the well-being of affected populations. 12. Discharge of pollutants into natural systems shall be avoided and: (a) Where this is not feasible, such pollutants shall be treated at the source, using the best practicable means available; (b) Special precautions shall be taken to prevent discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes. 13. Measures intended to prevent, control or limit natural disasters, infestations and diseases shall be specifically directed to the causes of these scourges and shall avoid adverse side-effects on nature. 237 III. IMPLEMENTATION 14. The principles set forth in the present Charter shall be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as at the international level. 15. Knowledge of nature shall be broadly disseminated by all possible means, particularly by ecological education as an integral part of general education. 16. All planning shall include, among its essential elements, the formulation of strategies for the conservation of nature, the establishment of inventories of ecosystems and assessments of the effects on nature of proposed policies and activities; all of these elements shall be disclosed to the public by appropriate means in time to permit effective consultation and participation. 17. Funds, programmes and administrative structures necessary to achieve the objective of the conservation of nature shall be provided. 18. Constant efforts shall be made to increase knowledge of nature by scientific research and to disseminate such knowledge unimpeded by restrictions of any kind. 19. The status of natural processes, ecosystems and species shall be closely monitored to enable early detection of degradation or threat, ensure timely intervention and facilitate the evaluation of conservation policies and methods. 20. avoided. Military activities damaging to nature shall be 21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall: (a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations; (b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects; (c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment; (d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction; 238 (e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction. 22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States. 23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met. 239 APPENDIX E: The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders THE MILLENNIUM WORLD PEACE SUMMIT OF RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL LEADERS 2 Commitment to Global Peace Humanity stands at a critical juncture in history, one that calls for strong moral and spiritual leadership to help set a new direction for society. We, as religious and spiritual leaders, recognize our special responsibility for the well-being of the human family and peace on earth. Whereas the United Nations and the religions of the world have a common concern for human dignity, justice and peace; Whereas we accept that men and women are equal partners in all aspects of life and children are the hope of the future; Whereas religions have contributed to the peace of the world but have also been used to create division and fuel hostilities; Whereas our world is plagued by violence, war and destruction, which are sometimes perpetrated in the name of religion; Whereas armed conflict is a dire tragedy for the human lives ruined and lost, for the larger living world, and for the future of our religious and spiritual traditions; Whereas no individual, group or nation can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world, but rather all must realize that our every action has an impact on others and the emerging global community; Whereas in an interdependent world peace requires agreement on fundamental ethical values; Whereas there can be no real peace until all groups and communities acknowledge the cultural and religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding; Whereas building peace requires an attitude of reverence for life, freedom and justice, the eradication of poverty, and the protection of the environment for present and future generations; Whereas a true culture of peace must be founded upon the cultivation of the inner dimension of peace, which is the heritage of the religious and spiritual traditions; Whereas religious and spiritual traditions are a core source of the realization of a better life for the human family and all life on Earth. In light of the above, and with a view to discharging our duty to the human family, we declare our commitment and determination: 1. To collaborate with the United Nations and all men and women of goodwill locally, regionally and globally in the pursuit of peace in all its dimensions;; 2. To lead humanity by word and deed in a renewed commitment to ethical and spiritual values, which include a deep sense of respect for all life and for each person's inherent dignity and right to live in a world free of violence 3. To manage and resolve nonviolently the conflicts generated by religious and ethnic differences, and to condemn all violence committed in the name of religion while seeking to remove the roots of the violence; 4. To appeal to all religious communities and ethnic and national groups to respect the right to freedom of religion, to seek reconciliation, and to engage in mutual forgiveness and healing; 5. To awaken in all individuals and communities a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family as a whole and a recognition that all human beings regardless of religion, race, gender and ethnic origin have the right to education, health care, and an opportunity to achieve a secure and sustainable livelihood; 6. To promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations, eradicating poverty and reversing the current trend toward a widening gap between rich and poor; 7. To educate our communities about the urgent need to care for the earth's ecological systems and all forms of life and to support efforts to make environmental protection and restoration integral to all development planning and activity; 8. To develop and promote a global reforestation campaign as a concrete and practical means for environmental restoration, calling upon others to join us in regional tree planting programs; 9. To join with the United Nations in the call for all nation states to work for the universal abolition of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction for the safety and security of life on this planet; 10. To combat those commercial practices and applications of technology that degrade the environment and the World Council of Churches website “The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders” at http://wcccoe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd36-12.html. 2 240 quality of human life; 11. To practice and promote in our communities the values of the inner dimension of peace, including especially study, prayer, meditation, a sense of the sacred, humility, love, compassion, tolerance and a spirit of service, which are fundamental to the creation of a peaceful society. We, as religious and spiritual leaders, pledge our commitment to work together to promote the inner and outer conditions that foster peace and the nonviolent management and resolution of conflict. We appeal to the followers of all religious traditions and to the human community as a whole to cooperate in building peaceful societies, to seek mutual understanding through dialogue where there are differences, to refrain from violence, to practice compassion, and to uphold the dignity of all life. Bawa Jain, Secretary General of the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders 241 APPENDIX F: The Earth Charter THE EARTH CHARTER3 Preamble We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations. Earth, Our Home Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life's evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust. The Global Situation The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable. The Challenges Ahead The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions. 3 The Earth Charter Initiative website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html. 242 Universal Responsibility To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature. We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed. Principles I. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE 1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity. a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings. b. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity. 2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love. a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people. b. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good. 3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful. a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential. b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible. 4. Secure Earth's bounty and beauty for present and future generations. a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations. b. Transmit to future generations’ values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth's human and ecological communities. In order to fulfil these four broad commitments, it is necessary to: II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life. 243 a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives. b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth's life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage. c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems. d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms. e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems. f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage. 6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach. a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive. b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm. c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities. d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances. e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment. 7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being. a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems. b. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies. d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards. e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world. 8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired. a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability with special attention to the needs of developing nations. b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being. c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain. 244 III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative. a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required. b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves. c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations. 