Download National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) – Looking through

National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) – An
Assessment of Workers’ Rights
Nazmul Huq1
Department of Human Ecology
Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussels, Belgium
E-mail: [email protected]
Jean Hugé
Department of Human Ecology
Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussels, Belgium
E-mail: [email protected]
1
Corresponding Author
Abstract
Agriculture is the driving force of the economy of the Least Developing Countries (LDCs) and
most of the workforce is involved in that sector. Climate change is the biggest threat to agriculture
due to its vulnerability to climatic variability. Hence, the agrarian workforce is considered as the
most vulnerable community to climate change impacts. Most LDCs developed their National
Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) which is the interim strategy to adapt with the climate
change. This paper examines National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) of three Small
Island Developing States (SIDS) to see how their NAPA policies react with agricultural workforce.
The evaluations of the NAPAs are conducted assessed on three criteria: rights to participation,
rights to livelihood and rights to alternative livelihoods. The findings shows that the NAPAs does
not take agri-workers’ rights into account and do not valuate the role of agriculture sufficiently.
The paper suggests some strategies that can be followed by the agricultural workforce can perform
to adapt and mitigate the climate change impacts. The paper also suggests lobbying from the
unions at national level for n integration of agri-workers as major stakeholders to deal with
adaptation policies.
Key Words: Adaptation, Agriculture Labour, Climate Change Impact, Mitigation, NAPA
1. Introduction
Small States Developing States (SIDs) are especially vulnerable to climate change vulnerabilities due to their
geographic locations, limited resource base and due to the strong influence of the oceanic circulation
system. Whereas no country is immune (World Bank, 2009) from the adverse impacts of climate change,
SIDs show some additional vulnerability characteristics of climate change s their climate is influenced by
large ocean-atmosphere interactions such as trade winds, El Niño and the monsoons (UNFCCC, 2007a).
These climate characteristics, combined with their particular socioeconomic situations make SIDS, among
which are 12 LDCs, some of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change (UNFCCC,
2007b). Sea level rising threatens their resource bases, especially the agricultural sector where much of their
population is involved in. The United Nations framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) calls
for an immediate adaptation action package called National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)2 to
climate change vulnerabilities realizing the facts that even if the best practices of mitigation action are
deployed some of the impacts are unavoidable. NAPAs aim to develop of short and midterm adaptation
plan consists of a series of tangible adaptation projects for the adaptation of the most vulnerable sectors.
The paper is a review of the consideration of the rights of agri-workers in the NAPA documents of 3 most
climate vulnerable Small State Islands (SIDs) located in the Asian Pacific region. The names of the States
are the Maldives, Vanuatu and Kiribati. The paper seeks to answer how NAPAs take environmental justice
and rights towards agricultural labour into account. The consequences of climate change impacts hit the
agriculture devastatingly as well as the workers involved in the sectors. The focus of the paper is to examine
whether agricultural labour rights are considered in NAPAs, what protection mechanisms are deployed to
save their livelihoods and what role the huge labour force can perform for mitigation and adaptation.
2. An Overview of National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)
The NAPA is the configuration process of identifying immediate adaptation needs and actions. According
to UNFCCC the NAPAs provide a process for LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to urgent
and immediate needs with regard to adaptation to climate change (UNFCCC, 2009b). They defined the
NAPA as following
National adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) provide a process for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to identify
priority activities that respond to their urgent and immediate needs to adapt to climate change – those for which further delay
would increase vulnerability and/or costs at a later stage. The NAPAs focus on urgent and immediate needs – those for which
further delay could increase vulnerability or lead to increased costs at a later stage (UNFCCC, 2009a).
2
UNFCCC 7th Conference of the Parties in 2001 requests to prepare NAPA for identify and implement immediate
adaptation needs the Least Developed Countries according to its Decision 5/CP. 7, 28/ CP. 7 and 29/ CP. 7.
The back-story behind establishing NAPA has been initiated by the seventh Conference of the Parties to
the UNFCCC that was held at Marrakech in 2001. The Marrakech Accords that emerged from this process
included three funds relevant to adaptation. The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) is one of them.
It has been set up to support the 48 of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable nations in adapting to
climate change impacts (Abdullah, Konate, Muyungi, & Reazuddin, 2009). The chronological evolution of
the NAPA concept can be briefly listed as follows (UNFCCC, 2009a):
-
Article 4.9 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
recognizes the specific needs and special situations of the LDCs.
