MALDIVES

The Maldives are an archipelago of far spread, low-lying islands and atolls located in the Indian
Ocean. Climate change is severely threatening the very existence of the Maldives as well as
diminishing existing human capabilities on these islands. According to the World Bank, with
"future sea levels projected to increase in the range of 10 to 100 centimeters by the year 2100,
the entire country could be submerged". Obviously this would seriously impact the culture and
livelihood of all the citizens of the Maldives. As the President of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul
Gayoom, notes "to the three hundred thousand inhabitants of the Maldives none of these
threats compare, in magnitude and likelihood, to global climate change and consequent sea
level rise." The majority of the population of the Maldives lives on small, flat, densely populated
atolls that are threatened by violent storms or even the slightest sea level rise. The capital Malé
is especially threatened because it is on a small, flat, extremely densely populated atoll that is
surrounded by sea walls, and other barriers to protect against storms. This means the Malé atoll
cannot change shape in response to rising sea levels and is increasingly reliant on expensive
engineering solutions.

One of the dominant manifestations of climate change is sea level rise. NOAA estimates that
"since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude)
indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year". In addition, NASA calculates that average sea
level rise is 3.41 mm per year and that sea level rise is directly caused by the expansion of
water as it warms and the melting of polar ice caps. Both of these changes are dependent on
global warming and thus climate change. Sea level rise is especially threatening to low-lying
island nations because seas are encroaching upon limited habitable land and threatening
existing cultures. As Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of Ocean Physics at Potsdam University in
Germany notes "even limiting warming to 2 degrees, in my view, will still commit some island
nations and coastal cities to drown." However it is also important to consider recent research
which contradicts the claim that rising sea levels will necessarily submerge island nations.
Studies done by Paul Kench, a geomorphologist at the University of Auckland, have shown that
"reef islands change shape and move around in response to shifting sediments, and that many
of them are growing in size, not shrinking, as sea level inches upward". However, at the same
time Kench states that "for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such
as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier"
because these islands cannot adapt to rising sea levels and are therefore greatly threatened.

Initiatives done by Maldives

To prepare against climate change and the resulting sea level rise, the national government of
the Maldives has prepared a comprehensive National Adaptation Programme of Action, that
attempts to critically consider and alleviate many of the serious threats the Maldives faces. The
Maldives have already implemented several measures to combat sea level rise including
building a wall around the capital of Malé and refurbishing local infrastructure, particularly ports.
The Maldives is also taking the lead in attempting to arrest global climate change by instituting a
goal of achieving a carbon-neutral economy by 2020. According to the former environment
minister for the Maldives, Mohamed Aslam, it is a case of "'If Maldives can do it, you can do it.
It's important to us not just to talk but to lead by example". In addition, the local economy of the
Maldives is greatly threatened by climate change. One example is the tourism sector which is
being threatened by the increased likelihood of violent storms, damage to coral reefs, and
beach erosion.

(1) The science of climate change​ –

Most scientists believe that climate change is real. That is the consensus of the members of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, it has just come out with a new report that
outlines the implications of exceeding a 1.5 increase from pre-industrial levels of global
temperature average and propose ways to meet the target of stabilizing temperature at 1.5.
However, there are a few scientists who dissent from the majority view. Unfortunately, the new
US government is supporting this view that climate change is not a real problem. How should
the parties resolve this issue? How do you deal with scientific uncertainty in climate change?
Should the COP accept the 1.5 IPCC Report to guide governments in addressing climate
change?

The scientific uncertainty in climate change is inherent as it involves complicated and dynamic
phenomena that interact with multiple systems and interdependent factors, known and
unknown. And while advances continue to be made in our understanding of climate physics and
the response of the climate system to increases in greenhouse gases, many uncertainties are
likely to persist. To address this uncertainty, one must prepare for the best and worst case
scenarios. Further, the 1.5 IPCC Report is a helpful guide in addressing climate change. The
report is proper when it stated that “Adaptation options that reduce the vulnerability of human
and natural systems have many synergies with sustainable development, if well managed, such
as ensuring food and water security, reducing disaster risks, improving health conditions,
maintaining ecosystem services and reducing poverty and inequality (high confidence).
Increasing investment in physical and social infrastructure is a key enabling condition to
enhance the resilience and the adaptive capacities of societies.” Further, we support its claims
that a mix of adaptation and mitigation options to limit global warming to 1.5°C, implemented in
a participatory and integrated manner, can enable rapid, systemic transitions in urban and rural
areas (high confidence); and that “. Adaptation options that also mitigate emissions can provide
synergies and cost savings in most sectors and system transitions, such as when land
management reduces emissions and disaster risk, or when low-carbon buildings are also
designed for efficient cooling.” Consequently, “directing finance towards investment in
infrastructure for mitigation and adaptation could provide additional resources.”

(2) Objective and Principles

What should the goal be of the Paris Agreement? Should it be 1.5 or 2 degrees maximum
increase? Should it be decarbonization? What principles should guide the Parties in
implementing the Paris Agreement? Is the Common but differentiated responsible principle and
the historical responsibility principle still valid? What is the role of human rights and respecting
the integrity of ecosystems in climate change actions? Is the preamble of the Paris Agreement
legally binding on Parties? Is there a need to come out with a COP decision establishing clearer
obligations on human rights?

The goal of the Paris Agreement should be to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5
degrees Celsius. The agreement must go for an even lower temperature than the proposed 2
degrees maximum. Different principles must be followed to achieve this. Examples of these
principles are the Common but differentiated responsibility principle and the historical
responsibility principle. We believe that both of these principles are still valid.