10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner. a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations. b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt. c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards. d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities. 11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity. a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them. b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries. c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members. 12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities. a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin. b. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods. c. Honour and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfil their essential role in creating sustainable societies. d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance. IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE 13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice. a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest. b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making. c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent. d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial 245 procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm. e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions. f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively. 14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life. a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development. b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education. c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges. d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living. 15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration. a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering. b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering. c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species. 16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace. a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations. b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes. c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration. d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace. f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part. The Way Forward As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfil this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter. This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom. 246 Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance. In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfil their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development. Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life. 247 APPENDIX G: Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change & Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action4 The nurturing and respect for Life is a central doctrine of all faiths on Earth. Yet today we are endangering life on Earth with unacceptably high and rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions. These gases are destabilizing the global climate system, heating the Earth, acidifying the oceans, and putting both humanity and all living creatures at unacceptable risk. The extraordinary delicacy of Nature’s balance is becoming increasingly apparent, even as human actions inflict ever larger, more dangerous and potentially irreversible changes on the indivisible web of atmosphere, earth, ocean and life that is creation. Today our faiths stand united in their call to care for the Earth, and to protect the poor and the suffering. Strong action on climate change is imperative by the principles and traditions of our faiths and the collective compassion, wisdom and leadership of humanity. We recognize the science of climate change, and we call for global leaders to adopt strong, binding, science-based targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases in order to avert the worst dangers of a climate crisis. We urge the nations of Earth to ensure that those who will suffer under climate- induced changes such as more severe storms, floods, droughts and rising seas, be aided to adapt, survive and equitably prosper. We recognize that climate change is not merely an economic or technical problem, but rather at its core is a moral, spiritual and cultural one. We therefore pledge to join together to teach and guide the people who follow the call of our faiths. We must all learn to live together within the shared limits of our planet. We recognize that just as climate change presents us with great challenges, so too it offers great opportunities. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can stimulate economies sustainably, protect our planet, lift up the poor, and unite to a common cause people threatened by a common danger. Assisting vulnerable communities and species to survive and adapt to climate change fulfills our calling to wisdom, mercy, and the highest of human moral and ethical values. We commit ourselves to action – to changing our habits, our choices, and the way we see the world – to learning and teaching our families, friends, and faiths – to conserving the limited resources of our home, planet Earth, and preserving the climate conditions upon which life depends. In this spirit, we call upon our leaders, those of our faiths, and all people of Earth to accept the reality of the common danger we face, the imperative and responsibility for immediate and decisive action, and the opportunity to change. 4 Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change at http://www.interfaithdeclaration.org/. 248 Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action, Sept. 21, 2009 RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS CALL TO CLIMATE ACTION5 We, representatives of diverse religious traditions from around the world gathered on the International Day of Peace, reflect in story, song and prayer about humanity’s collective responsibility in the climate crisis. We are entrusted with the well-being of people around the world. There is more than an agreement at stake. WE RECOGNIZE particularly that indigenous peoples have a profound stewardship of Creation and affirm their worldview, which sees the connectedness of all living things and our collective interdependence. This is a view that we need to adopt in fighting the effects of climate change. With dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions, destabilizing earth’s climate, acidifying the oceans, threatening the living systems on which all life depends, both humanity and all living creatures now face unacceptable risk. WE ACKNOWLEDGE our collective responsibility for the climate danger and suffering faced by the most affected and marginalized among us, those in extreme poverty, the disabled, older persons, those in coastal communities, on small islands, who are bearing the worst impacts of the climate crisis while contributing least to it. WE ACKNOWLEDGE that while climate change affects everyone and everything, it does not affect all equally, disproportionately affecting women and people of color. Without appropriate and urgent action, plant and animal species, as well as people and cultures, will increasingly continue to suffer and to die. This concerns us. WE FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE that although governments can mold policy and commitments, which can be global in effect, governments alone cannot make the change of heart and mind that will turn the human-earth community into a global culture of ecological responsibility. This task belongs to all of us. WE URGE you therefore to take bold action that demonstrates the attitudinal shift that will mark the Copenhagen negotiations in December 2009 as the time when humanity came together to avert a climate crisis and we unite our diverse voices in the following Call to Action. There’s more than an agreement at stake. CALL TO CLIMATE ACTION Our religions stand united in their call to care for the Earth and her peoples. We stand united in our insistence that those most affected by this crisis, with fewest choices, have a just hearing and recourse. Recognizing that climate change is not merely an economic or technical problem, but at its core is a moral, spiritual and cultural one, we therefore pledge to join together to teach and guide the people who follow the call of our religions. We must all learn to live together within the shared limits of our planet. World Council of Churches website “Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action” at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/climatechange-water/religious-traditions-call-to-climate-action?set_language=en. 5 249 We commit ourselves to action: to changing our habits of consumption, our choices about what makes for a life of wellbeing, and the way we see the world; to learning; to teaching our families, friends and faiths; to conserving the limited resources of our home, planet Earth, and to preserving the climate conditions upon which life depends, while continuously working to develop practices of sustainable development, where the fundamental rights to health, housing, food, decent work would be available to all. We call for global leaders boldly to adopt strong, binding, science-based targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases in order to avert the worst dangers of a climate crisis based on a climate justice framework. We call upon the industrialized nations to act responsibly in mitigation efforts by making the largest cuts in carbon emissions, showing leadership in their ethical behavior. We urge all nations of Earth to ensure that those who will be most affected under climateinduced changes such as more severe storms, floods, droughts and rising seas, be given what they need to adapt, survive and equitably prosper. We call upon industrialized nations to acknowledge their higher level of responsibility for creating development models that have caused this unintended but tragic consequence for much of climate change. We ask that therefore they contribute a higher proportion of their GNP to those countries suffering the worst effects of climate change. We call upon industrialized nations to place a priority on building just and sustainable development models in both the North and South, where all are ensured of food, housing and healthcare according to the traditions of our religions and the collective compassion, wisdom and leadership of humanity. We urge those making decisions at the tables of governmental power to insist that the voices of those nations and peoples most affected by climate change and with the least choice be at their deliberations to serve as a visible witness that the climate crisis is now. We call upon our leaders to recognize the crucial stewardship role of indigenous peoples the need to cooperate with and to support their adaptation initiatives, and to strengthen their vital contributions to climate change mitigation. We call for an immediate stop to mitigation measures adversely impacting indigenous peoples, causing displacement, environmental degradation of traditional lands and serious human rights violations. We further urge that the natural world itself be considered a partner at the table and not a commodity to be used solely for human pleasure or gain. We call upon our leaders, those of our faiths and all people of Earth to accept the reality of the common danger we face, the imperative and responsibility for immediate and decisive action and the opportunity to change. There’s more than an agreement at stake. 