-
Decision 5/CP.7 of the 7th Conference of the Parties (COP) also acknowledged the specific
situations of LDCs, in that they do not have the means to deal with problems associated with
adaptation to climate change, and established an LDC work programme including NAPAs as well
as other supporting activities.
-
Decision 28/CP.7 set the guidelines for NAPAs.
-
Decision 29/CP.7 set up an LDC Expert Group (LEG) to provide guidance and advice on the
preparation and implementation strategy for NAPAs.
The NAPAs are expected to focus on the urgent and immediate needs for which further delay could
increase vulnerability or lead to increased costs at a later stage. UNFCCC puts emphasis on using existing
information for preparing NAPAs which will be action oriented, country-driven, flexible and based on
national circumstances (UNFCCC, 2009c) unlike other national development plans such as Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP).
To date, 42 NAPAs have been prepared and submitted to the UNFCCC secretariat and the remaining 6 are
expected to be completed by 2010 (UNFCCC, 2009b). To date, 433 projects have been identified by NAPA
and only four major categories occupy 80 percent of the total projects (UNFCCC, 2008) (UNFCCC,
2009b) (UNFCCC, 2009d). The largest (n=138) number of projects is in agriculture and food security
followed by 78 water resources projects, 62 on terrestrial ecosystem and 50 on marine and coastal
management. Besides, 45 projects have been identified for disaster management and early warning system,
which is also a significant number (UNFCCC, 2009b).
The estimated costs for the projects are USD 352
million for agriculture and food security, USD 837 million for water resources, USD 146 million for coastal
zones and marine ecosystems and USD 133 million for terrestrial ecosystems (UNFCCC, 2009b). It has
been estimated that the total required cost to implement all 433 projects is least USD 2 billion. This amount
is required to implement the urgent and immediate needs to address the challenges of climate change in
LDCs (Ibid).
The preparation of a NAPA is a systematic process. UNFCCC has defined several steps to make the
NAPA democratic in nature, inclusive, participatory, action-oriented, country driven, and off course be
responsive to climate change adaptation. According to UNFCCC guidelines (UNFCCC, 2009c) (UNFCCC,
2009d), following processes have to follow to prepare a NAPA:
-
Establishment of NAPA team and multidisciplinary teams: It must balance inclusiveness with
efficiency, and include the most relevant key players in order to capture the country’s immediate
and pressing climate change issues. The teams should be cohesive and enduring through the
NAPA preparation and implementation process in order to ensure institutional memory and
continuity, notwithstanding the common problem of high staff turnover in government agencies of
LDCs
-
Synthesis of available information: The second step guides the collection of available information
on adverse effects of climate change and coping strategies, taking into consideration national
development plans, strategies and programmes.
-
Rapid participatory vulnerability assessment: This stage involves integrated assessment of
current vulnerability where existing information is missing or inadequate and potential increase in
climatic hazards and associated risks. It focuses on identifying climate-related vulnerable
livelihoods. Regional workshop with different stakeholders provide a detail insights of climate
vulnerability and it is one of the imperatives of this stage
-
Consult stakeholders and the public: LDCs have become increasingly experienced at processes
that integrate the views of all interested parties or stakeholders, as well as the general public, into
project decision-making. The diversity of stakeholders includes government ministries, academic
and research institutions, NGOs, civil society organizations, community-based organizations,
political and traditional leaders, private sector, including small to medium sized enterprises.
-
Identify potential NAPA activities: identifies relevant adaptation options including capacity
building, policy reform, integration into sectoral policies and project-level activities.
-
Prioritize criteria and screen activities: Current NAPA guidelines already provide some guiding
principles for selection criteria, including degree of poverty reduction, extent of adverse effects of
climatic changes, cost effectiveness, and synergies with Multilateral Environment Agreements
(MEAs) and other regional initiatives.
-
Rank activities: With the list of adaptation options prepared and criteria selected and weighted,
there are several tools that can be used to prioritize and screen the NAPA activities. Cost Benefit
Analysis (CBA) and Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) are two most common tools for ranking
activities.
-
Develop NAPA project profiles and submission of NAPA: This is the final stage of NAPA
preparation and after completion of projects NAPA is submitted to UNFCCC for its
consideration.
