

Strongly held positions are frequently traded away or dropped by governments out of necessity in the last hours of international negotiations. But the removal of all reference to human rights in the final draft of the Paris climate agreement has dismayed leaders of nearly all the myriad civil society groups pressing for a strong outcome.

According to observers, Britain, Norway, the US and a small group of developed countries actively blocked inclusion of any mention of human rights in the text in retaliation for developing countries’ refusal to give ground on a part of the text called “loss and damage”. This holds rich countries accountable for irreversible damage done by climate change.

Groups representing development, environment, young people, indigenous peoples, trade unions, women, and others, have all reacted angrily, calling the move “highly contentious” and “cynical” because it deliberately penalised the most vulnerable.

“The loss of the human rights language from article 2 is extremely disappointing and follows the earlier loss of references to gender equality and just transition to a clean economy,” said Helen Szoke, Oxfam Australia’s executive director.

“It appears to be a cynical and manipulative negotiating ploy, designed only to leverage the political commitment the leaders of many developing countries have made to returning with provisions on ‘loss and damage’,” said one observer.

“Combating climate change and helping communities adapt is about protecting rights, of children, particularly the poorest and most disadvantaged, and other vulnerable groups, including migrants, indigenous peoples, and women,” said Joni Pegram, climate change policy advisor at Unicef UK.

There were widely diverging views on how the deal was shaping up. Nicholas Stern, the British economist, has pressed strongly for governments to address climate change urgently.



“In [the draft text], we have sustainable development and poverty eradication, we have [the] right to development, we have electricity supply to those who haven’t got it. This is a story of a transition to a low carbon economy as part of a strong story of development. That seems to me to be a real advance in this COP, relative to those that have come before,” Lord Stern said.



“This is about sustainable development and reduction of emissions, this is about overcoming poverty and reduction of emissions, and a clearer recognition that these things come together. In the past we’ve had a fake horse race between climate responsibility on the one hand and growth and poverty reduction on the other. One of the strong spirits of this COP is that this is now increasingly recognised as a false tension.”

But other observers said that the latest text, which was released on Thursday night, appears to weaken provision for developing countries.



“What we feared about the text has happened – it is an agreement that is good for the US and bad for the developing world. It says there should be a ‘shared effort’, which means both poor and wealthy countries are responsible for providing climate finance – this is totally a rewriting of the existing climate convention. This is indeed what the US and other developed countries have been pushing for for years,” said Meena Raman, from the Third World Network.

“President Obama promised to be both accountable and take responsibility for our roles in the current climate crisis. As the talks nearly come to a close, we can now see that this was not only empty rhetoric, but a great escape for polluters. The low expectations have been surpassed beyond belief – it does nothing to cut emissions or give hope to the poor and most vulnerable,” said Asad Rehman, spokesman for Friends of the Earth.