250 APPENDIX H: High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace6 Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society 4 October 2007 I. Introduction 1. The General Assembly, in its resolution 61/221 of 20 December 2006, (OP. 14) decided “to convene in 2007 a high-level dialogue on interreligious and intercultural cooperation for the promotion of tolerance, understanding and universal respect for matters of freedom of religion or belief and cultural diversity, in coordination with other similar initiatives in this area”. 2. In its resolution 61/269 of 25 May 2007, the General Assembly further decided that the High-level Dialogue would be held on Thursday and Friday, 4 and 5 October 2007 at the ministerial or highest possible level, and that it would consist of three plenary meetings: one in the morning of Thursday, 4 October and two on Friday, 5 October. By the same resolution, the General Assembly also decided to hold in the afternoon of 4 October 2007 an informal interactive hearing with representatives of civil society, including representatives of non-governmental organizations and the private sector, to be chaired by the President of the General Assembly. 3. The objective of the informal interactive hearing was to provide an opportunity for Member States to engage in dialogue with experts from civil society, including nongovernmental organizations and the private sector representing diverse regions, cultures and perspectives, with a view to: i) strengthening efforts to promote interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation by engaging a variety of actors and constituencies in government, civil society and the United Nations system; ii) promoting a culture of peace and dialogue among civilizations, and advancing multi-stakeholder coalitions on related issues; and iii) translating shared values into action in order to achieve sustainable peace in the 21st Century. 4. The Office of the President of the United Nations General Assembly convened a ‘Task Force’ of civil society representatives to help ensure the effective participation and optimal engagement of civil society, including NGOs and the private sector, in the High-level Dialogue and interactive hearing. The Task Force helped support the Office of the President of the General Assembly in matters relating to civil society’s input and identified ten panelists, ten respondents and two moderators for the interactive hearing, and provided key links to relevant civil society networks and organizations globally. 6 High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society at http://www.un.org/ga/president/62/letters/summary141107.pdf. 251 5. The President of the General Assembly, H. E. Mr. Srgjan Kerim, opened the interactive hearing which was held under the overarching theme “Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace”. A statement was then read on behalf of the High Representative of the Secretary-General for the Alliance of Civilizations, Mr Jorge Sampaio. The first panel discussion focused on the theme of “Challenges of Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation Today” and was moderated by the Secretary-General of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, Dr. William Vendley. The second panel discussion dealt with the theme of “Best Practices and Strategies of Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation Going Forward” and was moderated by the Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nations, H.E. Mr. Abdullah Ahmed Mohamed Al-Murad. 6. A summary of the key findings that emerged from the hearing was presented by the President of the 62nd Session of the General Assembly at the closing plenary meeting of the High-level Dialogue on 8 October. In his closing statement, the President of the General Assembly congratulated all for the stimulating discussions and thanked in particular the distinguished panelists and representatives from civil society, faith groups, academia and the private sector for enriching the debate. Commending the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect that was displayed during the High-level dialogue as something the General Assembly can continually strive to exemplify, the President underlined that sincere dialogue is an extraordinary tool to promote inclusiveness. Encouraged by the large participation of Member States in the interactive hearing, the President welcomed the interest of the General Assembly to continue this meaningful interaction with civil society on this issue and others. II. Proceedings of the interactive hearing 1. GA Resolution 61/221 adopted on 20 December 2006, provides a good overview of the necessity for increased interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation for peace. It also acknowledges the importance of both freedom of religion and belief, as well as respect for a diversity of religions and cultures. 2. The informal interactive hearing on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace was the fifth hearing with civil society to be convened by the General Assembly. As each hearing is a new learning process involving different stakeholders and partners, to guarantee representativity and shared ownership, the President of the General Assembly appointed a Civil Society ‘Task Force’ to assist in the selection of participants and in identifying the sub-themes of the hearing. Twenty speakers represented a variety of cultural (all continents) and religious (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Jain, Baha’i) traditions. Thematically and professionally, participants brought forward a diverse spectrum of viewpoints and experiences, representing i.e. Religious institutions, UN program partners, grassroots women’s organizations, indigenous peoples networks, mediation and peace building groups and academic research centers. 3. The informal hearing was held in the afternoon of 4 October, following the Opening Plenary of the High Level Dialogue with two implications: The holding of the hearing during the High-level Dialogue enabled a high level of attendance of Member States. As the time that could be allotted to the hearing as part of the two252 day Dialogue agenda was limited to one afternoon session of three hours, multiple delegates who asked for the floor could not be accommodated in the set time frame. 4. There was a shared sense of appreciation and achievement, with regard to both the relevance of the sub-themes and the diversity and representativity of the participants from civil society, religious communities, academia and the private sector. The discussion was very rich, bringing together a wide variety of backgrounds, experiences, cultures, religions and views. 5. All speakers recognised that interfaith and intercultural understanding form the bedrock of our well-being, stability and prosperity, and recommended practical measures to advance interreligious and intercultural cooperation, including through programmes for youth, education, media, and the promotion of rights of minorities through innovative and inclusive dialogue. First panel 6. The first panel discussion dealt with the ‘Challenges of Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation Today’, and opened with an analysis of how religion is used to fuel conflicts, as well as recommendations for the steps that could be undertaken to foster meaningful interreligious dialogue and respect. The first panel also highlighted successful experiences at the grassroots. The Representative of the L’auravetli’an Information and Education Network of Indigenous Peoples of Russia described efforts to provide information and education to twenty minority groups, and related to their advocacy work to operationalize new legislation in the field and change education curricula to value and foster indigenous culture and tradition. The Representative of the Union Theological Seminary emphasized that before religions can move to making positive contributions to peace building, they must confront why it is that religion is such a ready tool to foster conflict and violence. The Representative of the International Islamic Center for Population Studies and Research at the Al Azhar University in Cairo illustrated how work in the field of women’s health and reproductive rights has been furthered in the Islamic world over the past 30 years. The Representative of the Interfaith Mediation Centre of Nigeria stressed the power of religion which can be used to raise the consciousness of humanity or manipulated to foster violence and extremism, and recommended locally appropriate peace building training for youth and other constituencies. The Representative of the Anuvrat Global Organization underscored the role of economic disparities and globalization in fuelling tensions and pointed to the positive impact of non-violent approaches such as Ahimsa Yatra in India to create a positive climate for dialogue. 7. The Respondent from the Foundation for a Culture of Peace noted the role of the media and irresponsible leadership in perpetrating stereotypes that generate fear and suspicion, thereby generating the perception of a “clash of civilizations”. The Respondent from the Inter Press Service International Association cautioned the role of the media in contributing to tensions by incomplete or inaccurate reporting. The Respondent from the National Peace Council of the Philippines called on leaders to promote interreligious and intercultural cooperation by honoring their 253 commitments to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, and by adhering to the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Respondent from the Women’s Ministries of the Latin American Council of Churches recommended the use of Human Rights language to address the challenges of religious traditions, notably in the context of gender equality and justice. The Respondent from Infogest, Senegal demonstrated that the world of business provides ample opportunities for peaceful, multicultural interaction and success. 