In brief, above eight stages are followed to prepare a NAPA before submitting it to UNFCCC. As stated
earlier, 42 countries have already submitted their NAPA to UNFCCC among which 138 projects belong to
the agriculture and food security sector. This paper focuses on the agricultural sector and its related labour
force . An analysis of the relevant documents reveals the major agricultural projects that have been
identified by the submitted NAPAs. Among those projects, the following are most repeated (UNFCCC,
2009a) (UNFCCC, 2009d) (UNFCCC, 2009b) (UNFCCC, 2009c):
-
Change of planting dates
-
diversification of crop production by breeding resilient crops (drought resilient for drought prone
areas, and salt resistance for coastal zones)
-
fodder production
-
reseeding of rangelands
-
water harvesting
-
construction and rehabilitation of reservoirs/dams
-
water saving irrigation techniques
-
land use planning
-
soil conservation
-
food preservation and processing through improvement of small scale industries
-
food/cereal banks
3. SIDS, Climate Change Impacts and Agriculture
The Small Island Developing States (SIDs) comprises 51 States and territories that are highly vulnerable to
the effects of climate change and that are already feeling its impacts (UNFCCC, 2008). The projected
impacts of climate change cross all sectors and the vulnerability and low adaptive capacity of SIDs is
inextricably linked to the socio-cultural and economic context of these island States (UNFCCC, 2008). The
Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explores the
key sectoral vulnerabilities and impacts. The report has firmly identified several impacts of climate change
with very high and high confidence3. It states that (IPCC, 2007b)
-
SIDs have special characteristics which make them especially vulnerable to the effects of climate
change, sea level rise and extreme events (very high confidence)
-
Sea level rise is likely to exacerbate inundation, storm surge, erosion and other coastal hazards, thus
threatening the vital infrastructure that supports the socio-economic well being of island
communities (very high confidence)
-
There is strong evidence that under most climate change scenarios, water resources in small islands
are likely to be seriously compromised (very high confidence)
-
Climate change is likely to heavily impact coral reefs, fisheries and other marine based resources
(high confidence)
-
On some islands, especially those at higher latitudes, warming has already led to the replacement
of some local species (high confidence)
3
Confidence expresses the likelihood of occurrence. For very high confidence it is at least 9 out of 10 chances
and for high confidence it is at least 8 out of 10 chances (for more information
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2.html)
-
It is very likely that subsistence and commercial agriculture on small islands will be adversely
affected by climate change (high confidence)
Different studies also confirm the major sectoral vulnerabilities of SIDs. Water, agriculture and food
security, health, terrestrial ecosystems and coastal zones are identified as most potential vulnerable sectors
(UNFCCC, 2005) (IPCC, 2007b) (UNFCCC, 2008). It is very likely that due to the erratic behavior of
climatic components agricultural production will face severe impacts such as short term crop failure and
long term production decline (IFPRI, 2009) (Stern, 2006). According to the reports published by IFPRI
(2009), and FAO (2004) thin markets, a lack of diversification in production, a high degree of economic
openness, rapidly growing population, susceptibility to natural disasters, lack of economies of scale,
remoteness, high transportation and communication costs and costly public administration and
infrastructure may unlock the high exposure to agricultural and food insecurity of SIDs. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the livelihoods of the numerous agricultural labour/workers will be seriously at stake
unless necessary actions are taken urgently.
4. Climate Change and Rights
Although the climate change problems is already understood as both an environmental and development
problem and increasingly also as an economic problem, the social and human rights dimension of climate
change has been given very little attention (Aminzadeh, 2007). The issue of climate change can be framed
as profound issue of rights. Climate change is seen as the biggest development threat (Klein & Persson,
2008) that will hamper the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 (Oxfam
International, 2007). From this point of view climate change is the biggest threat to establish human rights.
The International Labour Organization has 188 conventions on human rights where mostly employer rights
have been emphasised (ILO, 2006). All the signatory countries are obliged to comply those entitled rights
to the work force wherever deemed necessary. A human rights-based approach provides a conceptual
framework for climate change policies; a framework which is normatively based on international human
rights standards and which is practically directed to promoting and protecting human rights (HREOC,
2008). From this aspiration, the question is raised to which degree human rights (in this paper agricultural
worker’ rights) are being protected in the decision making processes linked to tackling climate change.
5. Materials and Methods
The descriptive paper evaluates the rights of the agricultural labour force described in NAPA from three
perspectives of rights. The analysis is broadly qualitative in nature and uses the available literature. The
major difficulty that this research encounters is the lack of adequate literature on the climate change
impacts and relation to workers’ rights. In the literature the link between climate change and rights is not
much highlighted yet (Doussa, 2008) although climate change is considered a profound issue of human
rights (Sinden, 2009). At the same time, the wide dimension of the human rights concept makes the
research scoping difficult.
