A/77/549 I. Introduction 1. The global ecological crisis is simultaneously a racial justice crisis. As countless studies and submissions received show, the devastating effects of ecological crisis are disproportionately borne by racially, ethnically and nationally marginalized groups – those who face discrimination, exclusion and conditions of systemic inequality because of their race, ethnicity or national origin. Across nations, these groups overwhelmingly comprise the residents of the areas hardest hit by pollution, biodiversity lo ss and climate change. 1 These groups are disproportionately concentrated in global “sacrifice zones” – regions rendered dangerous and even uninhabitable owing to environmental degradation. Whereas sacrifice zones are concentrated in the formerly colonized territories of the global South, the global North is largely to blame for these conditions. As noted by the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment: “high -income States continue to irresponsibly export hazardous materials … along with the associated health and environmental risks, to low- and middle-income countries”.2 Notably, the distinction between “high-income” and “low-income” countries is directly related to the racist economic extraction and exploitation that occurred during the colonial era, for which colonial powers have not been held accountable. 3 2. “Sacrifice zones,” as illustrated in this report, are more accurately described as “racial sacrifice zones”. Racial sacrifice zones include the ancestral lands of Indigenous Peoples, territories of the small island developing States, racially segregated neighbourhoods in the global North and occupied territories facing drought and environmental devastation. The primary beneficiaries of these racial sacrifice zones are transnational corporations that funnel wealth towards the global North and privileged national and local elites globally. 4 3. In addition to documenting racial sacrifice zones, the Special Rapporteur highlights coerced displacement and immobility in the context of ecological crisis and how racially, ethnically and nationally marginalized groups are disparately subjected to this coercion and immobility. Submissions received show how clima teinduced migration cannot be divorced from the racially unjust hierarchies and regimes of colonial and imperial extraction and exploitation that have significantly determined who is forced to move and who has the privilege of keeping their homes and nati ons. 4. Within the broader movement for environmental justice, climate justice seeks historical accountability from those nations and entities responsible for climate change. Climate justice also seeks radical transformation of the contemporary systems that enable global ecological crisis and distribute the suffering associated with this crisis on a racially discriminatory basis. Because climate change today is driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, historical emissions are an existential contemporary problem. From 1850 to 2002, industrialized countries produced three times the carbon dioxide produced by the entire global South. 5 However, it is the global South and colonially designated non -white regions of the world that are most affected and least able to mitigate and survive global ecological crisis, in significant part owing to the colonial processes that caused historical emissions in the first place. __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 22-24043 Owing to space constraints, this report is focused on environmental human rights harms related to extractivism and climate change. The Special Rapporteur highlights the urgency of a broader and more comprehensive analysis of the intersection of environment al and racial justice. See A/HRC/49/53. See A/HRC/50/60; and A/HRC/41/54. See A/HRC/50/60. See also, submission from the Centre for Economic and Social Rights. Sarah Mason-Case and Julia Dehm, “Redressing historical responsibility for the unjust precarities of climate change in the present”, in Debating Climate Law, Benoit Mayer and Alexander Zahar, eds. (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2021). 3/24