8. During the interactive dialogue with Member States, Permanent Observers and the UN System that followed, it was emphasized that understanding between religions was not an end unto itself, but rather a step towards greater cohesion among diverse communities. Participants were reminded that despite a willingness to engage in forums such as these, in reality freedom of belief and religion is still not guaranteed and protected in many countries. Recommendations included: i) Encouraging support at the national level to render local action plans more successful (as proven by the experience of the Philippines in developing and introducing peace building classes in all school curricula); ii) Providing a role for government and civil society to conduct “media policing work”; iii) Conducting training in intercultural sensitivity, and placing members of a given religious or ethnic community at the forefront of efforts to promote peace within that community; and iv) Creating national interfaith networks to foster new experts in interfaith dialogue. Second panel 9. The second panel discussion addressed the theme of “Best Practices and Strategies of Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation Going Forward”. Panelists shared their work on interfaith dialogue, conflict resolution, peace building, and MDG policy development, and provided examples of successful practices for wider application. The Representative of the Islamic College for Advanced Studies/Religions of the Sacred Heart described methods for achieving inner peace and freedom from fear, in order to transform personal and social energies towards communion, noting, “Peace is intelligence of the heart”. The Representative of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding underscored the success of their network of interfaith mediators in armed conflict zones, whose high risk, discreet, and yet effective work can serve as a guide for policymakers working with religious leaders in areas of armed conflict. The Representatives of the Comunidad Teologica de Honduras highlighted the importance of inclusive interreligious dialogue, such as those convened with UNFPAs assistance in Central America on population planning and women’s health, and noted that this dialogue model helped to build an active interreligious network on a variety of issues, including environmental protection. The Representative of the Baha’I International Community in Tanzania underscored that the freedom to hold belief of one’s choosing and to change it, was an essential attribute of the human conscience, and recommended concrete strategies to overcome ignorance and fanaticism. The Representative of Weyerhaeuser Company shared that the promotion of diversity demands a mindset geared towards collaborative leadership and offered 254 the experience of private sector partnerships with civil society and NGOs in developing countries as a model for effective collaboration. 10. The Respondent from the Centre for Women’s Studies and Intervention of Nigeria underscored the global importance of addressing women’s equality, and urged men, as custodians of religious traditions, to play an active role in women’s empowerment. The Respondent from the UNESCO Chair in Interfaith Studies posed the challenge of moving beyond either an exclusively secular education with little knowledge about diverse religious traditions, or, on the other hand, a religious education that advocates one religion above all others. The Respondent from the Earth Charter emphasized the promotion of global ethics as a unifying strategy in the midst of religious and cultural diversity, building on the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and offered the methodology of the Earth Charter as a useful model in this regard. The Respondent from the Peace Boat, Japan, urged all stakeholders to engage in open dialogue about wounds from the past in order to create the conditions for genuine interreligious and intercultural cooperation moving forward. The Respondent from Zenab for Women in Development, Sudan, stressed the need for the international community to implement the protection of religious minorities and support grassroots dialogue initiatives, including the training of religious and community leaders in programmes for reconciliation. 11. During the interactive dialogue with Member States, Permanent Observers, and the UN System that followed, various delegations articulated proposals for action including i) The establishment of a UN body with the specific mandate of heightening the level of interfaith dialogue, and bringing together experts on interfaith dialogue; ii) The reallocation by Member States of a portion of defense budgets, towards interfaith dialogue initiatives designed to build peace; iii) Encouraging religious communities to hold internal dialogues, in order to identify and engage the extreme elements within one’s own religious tradition in support of peace; iv) The introduction of mandatory interfaith education which would foster understanding of one’s own religious traditions as well as that of others; v) Engaging the media to promote understanding rather than stereotypes and prejudice. The momentum around interreligious dialogue was noted by many participants, including the Holy See, referring to the initiatives of the late Pope John Paul II, and of Pope Benedict XVI. III. Key Findings The following points highlight the findings and recommendations that emerged from the hearing: (a) Globalization has heightened the need for greater cooperation and understanding among cultures, religions, and civilizations. Interreligious and Intercultural Cooperation is a prerequisite for international peace and security. (b) The UN must continue to play a central role in promoting the Culture of Peace, human rights, human security and multi-stakeholder cooperation. To that end, the UN should enhance its efforts to foster meaningful interreligious and intercultural dialogue, including through a ‘Decade of Dialogue’, and by developing permanent programmes or mechanisms specifically focusing on interreligious and intercultural dialogue for peace. 255 (c) Non-state actors must be involved in this process. While Member States are the UN’s building blocks, non-state actors are very active and influential partners for a global alliance for peace, as they build bridges between communities. Partnerships with people working at the grassroots are of key importance to the UN. The new forms of cooperation that are emerging between the private sector and civil society could also provide new models for best practices. (d) Religious communities have a unique spiritual and moral authority and should play a more prominent role in achieving international peace and developing a common language for peace. Valuable lessons can be learned from the experience gathered by interreligious organizations, humanists and other civil society groups in this area for over a century. (e) Indigenous and minority groups need to be included: While the adoption of the Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples last September pays tribute to the inherent value of human diversity and to the strength of the indigenous movement globally, mechanisms to protect minority rights tend to be weak. Political will is necessary to ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and other groups, including migrant workers, to land, ethnic diversity, and cultural and religious traditions. The inclusion of minority groups in intercultural dialogue should be a priority. (f) Examples of peaceful multicultural societies: There are many examples of culturally and religiously diverse communities living in harmony for centuries. Lessons can be learned from these experiences, including those at the local level, as they provide important models to be applied in the current context of globalization. (g) Deadly conflict and freedom of religion: The failure to reach sustainable solutions to conclude long-standing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa deeply affects interreligious understanding and cooperation. While the UN has made great progress in monitoring instances of religious repression, in many countries, freedom of religion or belief continues to be violated and actions do not go beyond vague recommendations calling on governments and religions to be more responsible and self-critical. (h) Religious extremism and inclusive dialogue: One of the key reasons why religions are prone to violence is that some claim to be superior over others in holding the highest of truths. Such claims tacitly allow perpetrators to use religion for violent purposes, engaging hatred and mobilising constituencies. Solutions lie in religions working together, acknowledging the extreme elements within their own constituencies and adopting a self-critical approach towards teachings which may incite discrimination and intolerance. (i) Human rights: Inclusive dialogues cannot succeed if, in the interests of “harmony”, there are taboos about addressing violations of fundamental freedoms. Human Rights language and instruments have proven to be successful tools to address contentious cultural and religious traditions. (j) Freedom from want: One of the primary objectives of the United Nations’ collaboration with religious communities should be to relieve the suffering of people 256 living in poverty and achieve the timely implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. The connection between human rights and poverty eradication must be recognised in order to protect human dignity. (k) Media: The prominent role of the media in generating perceptions of other cultures and religions needs to be acknowledged in a world driven by communications technology, where perception tends to override reality and facts. It is important to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility of the media to exercise judgment and respect in representing cultural and religious communities. (l) Education: Universal curricula on multiculturalism, interreligious cooperation and peace building should be introduced in primary and secondary schools. Quality education should focus on building cohesion and common understanding in society, rather than promoting a specific religion. Successful grassroots peace building and dialogue models require further study to develop innovative training approaches for youth, i.e., The Andalusia model and the Peace Boat. (m) Other recommendations: Among the objectives of a United Nations body designed to promote interreligious and intercultural cooperation could be the systematic collection and dissemination of successful grassroots dialogue and the development of a code of conduct based on global ethics. The approach of the Earth Charter provides an interesting example. Recognising that peaceful relations among cultures and religions are an important security measure, governments should be encouraged to allocate part of their defense budgets to interfaith dialogue mechanisms. 