Dimension of Rights: The research has analysed NAPAs through the lens of agricultural workers’ rights
in particular. In this paper three aspects of rights have been taken into account to evaluate the NAPAs.
These are:
-
Rights to participation: According to NAPA preparation guidelines active stakeholder
participation is key to decision making (UNFCCC, 2009d). The level of participation of the
agricultural workforce for preparing the NAPA is considered for evaluating the acknowledgement
of this right
-
Rights to livelihood support: As mentioned earlier, the agricultural workers of SIDs will face
incredible livelihood difficulties due to climate change. Thus it is an important criterion to assess
how much support the vulnerable agrarian workforce is receiving (training, credits, relocation etc)
that is being acknowledged in the NAPA.
-
Rights to alternative livelihoods: Climate change causes dreadful negative impacts on
employment especially in agrarian societies. The United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) states that major weather events, caused by climate change, carry with them the potential
to cause damage and disrupt transportation lines and industrial infrastructure. This will not only
impact the workers’ ability to be present at work, but also lead to the closing down of industrial
installations that find themselves in the path of the major weather disasters (UNEP, 2008). Hence,
it is appeared as most vital issue for the affected community to provide the means for alternative
livelihood support. This paper seeks how much attention is given by NAPAs to this issue in its
priority projects.
Selection of States: Three SIDs are selected for the evaluation. All three SIDs are located in the Asian and
Pacific region, therefore this evaluation can be regarded as an Asian perspective. Those SIDs have prepared
their NAPA and mostly their economy is based on agriculture and tourism. The three selected States are
-
The Maldives
-
Vanuatu and
-
Kiribati
Method of Analysis: For all the selected states the NAPA document has been consulted for identifying the
projects they have prioritized. Subsequently, the projects are examined through the lenses of rights stated
earlier. Furthermore (MoELAD, 2007), international labour standards, its convention and recommendation
are also taken into account where applicable.
6. Results and Findsings
The Maldives
The Maldives is considered one of the most vulnerable countries due to climate change. The number of
scientific and technical assessments undertaken in the country since 1987 has reiterated the need for longterm adaptation to climate change (MoEEW, 2007). In this connection, the Maldives submitted its NAPA
to UNFCCC in 2007 indicating numbers of projects necessary for immediate adaptation action. Agriculture
contributes 2.6% to its Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (MPND, 2006) and its food security is highly
vulnerable due to excessive import dependency (MoEEW, 2007). In 2003, 7% of the population
experienced food crisis and for nearly half of this population it lasted for less than 10 days (MPND, 2004).
Despite all those scenarios, the document recognizes the agriculture sector as a less priority adaptation issue
compared to tourism, fishing and health (MPND, 2006).
It’s a matter of great concern that through-out the NAPA process, neither the agriculture nor the involved
labour forces receive adequate attention. In NAPA, it has been found that the Maldives has identified eight
critical sectors which need immediate adaptation action. The agricultural sector has been placed fifth in
ranking as it claims that public consultation placed Agricultural sector in fifth position. The public
participation is an fundamental aspect of preparing NAPA but ironically only three consultation meetings
have been conducted; one at national level and rest two meetings at regional level (MoEEW, 2007). For
preparing a document which will be guiding document for interim adaptation action only three consultation
meetings cannot provide the detailed insights of the vulnerabilities involved in different sectors. Moreover,
the grassroots representation from agricultural communities in those meetings was none which is a straight
violation of the “rights of participation” according to ILO convention no 135 concerning workers’
representation (ILO, 2006).
Under the eight identified critical sectors that need to be adapted urgently there are 51 strategic plans.
Among those 51 strategic plans nine were dedicated to the agricultural sector but there is no indication on
better livelihoods for the agricultural labour force, supports, or alternative livelihood options. All nine plans
consist of highly ambitious agricultural development plans which would not be successful if there is a lack
of skills in agricultural labour force. Ironically, skill development of the agri-labours remains out from the
priority strategies.
Furthermore, when all the 51 priority strategies are narrowed down to 30, only one agricultural related plan
takes place in that short list. The plan titled “introduce new technologies to increase local food production”
is the only agricultural hint in the total list. There is nothing pertinent to agricultural development and
enhancement of skills, efficiency, or training needs of the agrarian labours that supports 2.6% to the GDP.