Common but differentiated responsibility principle means that ​developed country Parties are to
provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties in implementing the
objectives of the UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement reaffirms the obligations of developed
countries, while for the first time also encouraging voluntary contributions by other Parties. It
is important for all governments and stakeholders to understand and assess the financial
needs of developing countries, as well as to understand how these financial resources can
be mobilized.

Historical Responsibility - ​The ​responsibility of countries measured in terms of their share of

historical global emissions remains one of the essential parameters in equity proposals, which
attempt to distribute efforts among countries in an equitable manner.

We believe that both principles are still valid and must continue to be upheld by the countries
involved in this agreement.

As for the issue on ​human rights and respecting the integrity of ecosystems in climate change,
we also believe that these principles must play a huge factor for the purpose of this agreement.
It is in fact these principles that end up showing us what we are fighting for and what we are
striving for.

(3) Climate Support – Finance, Technology Transfer, and Capacity Building

The biggest issue in the climate change negotiations continues to be Support. Who will pay for
the mitigation and adaptation actions that are agreed in (1) and (2)? Should developed countries
pay the whole bill? Should the big developing countries pay their share too? Should a distinction
be made between different types of developed and developing countries in terms of their
responsibility? Should financial contributions be based on responsibility for climate change
and/or capacity to pay? Should the private sector and markets be a source of funds? Is there an
obligation to transfer technology without due regard to intellectual property rights? Is there a
legal duty to help developing countries build capacity to mitigate and adapt to climate change?
Common but differentiated responsibility principle and the historical responsibility principle again
come in to answer this issue. There must be a balance between the two principles. We must be
able to see which countries are most capable to properly finance this agreement while also
seeing who has the most reason to do the same based on their historical responsiblity. As such,
there must be proper distinction between the countries who are part of this agreement as to
properly set the responsiblities for each. Through these principles, we see that there is also a
legal duty to aid the developing countries Private Sectors and Markets must also be included in
this agreement as this would aid in ​cutting and holding steady the GHG emissions at a safe
level.

(4) Climate Justice

Developing countries that are vulnerable to and suffering climate change are seeking the
establishment of a climate justice and redress mechanism. This is different from adaptation
mechanisms in that what is being sought for is compensation based on liability under the
polluters’ pay principle. There is already broad agreement on a loss and damage mechanism
but that is not adequate for vulnerable countries. What principles of liability should be adopted
on climate justice? What remedies and processes should be allowed – eg. adjudication,
mediation, arbitration? Are there institutions that need to be established like an International
Climate Justice Tribunal or is the International Court of Justice an adequate forum?

As correctly pointed out by the Mary Robinson Foundation, the international rights framework
provides a reservoir for the supply of legal imperatives with which to frame morally appropriate
responses to climate change, rooted in equality and justice.

The benefits and burdens associated with climate change and its resolution must be fairly
allocated. This involves acceptance of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities in relation to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Those who have most
responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions and most capacity to act must cut emissions first.

In addition, those who have benefited and still benefit from emissions in the form of on-going
economic development and increased wealth, mainly in industrialised countries, have an ethical
obligation to share benefits with those who are today suffering from the effects of these
emissions, mainly vulnerable people in developing countries. People in low income countries
must have access to opportunities to adapt to the impacts of climate change and embrace low
carbon development to avoid future environmental damage.

A cosmopolitan perspective, as written by Beck, suggests an “…erosion of distinct boundaries

dividing markets, states, civilizations, cultures, and not least of all the lifeworlds of different
peoples”. In the realm of climate change, scholars like Paul Harris et al. (2010, 2013) and others
have suggested that efforts to operationalize climate justice will require approaches that move
beyond the traditional state-centric approach to international relations. Focusing on distributive
justice and in particular the “polluter pays” principle, Caney also argues for an individualistic
approach to distributing responsibility related to climate change, which views the source of
justice and rights to be the interests of individuals.

While a cosmopolitan perspective has the potential to offer fairer benefit and burden sharing,
honing in at the state level can nevertheless enhance climate justice by urging states to fulfill
their legal obligations with regard to curtailing climate change emissions. There are foundations
in existing law that are applicable to climate policy, as highlighted by the Oslo Principles on
Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change (hereafter referred to as the Oslo Principles). The
Oslo Principles were adopted on March 1, 2015, by a group of experts in international,
environmental, tort, and human rights law. The working group included thirteen lawyers and
scientists from nine countries, including judges of the Supreme Court of Brazil, the Netherlands,
India, Australia and the European Court of Human Rights. The Oslo Principles both define the
scope of states’ legal obligations to protect the environment and outline a means of meeting
these obligations. According to the working group there are many legal methods to force a
country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Judges may, on the basis of international law,
human rights and liability judge what a state must do to prevent the harmful effects of climate
change.

Lawsuits to force countries towards an effective climate policy are increasingly being considered
as an important avenue for breaking away from political indifferences and deadlocks.

Further, it is beneficial to adopt a proposal made by Polly Higgins in 2010, a British barrister,
who revived the idea of ecocide. A proposal was introduced into the International Law
Commission (ILC) to amend the Rome Statute to include the crime of ecocide. Subsequently, a
Model Ecocide law text has been finalized in 2015, which defines the crime of ecocide as:
(a) acts or omissions which cause or may be expected to cause, and/or
(b) failure to assist where climate related events have caused or may be expected to
cause:
i. widespread, or
ii. long-term, or
iii. severe loss or damage to, or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, such that
peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished

If approved, countries will be bound by its international obligations therein. However, while
awaiting international recognition, these issues are being played out in domestic claims.