257 258 Bibliography Books Abdul-Matin Ibrahim Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet (Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, San Francisco, 2010). Albright Madeleine The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (Harper Perennial, New York, 2007). Aldridge Alan Religion in the Contemporary World (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2000). Apter David E The Politics of Modernization (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965). Arblaster Anthony The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984). Bederman D J et al International Law in Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001). Belshaw D, Calderesi R, and Sugden C (eds) Faith in Development: Partnership between the World Bank and the Churches of Africa (Oxford: Regnum, Washington DC, 2002). Benstein Jeremy The Way into Judaism and the Environment (Jewish Lights Publishing, Vermont, 2006). Biermann Frank, Siebenhuner Bernd and Schreyogg Anna (eds) International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance (Routledge, Oxon, 2009). Bob C The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012). Bosselmann Klaus and Engel J Ronald The Earth Charter: A Framework for Global Governance (KIT Publishers, Amsterdam, 2010). Brierly J L The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace 6th ed (H Waldock (ed) 1963). Bruce Steve (ed) Religion and Modernisation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992). Carson Rachel Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, 1962). Casanova Jose Public Religions in the Modern World (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994). Cassese Antonio International Law 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005). Dahl Lyon “Climate Change and its Ethical Challenges” The Baha’i World 2005-2006 (Baha’i World Centre, Haifa, 2007). Durkheim Emile The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (6th edition) (Translated by Joseph Ward Swain) (George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, 1968). Earth Charter: Charting a Course for the Future United Nations Development Programme, (World Bank, World Resources Institute, 2003). Ehrlich Paul R “The Population Bomb” (Buccaneer Books, New York, 1968). Falk Richard Religion and Humane Global Governance (Palgrave, New York, 2001). 259 Foltz Richard Environmentalism in the Muslim World (Nova Science Publishers, Inc, USA, 2005). Fox Jonathan and Sandler Shmuel Bringing Religion into International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004). Gardner Gary Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development (W W Norton & Company, New York, 2006). Gardner Gary Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World, WorldWatch Paper 164, (Worldwatch Institute, US, 2002). Gatens Moira Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1991). Geuss Raymond History and Illusion in Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001). Gottlieb Roger S This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment (Routledge, New York, 2004). Grim John & Tucker Mary Evelyn Ecology and Religion (Island Press, Washington DC, 2014). Grotius Hugo The Law of War and Peace (1625). Haynes J An Introduction to International Relations and Religion (2nd ed) (Pearson, London, 2013a). Haynes J Comparative Politics in a Globalising World (Polity, Cambridge, 2005). Haynes J Religion and Development: Conflict or Cooperation? (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York, 2007). Haynes Jeffrey Religion in Global Politics (Longman, London, 1998). Haynes Jeff Religion in Third World Politics (Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 1994). Haynes Jeffrey Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics (Routledge, New York, 2008). Holy Qur’an Holy Bible Hutchinson John A Paths of Faith (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1981). James William The Variety of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (ARC Manor, Rockville, Maryland, 2008). Juergensmeyer Mark The New Cold War? (University of California, Berkeley, 1993). Küng Hans (ed.) Yes to a Global Ethic, Voices from Religion and Politics (Continuum, New York, 1996). Kristeva Julia “Word, Dialogue and Novel in The Kristeva Reader, edited by Toril Moi (Columbia University Press, New York, 1986). Little Richard and Smith Steve (eds) Belief Systems and International Relations (Blackwell, Oxford, 1988). 260 Madan T N “Hinduism” in Global Religions: An Introduction, edited by Mark Juergensmeyer (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003). Marshall Katherine Global Institutions of Religion: Ancient movers, modern shakers (Routledge, Oxon, 2013). Mills C Wright The Sociological Imagination (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1959). Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, 1987). Najam Adil, Papa Mihaela, and Taiyab Nadaa Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, 2006). Nasr Seyyed Hossein Islam and the Plight of Modern Man (Longman Group, London, 1975). Palmer Martin with Finlay Victoria Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment (The World Bank, Washington DC, 2003). Preston Noel Understanding Ethics (3rd ed) (The Federation Press, NSW, 2007). Rowland Wade The Plot to Save the World: the Life and Times of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (Clarke, Irwin & Co, Toronto, 1973). Ryding Sven-Olof Environmental Management Handbook: The Holistic Approach – From Problems to Strategies (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1998). Sahliyeh Emile (ed) Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World (State University of New York Press, New York, 1990). Sandell Klas (ed) Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis (Sri Lanka Buddhist Publications Society, Kandy, 1987). Sands Philippe Principles of International Environmental Law: Frameworks, Standards and Implementation (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1995). Scott Peter Tree of Life: Buddhism and Protection of Nature (Buddhist Perception of Nature, Hong Kong, 1987). Shah Timothy Samuel Faith on Fire: the Global Explosion of Political Religion (Hoover Institute Press, Stanford, 2011). Shaw M N International Law 5th ed (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). Singer Fred S Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1970). Singer Peter The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (Princeton University Press, Oxford, 2011). Singer Peter Practical Ethics (3rd Ed) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011). Smith Christian The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularisation of American Public Life (University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003). Smith Donald E “Religion and Political Modernization: Comparative Perspectives” in Religion and Political Modernization, edited by Donald E Smith (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1974). Speth James G and Haas Peter M Global Environmental Governance, (Island Press, Washington DC, 2006). 261 Stark Rodney and Bainbridge William the Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1985). Thomas S The Global Transformation of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations. The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-First Century (Palgrave Macmillan, New York/Basingstoke, UK, 2005). Tucker Mary Evelyn Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Carus Publishing Company, Illinois, 2003). Walzer Michael Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2004). Watling Tony Ecological Imaginations in the World Religions: An Ethnographic Analysis (Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, 2009). Weart S R The Discovery of Global Warming: Revised and Expanded Edition (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008). Weber Max The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Scribner, New York, 1930). Weber Max Sociology of Religion (Beacon Press, Boston, 1993) [1922]. Weeramantry C G Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion the Environment and the Human Future (Stamford Lake (Pvt) Ltd, Sri Lanka, 2009). Weeramantry Christopher G Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective (St Martins Press, New York, 1988). Weiss Thomas G Whats Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix it (2nd ed) (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012). Wheaton H Elements of International Law: With a Sketch of the History of the Science (Carey, Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia, 1836). Book Chapters Amery Hussein A. “Rights of the Environment” in Water Management in Islam Faruqui Naser I, Biswas Asit K and Bino Murad J (eds) (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2001). Amin Adnan "UNEP - Reform Perspectives Two Years after Johannesburg," and Töpfer Klaus, "A Strengthened International Environmental Institution," in UNEO - Towards an International Environmental Organization Rechkemmer A (ed) (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005). Arnal William E in Guide to the Study of Religion (Part 1 Definition) Willi Braun and Russell T McCutcheon (eds) (T & T Clark, New York, 2000). Beversluis Joel “The Parliaments and the Quest for a Global Ethic” in Sourcebook of the World’s Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality, Joel Beversluis (ed) (New World Library, California, 2000). Gottlieb Roger S “Religion and the Environment” in John Hinnells (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion 2nd ed (Routledge, London, 2010). Foltz Richard “Introduction” Islam and Ecology Richard Foltz, Frederick Denny & Azizan Baharuddin (eds) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003). Kerber Guillermo “International Advocacy for Climate Justice” in How the World’s Religions are Responding to Climate Change: Social scientific investigations Robin Globus Veldman, Andrew Szasz and Randolph Haluza-DeLay (eds) (Routledge, United Kingdom, 2013) p 278. 