This negligence towards the agricultural labour force is contrary to the International Labour Standards of
ILO Convention no 11 concerning the “Rights of Association and Combination of Agricultural Workers”
(ILO, 2006). This negligence may provoke further vulnerabilities of the agrarian communities. Sometimes
this phenomenon is identified as “adaptation risk” in climate related literature: indeed, imprudent
adaptation actions may increase the vulnerabilities to the vulnerable people (Doussa, 2008) (UNEP, 2008).
The above brief analysis provides a glimpse on how agrarian communities are excluded from their entitled
rights in the decision making process where they are one of the important stakeholder groups.
Vanuatu
Vanuatu is one of the most vulnerable States to the risks of climate change, climate variability and sea level
rise ( NACCC, 2007) coupled with other natural disasters like drought, earthquake, landslide and coastal
flooding. The livelihood and economy of Vanuatu are greatly shaped and driven by climate sensitive
sectors. The effect of climate and sea level change are already very real and pose a tangible threat to the
future socio-economic well-being of the country ( NACCC, 2007). According to the agricultural census of
2006, 80% of the total population of 209,920 lives in rural areas.
The economy of the country comprises a large smallholder subsistence agricultural sector (14.9% of the
GDP) and a small monetized sector. Small-scale agriculture provides income for over 65% of the
population while fishing, offshore financial services and tourism also contribute to the government
revenues. The livelihood of rural people is dependent upon subsistence agriculture characterized by a very
small domestic market. Fisheries, forestry and tourism sectors have also important contribution to the
national economy.
Climate change is likely to impact on all sectors that are pertinent to the sustainable development of
Vanuatu. The NAPA of Vanuatu has been developed in 2007 and a thorough analysis of this document can
label it as a “pro-agricultural” document. It is praiseworthy that despite its lack of financial resources , the
NAPA of Vanuatu shows enough courage to propose a project related to relocation of vulnerable
communities. The NAPA has proposed adaptation strategies according to the provincial needs in its first
stage of development. For all provinces the major focuses of the NAPA are on population resettlement,
enhancing livelihood capitals through different initiatives i.e. structural and nonstructural, agricultural
development, hazard mapping and developing micro-level adaptation plan etc. In its next stage, NAPA
process involved selecting priority strategies for adaptation, using country identified ranking criteria4. Here
NAPA through stakeholder consultation process was conducted in each of the provinces and priority
strategies were listed down. This process results in 19 adaptation priority strategies among which 10
strategies are directly connected with agricultural and livelihood support such as relocation of vulnerable
settlements and infrastructure, alternative fisheries, livestock and agriculture practices. This process includes
capacity building, awareness rising, technology transfer and promotion of traditional knowledge as the core
cross-cutting issues for all strategies ( NACCC, 2007).
4
To know about the ranking criteria please visit unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/vut01.pdf
The NAPA of Vanuatu again shows its agrarian closeness when priority strategies cut off to 11 instead of
19, as the impacts on livelihoods are considered key criteria for measuring the vulnerability. In this list
agricultural development with the options of alternative agriculture, land-use management and re-location
are placed in top. Finally 7 projects that have been submitted are just a readjustment of the previous 19
which were later again shortened to 11. In this seven projects agricultural and livelihood promotion and
protection are given highest priority (Ibid).
A critical analysis of the NAPA of Vanuatu shows some positive components in terms of ensuring the
rights of the work force involved in agriculture. As most of the projects are directly related to agricultural
production, promotion and protection, implicitly the agri workforce is also part of the projects. This reality
has been reflected through different initiatives throughout the NAPA process. Among others these are: the
preservation and processing of agricultural products for better livelihood, the modernization of equipments,
the use of traditional knowledge in agriculture, the promotion of rainwater harvesting etc. These are good
signs in acknowledging the rights of the agriculture-based community. But rights to alternative livelihood
supports are sidelined in the process and the term is not even included in the document. Furthermore, the
process of participation is not such satisfactory as only 1 regional level consultation meeting has been
conducted in each province, which is not very ambitious when it comes to participation. At the same time,
relocation is an important aspect of the total adaptation procedure and the NAPA initially marked the item
as important. But in the final stage, the relocation issue is incorporated neither as a cross-cutting issue nor
as a pilot project. Though there has ample evidence that Vanuatu already started to relocate the vulnerable
people. In conclusion, the NAPA of Vanuatu can be considered as a good start of adaptation action but
through the lens of rights still some fundamental issue like participation and alternative livelihood support
remain insufficiently considered.
Kiribati
Kiribati as a nation has been threatened by climate change; the people, their vital natural resources like
underground water, food crops, and even infrastructure and their livelihoods have been threatened
(START, 2006). Kiribati is a group of 33 coral atolls located very near to the equator in the northern Pacific
Ocean. It comprises of three groups of islands - the Gilbert, Line and Phoenix Islands. 21 of these islands
are inhabited and recently, the population was estimated at a little over 100,000 people (START, 2006)
(World Bank, 2005). For the great majority, the livelihood is at the subsistence level, dependent heavily on
natural environment resources. Subsistence and sustainable means of livelihood are based on indigenous
tree crops, namely coconut tree, pandanus tree, bwabwai (giant taro), breadfruit and banana (MoELAD,
2007).
The NAPA developed by the government of Kiribati consists of nine projects. Though the countries’
economy is based on its natural resources and on subsistence agriculture, those sectors received very poor
attention in its priority project list (MoELAD, 2007). It identified climate induced livelihood vulnerability
e.g. decline of agricultural production and depletion of natural resources but surprisingly there is no hint of
developing or protecting agricultural livelihoods from the adverse impacts of climate change. Not taking
those vulnerabilities into account amounts to a deprivation of the rights of the workforce related to those
sectors as well as the dependent communities. Similar to the Maldives case, this negligence may cause
further climate vulnerabilities.
In the process of developing the NAPA, the responsible committee organized three consultation meetings
which marginalized the vulnerable people. All the meetings were conducted with local elites,
intergovernmental and local governmental officials identified 50 priority projects. This decision making
process ultimately sidelined the marginalized opinions about the actual needs of adaptation priorities. The
result is that form the very beginning of the NAPA process, grassroots people were deprived from their
rights to participation. The top-down approach they followed for decision making is contradictory to the
process of UNFCCC.
When the final nine projects have been finalized, according to the priority setting, the project “agriculture
food crops development” is ranked in position six where major highlights are given on the development of
a gene bank, promotion of agricultural products and cash crops and diversification of agriculture. All the
sub-components of the project indicate a lack of consideration of the rights of the workers involved in
agriculture. Without providing them the necessary support and developing their efficiency toward changing
climate, agricultural diversification and promotion of agriculture will not be realized. Kiribati is by nature an
import dependent country and its domestic market is very small in size (START, 2006). Being a net food
importing country, one of the potential adaptation measures could be the enhancement of local production
as well as expansion of local markets to support them.
The NAPA document of Kiribati is supposed to supplement the national development plan (NDS) of
Kiribati for 2004-2007 (MoELAD, 2007). In reality, both documents are running in parallel from the very
beginning. In NDS the enhancement of critical livelihood capitals and sustainable growth are considered as
paramount objective but in NAPA those objectives are not considered. Thus the most threatening issue in
the NAPA of Kiribati is not supporting the objectives of NDS and does not take the rights of the people
who are at most risk due to climate change impacts into account.
7. Analysis of Findings
The above brief analysis of three SIDs’ NAPAs reveals a key fact: although there is NAPA for taking
adaptation action, the preparation process shows important flaws.. The term livelihood development is a
word which is rarely available in those documents. Besides, vulnerability and adverse impacts that would be
felt by the huge labour-force involved in agricultural sector is not adequately considered. Being regarded as
a key human rights issue, climate change should be the top of the concern of all vulnerable countries along
with their population. At the same time it might be expected that secretariat of UNFCCC would take the
issue of adaptation as a matter of survival. The FAR clearly concludes with that decisive finding that even if
the most stringent effort is deployed to curb the emission temperature will rise for next few decades
(UNDP, 2008). At this stage, rights of decent living and enough provision of livelihoods are the most
important things that should be incorporated in any policy document related to reduce the adverse impact
of climate change.
The countries which submitted NAPA or which are going to submit one are LDCs. Their economy is
mostly dependent on agriculture. Therefore, any negative fluctuation of agricultural production may lead to
the further aggravation of climatic disaster. The destruction of agri-based economies will bring untold
livelihood collapse for the millions of work-force related to agriculture (Stern, 2006). The way climate
change is happening so far, it is expected that if left unchecked all the LDCs will be devastatingly affected
(World Bank, 2009).
Considering the facts, the secretariat of UNFCCC should put more emphasis to save the livelihood of
agricultural related work-force. Again, retaining agri-biodiversity is another important factor for planetary
survival (World Bank, 2009a). But, the paradox is among 138 NAPA projects under “agriculture and food
security” very few take livelihood protection of agri-workers and the improvement of agro-biodiversity into
account. Furthermore, the studied NAPAs have very few indications on enhancing endangered livelihood
of vulnerable communities. Thus it is time to revisit the NAPA process, because so far its
acknowledgement towards agricultural labour force in terms of their livelihood development is really
insufficient.