262 Khalid Fazlun M “Islam and the Environment” Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, 2002). Lapid Yosef “Culture’s Ship: Returns and Departures in International Relations Theory” in The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Yosef Lapid and Frederich Kratochwil (eds) (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1996). Nafziger James A R “The Functions of Religion in the International Legal System” in Religion and International Law Janis Mark W and Evans Carolyn (eds) (Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, 1999). Rubin Barry “Religion and International Affairs” in Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft Johnston Douglas and Sampson Cynthia (eds) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994). Shupe Anson “The Stubborn Persistence of Religion in the Global Arena” in Religious Resurgence and Politics in the Contemporary World Emile Sahliyeh (ed) (State University of New York Press, New York, 1990). Singer Peter “Ethics” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, 1985). Speth James G "A Memorandum in Favor of a World Environment Organization," in UNEO Towards an International Environment Organization, A Rechkemmer (ed) (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2005). Stueckelberger Christoph “Who Dies First? Who is Sacrificed First? Ethical Aspects of Climate Justice” in God, Creation and Climate Change: Spiritual and Ethical Perspectives (Lutheran University Press, Minneapolis, 2009). Tucker Mary Evelyn and Grim John “Series Foreword” in Hinduism and Ecology Christopher Key Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 2000). Watling Tony “The Field of Religion and Ecology: Addressing the Environmental Crisis and Challenging Faiths” in Religion: Beyond a Concept H de Vries (ed) (Fordham Press, New York, 2008). Wendt Alexander “Identity and Structural Change in International Politics” in The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Yosef Lapid and Frederich Kratochwil (eds) (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1996). Journals Agrawala Shardul “Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (1998) Climatic Change 39: 605-620. Berdal Mats “The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable” Survival Vol 45, #2, Summer 2003, p 7. Bloch Jon P A Whisper Toward Peace: A Theoretical Analysis of the Council for a Parliament of the World Religions in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 47, Issue 4, 2008. Boehle Josef “The UN System and Religious Actors in the Context of Global Change” CrossCurrents, Volume 60, Issue 3, 9 Sep 2010: 391-392. Fox Jonathon “Do Religious Institutions Support Violence or the Status Quo?” (1999) Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 22(2), 119-139. Galarza Adrian Villasenor “Holistic Worldview: Towards an Integral Understanding of the Personal and the Scientific” Ludis Vitalis, vol XVI, num 30, 2008, pp 197-203. Gray Mark Allan “The United Nations Environment Programme: An Assessment” 20 Environmental Law (1990) 292. 263 Gupta Joyeeta “A History of International Climate Change Policy” WIREs Climatic Change 2010 1 636-653. Hadden Jeffrey K “Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory” (1987b) Social Forces, 65(3) 597. Harris Fredrick C “Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-American Political Activism” (1994) Journal of Politics 56(1), 42-68. Harris Paul G “Misplaced Ethics of Climate Change: Political vs. Environmental Geography” Ethics, Place and Environment Vol 13 No 2 June 2010, 215-222. Helmsinki Kabir “The Dialog of Civilisations and the Globalisation of Spirit” The Threshold Society as quoted by Ethan Goffman “God, Humanity and Nature: Comparative Religious Views of the Environment” (Review article) ProQuest http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/envrel/review.php#n6. Iannaccone Laurence R “Voodoo Economics? Reviewing the Rational Choice Approach to Religion” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34 (1), 1995a,b. Jager Jill “From Conference to Conference” Climatic Change (1992) Vol 20, No 2, iii-vii. Janis Mark Weston “Religion and International Law” (2002) ASIL Insights at http://www.asil.org/insigh93.cfm. Johnston Hank and Figa Jozef “The Church and Political Opposition: Comparative Perspectives on Mobilization against Authoritarian Regimes” (1988) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 27(1), 32-47. Jones Merrill E “Origins of the East German Environmental Movement” German Studies Review, Vol 16, No 2 (May, 1993) 236. Kellogg William W “Mankind’s Impact on Climate: The Evolution of an Awareness” Climatic Change 10 (1987) 123. Kovar Jeffrey D “A Short Guide to the Rio Declaration” 4 Colo J Intl Envtl L & Poly 119 (1993). Lohmann Susanne “The Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989-91” World Politics 47 (October 1994) 42. McDuie-Ra Duncan and Rees John A “Religious Actors, Civil Society and the Development Agenda: the Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion” (2008) Arts Papers and Journal Articles University of Notre Dame Australia, p 2. Northcott M S “The Concealments of Carbon Markets and the Publicity of Love in a Time of Climate Change” International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010) 294-313: 296. O’Hara Dennis Patrick and Abelsohn Alan “Ethical Response to Climate Change” in Ethics and the Environment Vol 16, No 1, Spring 2011. Petrovsky Vladimir “An Interreligious Council at the UN: UN Charter Possibilities and Constraints” International Journal on World Peace, Vol. 20, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2003) 49. Philpott Daniel in “The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations” (2002) 55 (1) World Politics 69. Philpott Daniel “Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion?” (2009) 12 Annu Rev Polit Sci 188. Posas Paula J “Roles of Religion and Ethics in Addressing Climate Change” ESEP 2007: 31-49. 264 Reisinger Andy and Larsen Howard “Recognising Ethics to Help a Constructive Climate Change Debate” in Public Policy: Why Ethics Matter Jonathan Boston, Andrew Bradstock, and David Eng (eds) (ANU E-Press, Canberra, 2010) 117. Sagan Carl “Preserving and Cherishing the Earth – An Appeal for Joint Commitment in Science and Religion” Am J Phys 58:615-617. Schindler David W “The Mysterious Missing Sink” (1999) Nature 398:105-106 Sherkat Daren E and Ellison Christopher G “Recent Development and Controversies in the Sociology of Religion” (1999) Annual Review of Sociology 25, 364. Stahel Dr Albert Alexander “The Geopolitical situation of Europe” in Global Gold Outlook No. 7, September 2014. Stumpf C A “Christian and Islamic Traditions of Public International Law” (2005) 7 Journal of the History of International Law 69. Thakur Ramesh and Weiss Thomas G “United Nations “Policy”: An Argument with Three Illustrations” International Studies Perspectives (2009). Thomas Scott M “Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Society” (2000) Millennium 29 (3), 817–819. Tucker Mary Evelyn and Grim John A “Introduction: The Emerging Alliance of World Religions and Ecology” in Religion and Ecology: Can the Climate Change? Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 2001, p 11. Tucker Mary Evelyn and Grim John “The Greening of the World’s Religions” The Chronical Review, Feb 9, 2007. Verba Sidney, Scholzman Kay L, Bradey Henry and Nie Norman H “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Resources: Participation in the United States” (1993) British Journal of Political Science 23(4), 453-497. Vogel David “How Green is Judaism? Exploring Jewish Environmental Ethics Business Ethics Quarterly Vol 11, No 2 (Apr 2001) 350. Warner R Stephen “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States” American Journal of Sociology, 98 (5), March 1993, 1044–1093. White Lynn Townsend, Jr. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis” 1967, Science, Vol 155, No. 3767. Wilson Erin K “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice” (2010) 54 International Studies Quarterly 733-754. Wood Jr Harold W “The United Nations World Charter for Nature: The developing Nations’ Initiative to Establish Protections for the Environment” 12 Ecology L.Q. (1884-1985) 990. Projects, Papers, Reports and Theses Ahmad Imran Habib “Climate Policy Integration: Towards Operationalization” DESA Working Paper No. 73, March 2009 Ahmad Mahood “Religious Resurgence in an Era of Globalisation: Islam’s Quest for Global Participation” (2005) Futuristic Forum: A Policy Research Organisation Paper at http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html. Appleby R. Scott and Cizik Richard (co-chairs) Report of the Task Force on Religion and the Making of U.S. Foreign Policy Sponsored by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Chicago, 2010. 265 Baderin Mashood A “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes?” in SOAS School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series: Research Paper No 4/2010 Reprinted from European Human Rights Law Review, Issue 5 (2009) (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2009). Black Patricia Marlette The New is Elsewhere: Women’s Leadership in Community-Profit Organisations Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 1999, p 25. Bodansky Daniel “A Tale of Two Architectures: The Once and Future U.N. Climate Change Regime” Working Paper Series Social Science Research Network. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1773865. Bodansky Daniel “Legal Form of a New Climate Agreement: Avenues and Options” Pew Center on Global Climate Change Paper, April 2009:5. Bodansky Daniel “The International Climate Change Regime: The Road from Copenhagen” Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements October 2010 at http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/climate. “The Bhumi Project: Respect, Compassion and Service for our Environment” The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, University of Oxford, http://www.bhumiproject.org/downloads/TheBhumiProject.pdf. Carrette J and Miall H “Big Society or Global Village? Religious NGOs, Civil Society and the UN” Briefing Paper, 2012. Crossing the Divide: Dialogue among Civilizations Report of the “Group of Eminent Persons” for the U.N. Dialogue among Civilization (School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, 2001). “The Earth Charter and Religion” Statements on Controversial Issues (Earth Charter International, 2008). Found online at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/The%20Earth%20Charter%20and%2 0Religion.pdf. El-Ashry Mohamed "Mainstreaming the Environment--Coherence among International Governance Systems," Paper read at the International Environmental Governance Conference, Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations, Paris, 2004 The Ethical Implications of Global Climate Change” Report by the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) (UNESCO, France, 2010) 19. Goeckel Robert “The Evangelical-Lutheran Church and the East German Revolution” Research Paper available online at http://www.georgefox.edu/.../Goeckel_Evangelical_articles_previous.pdf. Handschin Carolyn “Considering an Interreligious Council at the UN” October 4, 2010, UPF-UN Office in Geneva at http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Handschin/Handschin101004.htm. Haynes Jeffrey “Faith-based Organisations at the United Nations” EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2013/70, European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, RELIGIOWEST, 2013. High-Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace - Summary of the Informal Interactive Hearing with Civil Society at http://www.un.org/ga/president/62/letters/summary141107.pdf. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 Summary for Policymakers; http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm. (See also the main IPCC website, www.ipcc.ch.) http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf. 266 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf. Ivanova Maria “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf. Jaeger Hans-Martin “Considering the Proposal for an Interreligious Council” May 7, 2009, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Canada at http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks1/Jaeger/Jaeger-090507.htm. James Rick “What is Distinctive about FBOs?” INTRAC Praxis Paper no. 22 (2009) p 5. Mackey Brendan “Climate Change, Ethics and the Earth Charter” Paper presented at the Earth Charter +10 event, Mexico 2010. McKenzie Stephen J Comparative Futures: Notes on a Methodology for the Study of Sustainability, Religion and Global Ethics (Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics 12th Annual Conference, 28-30 September 2005, Adelaide) at http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/gig/aapae05/documents/mckenzie.pdf. Meadowcroft James “Climate Change Governance” Background Paper to the 2010 World Development Report, May 2009, 4. Narayan Deepa et al Voices of the Poor (World Bank, Washington DC, 2000). Navarro Carlos “Cancun Summit on Global Climate Change a Success or Failure, Depending on Whom You Ask” (Notien, The University of New Mexico, January 2011) at http://hdl.handle.net/1928/11918. Petersen Marie Juul, “International Religious NGOs at the United Nations: A Study Group of Religious Organizations” Journal of Humanitarian Assistance (November 2010) at sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/847#_ednref51. Religion and Public Policy at the UN, A Religion Counts Report, April 2002. United Nations General Assembly Debate” UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service at http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UNreform.htm. Vilela Mirian and Corcoran Peter Blaze Building Consensus on Shared Values from The Earth Charter in Action Website at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ENGVilela.pdf. “White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change” Rock Ethics Institute (Paper can be found at http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate). World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty (Oxford University Press, USA, 2000. Websites Adherents.com website <http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html; population data from US Census Bureau, International Data Base, www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html>. Alliance of Religions and Conservation website at http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=51. Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Alliance of Religions and Conservation – History” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/about.asp?pageID=2. Alliance of Religions and Conservation “ARC-UN Long Term Commitments for a Living Planet” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=47. 267 Alliance of Religions and Conservation “List of Faith Commitments Including 7 Year Plans” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=497. Alliance of Religions and Conservation “Uppsala Manifesto Promises Faith Action on Climate Issues” available online at http://www.arcworld.org/news.asp?pageID=283. Au Sable Institute of Environmental Studies website at http://ausable.org/about/. Belopopsky Alexander “Introduction to Christian Environmental Initiatives” Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8051. The Bhumi Project at http://bhumiproject.org/ Brown Donald A “Ten Reasons Why Examining Climate Change Policy Controversies through an Ethical Lens is a Practical Imperative” Climate Ethics Website http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/. Brundtland Gro Harlem “Rio+20 didn’t go far enough” The Elders: Independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights website at http://www.theelders.org/dialogue/rio20didnt-go-far-enough-what-now Chapple Christopher Key “Hindusm, Jainism, and Ecology” at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/hinduism/. Chrysopigi Monastry, Chania, Crete at http://www.cretanbeaches.com/Monasteries/ChaniaMonasteries/chrysopigi-monastery-near-chania/. Church of England “Carbon Pledges at Lambeth Interfaith Forum” March 2011, available online at http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2011/03/carbon-pledges-at-lambethinterfaith-forum.aspx. Climate Change 101 Overview Pew Center on Global Climate Change at <http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101/overview>. Diaz Diana “The Security Council at an Impasse” Global Politics. Found online at http://www.global-politics.co.uk/Archive/Security%20Council%20Impasse.htm. The Earth Charter Initiative at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/faq.html#4. The Earth Charter Initiative: Religion and Spirituality at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/categories/Religion%20and%20Spirituality/. Forum on Religion and Ecology Website Overview at <http://fore.research.yale.edu/information/about/index.html >. Forum on Religion and Ecology “Islam Engaged Projects – Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences (IFEES) at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/islam/projects/islamic_foundation.html. Global Ethic Foundation for Inter-cultural and Inter-religious Research, Education and Encounter website at http://www.weltethos.org/index-en.php. GreenFaith: Interfaith Partners for the Environment available online at http://greenfaith.org/. Hallman David G Climate Justice – the Role of Religion in Addressing Climate Change World Climate Change Conference 2003, Moscow, Russian Federation, September 29 to October 3, 2003 at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakoniaand-responsibility-for-creation/climate-change-water/world-climate-change-conference.html. Halpert Julie “Judaism and Climate Change” The Yale Forum on Clmate Change and the Media at http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/02/judaism-and-climate-change/. 268 Hick John Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic: Towards a Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic – A Christian Comment Centre for Global Ethics (CGE) Website at <http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/hick.htm>. Hope Marjorie and Young James “Islam and Ecology” at http://www.crosscurrents.org/islamecology.htm. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) website available online at http://www.iccr.org/The International Interfaith Investment Group (3iG) website available online at http://www.3ignet.org/about/index.html. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website at http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml#.Upf6OMTI2So. Ivanova Maria “Moving Forward by Looking Back: Learning from UNEP’s History” at www.centreforunreform.org/system/files/GEG_Ivanova-UNEP_2.pdf Jewish Climate Initiative at http://www.jewishclimateinitiative.org/home/ Murray James and Shankleman Jessica “COP 19: Warsaw Climate Deal Finalised as Deadlock Broken” BusinessGreen: Sustainable Thinking at http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2308878/cop-19-warsaw-climate-deal-finalised-asdeadlock-broken. Muslim Green Team website at http://muslimgreenteam.org/about. The New World Religion – Part VII the Interfaith Agenda at http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/new-age/NA1W1299.pdf. Nuttall Nick United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Climate Talks End with Hope for a New More Comprehensive Legally-binding Agreement”, Sunday December 11, 2011 at <http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2661&ArticleID=8984&l=en> Nutall Nick United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) News Centre “Inclusive Green economy Given Go Ahead by Heads of State at Rio+20”, Friday June 22, 2012. At <http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2688&ArticleID=9195&l=en>. Rabbi Julian Sinclair Sally Bingham’s “Love God, Heal Earth”: A Review Jewish Climate Initiative, June, 2009 available online at http://climateofchange.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/sallybinghams-love-god-heal-the-earth-a-review-by-rabbi-julian-sinclair/ . The Regeneration Project at http://www.theregenerationproject.org. Religion, Science and the Environment (RSE) at http://www.rsesymposia.org. Resources on Faith, Ethics, and Public Life “Association of Buddhists for the Environment” at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/organizations/association-of-buddhists-for-theenvironment. Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development website at <http://www.uncsd2012.org/about.html>. Sisters of the Humility of Mary website at http://www.humilityofmary.org/villa-farm.html. Suslov Dmitry “Can American exceptionalism adjust to a multipolar world? Russia Direct Found online at http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/can-american-exceptionalism-adjust-multipolarworld. Sustainable Development Timeline at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/sd_timeline_2012.pdf. 269 “Thai Ecology Monks” The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale at http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/buddhism/projects/thai_ecology/. Tziarras Zenonas “The Iraq Crisis and Its Geopolitical Implications” E-International Relations. Found online at http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/29/the-iraq-crisis-and-its-geopolitical-implications/. UNEP GRID Arendal: Environmental Knowledge for Change at www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate2/page/2684.aspx. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php. United Nations Environment Programme “Global Peace Initiative of Women Convenes Environmental Conference in Kenya” at UNEP website: http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2676&ArticleID=9061. United Nations Security Council website. Found online at http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/. “What is a Global Ethic?” Available online at http://www.global-ethic-now.de/gen-eng/0a_was-istweltethos/0a-00-einleitung/0a-00-was-ist-weltethos.php. Woo Courtney (quoting Ken Wilson) Religion Rejuvenates Environmentalism, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, June 2009 at http://unc.news21.com/index.php/stories/rel.html. World Council of Churches “Care for Creation: Climate Justice Now” available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/events-sections/countdown-to-climate-justice.html. World Council of Churches “The Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders” at http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd36-12.html. World Council of Churches “What is the World Council of Churches?” available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/who-are-we.html. World Faiths Development Dialogue at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/wfdd/about. World Wildlife Fund “Tibetan Monasteries at Work for the Environment” at http://worldwildlife.org/stories/tibetan-monasteries-at-work-for-the-environment. Declarations and Statements Alliance of Religions and Conservation Seven Year Plan leaflet at <http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/ARC%20UNDP%20Seven%20Year%20Plan%20leaflet.pdf The Assisi Declarations at http://www.arcworld.org/downloads/THE%20ASSISI%20DECLARATIONS.pdf. Buenos Aires Declaration on the Human Dimensions of Climate Change ((For the complete text of this declaration refer http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/documents/declaration.pdf). “Christian Faith Statement” Faiths & Ecology, ARC Alliance of Religions and Conservation website at http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=69. Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503&l=en. The Earth Charter Initiative at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-theCharter.html. 270 The Earth Charter Task Force on Religion, Spirituality, and Ethics: Plan of Action at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/attachments/12/PoA_EC_TF_Rel%20%282%29.pdf. Ecodharma Centre: Radical Ecology Radical Dharma “Buddhism and Ecology at http://www.ecodharma.com/influences-articles/buddhism-ecology. The Evangelical Climate Initiative at http://christiansandclimate.org/statement/. The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” at http://fore.research.yale.edu/publications/statements/union/. http://www.hinduismtoday.com/pdf_downloads/hindu-climate-change-declaration.pdf. Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change at http://www.interfaithdeclaration.org/. Toward a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration at http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf. United Nations “World Charter for Nature” at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm. Whitney Lynn and Ellie “Faith Based Statements on Climate Change”, June 2012 at http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/images/Faith%20Based%20Statements%20PDF%20for%20p rinting.pdf. Union of Concerned Scientists - World Scientist’s Warning to Humanity (UCS, Cambridge, MA, 1992). World Council of Churches “Religious Traditions Call to Climate Action” at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/justice-diakonia-andresponsibility-for-creation/climate-change-water/religious-traditions-call-to-climateaction?set_language=en. World’s Major Religions Present Action Plans on Environment (Baha’i World News Service) Baha’i website available online at http://news.bahai.org/story/736 . Conventions and Charters Charter of the United Nations, Chapter V: The Security Council, Voting, Article 27. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online at http://www.cbd.int/convention/about.shtml. Kyoto Protocol. Available online at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Full Text of the Convention at http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php. Lectures and Speeches Appleby Scott “Is Spiritual Wisdom Religion’s Contribution to Global Politics?” Presentation at the 50th Anniversary ISA Convention, “Exploring the Past, Anticipating the Future,” New York City, Feb 15-18, 2009. Baderin Mashood A “Religion and International Law: Friends or Foes” Inaugural lecture delivered by the author at the School of Law, SOAS, University of London on February 18, 2009. Hallman David G Climate Justice – the Role of Religion in Addressing Climate Change World Climate Change Conference 2003, Moscow, Russian Federation, September 29 to October 3, 2003 available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wccprogrammes/justice-diakonia-and-responsibility-for-creation/climate-change-water/world-climatechange-conference.html. 271 Marshall Katherine “Faith and Development: Rethinking Development Debates” speech, Development Dialogue on Values and Ethics, The World Bank, June, 2005 at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/PARTNERS/EXTDEVDIALOGUE /0,,contentMDK:20478626~menuPK:64192472~pagePK:64192523~piPK:64192458~theSitePK: 537298,00.html. Marshall Katherine “Religion and International Development” Interview with Pew Research: Religion and Public Life Project, March 6, 2006, Washington D.C. at http://www.pewforum.org/2006/03/06/religion-and-international-development/. Williams Rowan ‘Internationalism and Beyond’ (speech given on June 18, 2004, Greenwich, CT). See archives:http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1204. Encyclicals and Messages Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI to the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women Religious the Lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_benxvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html. Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1990 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jpii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html. Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 1999 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jpii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-for-peace_en.html. Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1 January 2008 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_benxvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html. Pope John Paul II General Audience (para 4) 17 January 2001 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jpii_aud_20010117_en.html. Pope John Paul VI “Octogesima Adveniens” at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_pvi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html Rerum Novarum Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerumnovarum_en.html. Fact Sheets The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html. The Earth Summit Fact Sheet http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/envirp2.html. Newspapers and Magazines “COEJL: Protecting Creation, Generation to Generation” at http://coejl.org/. Pankaj Jain “10 Hindu Environmental Teachings” Religion, Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pankaj-jain-phd/10-hindu-environmental-te_b_846245.html. 272 Dallo Joes, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Receives White House Launch” ISKCON News at http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-0802/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch. Eco Islam magazine, June 2011, Issue no.08 found at http://www.ifees.org.uk. Heneghan Tom “Some East German Protestants Feel Overlooked as Wall Recalled” FaithWorld: Religion, Faith and Ethics at http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/06/some-east-germanprotestants-feel-overlooked-as-wall-recalled/. Howard Brian Clark “Rio+20 Brings Hope and Solutions despite Weak Talks” (June 21, 2012) on National Geographic Daily News website at <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120621-rio-20-hope-solutions-official-talks/> Hunt Julian and Chan Johnny “Doha Climate Talks are Over – Now to Pick up the Pieces” (Dec 10, 2012) The National website at < http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/doha-climate-talks-are-over-now-topick-up-the-pieces>. Kim Grace Ji-Sun “Advocacy and Action on Climate Change: The World Council of Churches” Available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-ushttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gracejisun-kim/climate-change-advocacy_b_5344044.html. One Country: The Online Newsletter of the Baha’i International Community Volume 19, Issue 2, January-March 2008. Patel Gopal, “Bhumi Green Temple Initiative Recieves White House Launch” ISKCON News at http://news.iskcon.com/node/3805/2011-0802/bhumi_green_temple_initiative_receives_white_house_launch. Press Releases Kenney Peter “World Council of Churches says it will not invest in fossil fuels” Ecumenical News available online at http://www.ecumenicalnews.com/article/world-council-of-churches-says-it-willnot-invest-in-fossil-fuels-25685. Lehr Donald Facing Environmental Crisis, Forum on Religion and Ecology Seeks Transformation Through Language and Action 10th Anniversary Press Release (November 12, 2008) at http://google.yale.edu/search?site=Forum_Religion&q=Harold+Attridge&sort=date%3AD%3AL% 3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&proxyreload=1&client=bluesite_frontend&proxystylesheet=bluesite_frontend&submit=search. Peace for Life Secretariat “Philippines: Church people, environmental groups call for ecological wholeness amid environmental crisis” news report at http://www.peaceforlife.org/news/local/2009/09-0825-ncejed.html. United Nations Climate Change Secretariat Press Release at http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/131123_p r_closing_cop19.pdf. Valente Marcela “Pope Francis Raises Hope for an Ecological Church” Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS) at http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/pope-francis-raises-hopes-for-an-ecologicalchurch/. Willey David Pope Benedict XVI lambasts Copenhagen failure. 11 January 2010. BBC News website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8452447.stm. World Council of Churches Press Centre News, “To save the earth, all must change their ways, says Ecumenical Patriarch”. Available online at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/presscentre/news/to-save-the-earth-all-must-change-their-ways-says-ecumenical-patriarch. 273 Interviews Lomas Charlotta “Religious communities are concerned about the climate” Interview with Guillermo Kerber of WCC. Available online at http://www.dw.de/religious-communities-areconcerned-about-the-climate/a-17966092. 274