Another important aspect to look at is that divergence of the major policy documents. All the major policy
documents should be coherent in nature and adequate synergies should be open to meet the common goal.
The contradiction is that policy documents like NAPA, PRSP and other national development plans rarely
converge towards a single goal and radiates in different direction (Eriksen, Klein, Ulsrud, Næss, & O’Brien,
2007) (Prowse, Grist, & Sourang, 2009). UNFCCC and other development stakeholders should pay special
attention to this issue.
As said earlier, climate change is an issue that can lead to the deprivation of the basic human rights. It has
all the components to prevent human kind especially the poor and vulnerable communities to claim their
entitled rights e.g. rights to live, rights to decent livelihood, rights to fair wage, rights to education etc. As a
result, the government and international bodies have a moral and ethical obligation to do their best for
protecting their rights. This commitment has been reiterated in several important international forums such
as the Earth Summit 1992 and the World Summit for Sustainable Development in 2002, and more recently,
in the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, this commitment has not been reflected in the
NAPA documents.
8. Role of Agricultural Work-force for Nationally Appropriated Mitigation Action (NAMA)
The possible instability caused by climate change could greatly affect the lives of workers and their families
all around the world. While the connection between the consequences of climate change and the
agricultural sector is the most obvious, it is important to realize that other sectors may also suffer due to
climate change. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) is supported by the different
convention articles. NAMA bears different meaning and actions for developed and developing countries.
Article 4.7 states that “The priorities of developing countries are economic and social development and
poverty eradication”. The clarification of the related articles demystifies the NAMA in context of
developing countries. The NAMA should be developed in such a fashion which will ensure the following
(Bratasida, 2008)
-
In line with decentralization
-
Ensure environmental sustainability but at the same time pro-growth, pro-poor, pro-employment
-
Development of renewable energy based on abundance of resource available, and technology
adoption based on abundance of resource
-
Collaboration of all stakeholders
Those guidelines define some task for the related trade unions. In context of NAMA, Trade Unions can
play vital role for mitigate the vulnerability of climate change. As stated earlier due to climate change the
massive impacts on employment sector is inevitable. Therefore, the role of trade unions is much more
important to mitigate the impacts as well as save the labour rights.
-
Forming trade union for ensuring collective rights where trade unions do not exist (some
developing countries do not allow to form trade unions for inviting foreign investment)
-
Work as a key stakeholder in close collaboration with government
-
Unions can play the major role of massive awareness rising in local level
-
Union can bring the issue of greening the policies that will make the development “climate proof”
to the front
-
Workforce can play vital role in transitional movement to sustainable production and consumption
through massive campaign and practice
-
Working as watchdog of government action
-
Regular participation in international arena through developing worldwide network
-
Using collective bargaining agreements to improve environmental measures
-
Fighting for environmentally sustainable jobs in what is being called the “green economy “5
9. Conclusion
Climate change is the biggest threat for the sustainable development. The human development is
profoundly threatened by the massive development of adverse impacts. Throughout the paper, it has been
emphasized to focus on an issue which is not much touched; viewing NAPA from the view points of
rights. It has been tried to explore whether human rights and labour rights are reflected throughout the
NAPA process. The findings are not very much optimistic and seemingly NAPA process sidelines the issue
of entitled human rights in NAPA process. It can be concluded that if NAPA marginalizes the human
rights issue especially the employment rights issue the implementation of NAPA would be difficult and
probably not sustainable. Thus it is an urgent call on the point of irreversible tipping points to shape the
NAPA process in such a way which will ensure the rights of inclusion, participation, decision making, and
finally rights to collective action to fight together against climate change impacts.
5
For the definition of “green economy
”http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com/international_labor_right/2009/12/climate-change-copenhagen-andworkers.html
References
Abdullah, A., Konate, M., Muyungi, R., & Reazuddin, M. (2009). National adaptation funding: ways forward for
the poorest countries. London: International Institute of Environment and Development.
Aminzadeh, S. C. (2007). A Moral Imperative: The Human Rights Implications of Climate Change.
HASTINGS INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW , 231-265.
Bratasida, L. (2008). Organization of Economic Cooperation an Development . Opgeroepen op March 15,
2010, van www.oecd.org: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/16/40633672.pdf
Doussa, J. v. (2008). Climate Change and Human Rights. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from http://cpd.org.au/:
http://cpd.org.au/article/climate-change-and-human-rights
Eriksen, S. E., Klein, R. J., Ulsrud, K., Næss, L. O., & O’Brien, K. (2007). Climate Change Adaptation and
Poverty Reduction: Key interactions and critical measures. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation (Norad).
FAO. (2004). FAO and SIDS: Challenges and emerging issues in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
HREOC. (2008). Human Rights and Climate Change. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
IFPRI. (2009). Climate Change - Impacts on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. Washington D.C.: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
ILO. (2006). C11 Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from
www.ilo.org: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm
ILO. (2006). C135 Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971. Opgeroepen op March 10, 2010, van
www.ilo.org: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/convdisp1.htm
ILO. (2006). International Labour Organization . Opgeroepen op March 11, 2010, van Website of International
Labour Organization : http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/conventions.pdf
IPCC. (2007b). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, R., & Persson, A. (2008). Financing Adaptation to Climate Change: Issues and priorities.SEI Briefing Note for
the European Climate Platform. Stockholm : Stockholm Environment Institute.
MoEEW. (2007). National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) - Maldives. Male: Ministry of Environment,
Energy and Water.
MoELAD. (2007). National Adaptation Programme of Action - Republic of Kiribati. Tarawa: Ministry of
Environment, Land and Agriculture Development.
MPND. (2004). Statistical Yearbook of Maldives. Male: Ministry of Planning and National Development.
MPND. (2006). Statistical Yearbook of Maldives 2006. ’, . Maldives. Male: Ministry of Planning and National
Development.
NACCC. (2007). National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) - The Republic of Vanuatu. Port Vila:
National Advisory Committee on Climate Change.
Oxfam International. (2007, May). Adapting to climate change What’s needed in poor countries, and who should pay.
Retrieved
February
22,
2009,
from
www.oxfam.org.uk:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/climate_change/downloads/bp104_adapting_to_cli
mate_change.pdf
Pender, J. S. (2008). What Is Climate Change? And How It Will Effect Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Church of
Bangladesh Social Development Programme.
Prowse, M., Grist, N., & Sourang, C. (2009). Closing the gap between climate adaptation and poverty reduction
frameworks. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Read, R. (2010). ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE IN SMALL ISLAND
DEVELOPING STATE. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
Sinden, A. (2009). Climate Change and Human Rights. Journal of Land, Resources & Environmental Law .
START. (2006). Climate change threats Kiribati. Opgeroepen op March 11, 2010, van www.pmel.noaa.gov:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/ganachaud/References/OceanicWavesSept06.pdf
Stern, N. (2006). Report of the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. London, UK: HM Treasury.
UNDP. (2008). Human Development Report - Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New York:
United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
UNEP. (2008). Climate Change, its Consequences on Employment and Trade Union Action. Nairobi: United Nations
Environment Programme.
UNFCCC. (2009a, November 3). Chronological Evolution of LDC work Programme and Concept of NAPAs.
Retrieved
March
03,
2010,
from
http://unfccc.int/:
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/ldc_work_programme_
and_napa/items/4722.php
UNFCCC. (2005). Climate change, small island developing States. Bonn: United Nation Framework Convention
on Climate Change.
UNFCCC. (2007a). CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACTS, VULNERABILITIES AND ADAPTATION IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
UNFCCC. (2008). Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries. Bonn: United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
UNFCCC. (2009d). STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL ADAPTATION
PROGRAMMES OF ACTION. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
UNFCCC. (2009b). THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES - SUPPORT NEEDED TO FULLY
IMPLEMENT NATIONAL ADAPTATION PROGRAMMES OF ACTION (NAPAs). Bonn:
UNited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change .
UNFCCC. (2009c). THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES NATIONAL ADAPTATION
PROGRAMME
OF
ACTION:
OVERVIEW
OF
PREPARATION,
DESIGN
OF
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND SUBMISSION OF REVISED PROJECT LISTS
AND PROFILES . Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
UNFCCC. (2007b). VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN SMALL
ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention for Climate
Change.
World Bank. (2009a). Convenient Solutions to an Inconvenient Truth: Ecosystem‐based Approaches to Climate Change.
Washington: The World Bank.
World Bank. (2005). The World Bank. Opgeroepen op March 11, 2010, van Website of the World Bank:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/E
XTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/0,,contentMDK:20585703~menuPK:502892~pagePK:3400
4173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:502886,00.html
World Bank. (2009). World Development Report 2010 - Climate Change and Development. Washington: The World
Bank.