Intersectionality of the Right to Environment and Human Rights: A
Climate Change perspective
Submitted to:
The Human Rights Department
Submitted by:
Sambriddhi Aryal
“ST 3369”
Green Zone
Third Year
Kathmandu School of Law
1
Abstract:
This paper examines the critical intersectionality of the ‘Right to Environment’ and human
rights from a climate change perspective, arguing that environmental degradation
disproportionately impacts the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations. While
international declarations frame environment and development as complementary rights, this
research highlights how this framework often overlooks the acute realities of people living in
the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), where poverty and climate vulnerability create a
vicious cycle. The paper also argues that a rights-based approach, reinforced by judicial
activism, is essential to empower marginalized communities, address the disproportionate
burdens of climate change, and ensure that environmental justice becomes a tangible reality
for those facing the gravest consequences of Climate Change.
2
Acknowledgment:
I owe my sincere thanks to Executive Director, Prof. Geeta Pathak for introducing us to the
International Human Rights Law and very patiently answering our queries. I would also like to
thank the subject teachers, Assoc. Prof. Achyut Acharya and Assoc. Prof. Rabindra Bhantari
for providing us key insights in this subject. Lastly, I would express my Gratitude to my parents
and my friends for encouragement and valuable guidance. Every author cited in this paper is
duly acknowledged. I thank you all for your dedication; this term paper would not have been
possible without your efforts and stands a testament to it.
Sambriddhi Aryal
B.A. LL.B. First Year
Green Zone
3
Table of Contents:
Contents
Abstract: .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Chapter 1: ................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1. Introduction: .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Objectives of the Study: ............................................................................................................... 6
1.3. Limitations of the study: .............................................................................................................. 7
1.4. Methodology: ............................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: Analysis and Discussion: ....................................................................................................... 8
2.1. Intersectionality of the Right to Environment and Human Rights ............................................... 8
2.2. Judicial Activism by the Supreme Court in the protection of the Right to Clean and Healthy
Environment :.................................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 3 : Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................ 12
4
Chapter 1:
[Link]:
“Both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to the well-
being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights - even the right to life itself”1 thus, in 1972,
the Stockholm declared it the solemn responsibility of all people and the duty of all
governments “to protect and improve the environment for future generations”2. A few years
later, in 1986, the UN General Assembly adopted the ‘Declaration on the Right to
Development’ which proclaimed the right to development as an “inalienable human right”
which every human person and all peoples are entitled to enjoy.3
International scholars often argue that there is no inherent conflict between the ‘right to
environment’ and the ‘right to development’, which is true to some extent. However, this
perspective overlooks the lived realities of the poorest of the world, particularly in least
developed countries. For much of the world, urgent concerns such as poverty, inequality, and
unemployment tend to outweigh environmental concerns. Yet paradoxically, it is precisely
these vulnerable groups face the most severe human rights impact resulting from environmental
degradation and climate change. It is increasingly recognized that the sustainability of the
environment is not only complementary to, but also indispensable for, the realization of the
right to development, including the global commitment to “end poverty in all its forms
everywhere.”4 Environmental concerns, particularly climate change increases the vulnerability
of millions of the world’s poorest people, with over 1.3 billion people, mostly in the developing
countries, trapped on degrading agricultural land, exposed to climate stress, and therefore
excluded5 from their fundamental right to both environment and development.
In Nepal, Article 30 of the nation’s Supreme law hold that ‘Every citizen shall have the right
to live in a clean and healthy environment.’ Nepal has a history of progressive development in
Environmental law. In this context, the contribution of the Supreme Court cannot be ignored.
1
United Nations Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm, 1972 June 5, 1972, (UN Doc
A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1), Principle 1.
2
Ibid, Principle 1.
3
Declaration on the Right to Development, GA Res 41/128, UN GAOR, 41st sess, 97th plen mtg, Annex,
Agenda Item 101 (4 December 1986) art 1.
4
Goal 1, Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainable Development
Knowledge Platform, available at [Link] [Link]/[Link], accessed 26 August
2025.
5
Isabell Kempf, ‘Poverty and the environment/climate change’, available at
[Link] accessed on 27 August
2025.
5
In Prakash Mani Sharma v. Office of Prime Minister, the Apex Court highlighted that the right
to environment enshrined in the Constitution is interrelated with the right to life, right to live
with dignity, right to work in a healthy environment and the right to breathe in a pollution free
air. Likewise, the bench affirmed that the Right to live in a clean environment can also be
viewed in an extended manner up to the right of access to justice.6 In casu, the Court recognized
the intrinsic gifts provided by nature such as air, water, forests, and biological diversity are not
exclusively designated for a single generation and transcends any potential economic
developmental. Therefore, disregarding substantial economic interests, developmental
activities that may potentially have negative impacts on the environment must not continue.7
Quoting David B. Hunter, “the world is finite. The earth can support only so many people and
only so much human activity before limits are reached”.8 And “the largest of technology can
only postpone or disguise the inevitable." Therefore, under the pretext of cultural and religious
rights, the court affixed a precedent in the Second Godawari Marble case that “even if gold or
diamonds are found in Godawari, it must be protected for future generations” drawing parallels
with Ramayana’s Sanjiwani because the natural national heritage is the common property of
all the citizens9 9 belonging to all generations10 and the role of the government is that of a
Trustee.11 Furthermore, any threat to ecology can lead to the violation of the right to enjoy a
healthy life.12 Thus, reaffirming M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the balance between
environmental protection and developmental activities can only be maintained by strictly
following the principle of 'sustainable development.13
1.2. Objectives of the Study:
a. To analyse the intersectionality of the Right to Clean Environment and the world’s poorest
people;
6
Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers NKP 2065 (2008)
Decision no. 7954.
7
Second Godavari Marble case, Prakash Mani Sharma and others v. Government of Nepal, Office of Council of
Ministers, Singhadurbar and others NKP 2073 (2016), Decision no. 9575.
8
David B. Hunter, An ecological perspective on property’, Harvard Environmental law Review, Vol. 12, 1988,
p. 311.
9
Yogi Narhari Nath Case, Yogi Narhari Nath v. Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers NKP 2053
(1996) Decision no. 6127.
10
Second Godawari Marbel Case (n 7).
11
Advocate Narayan Prasad Devkota v. Office of Prime Ministers and Council of Ministers NKP 2067 (2011)
Decision no. 8521.
12
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. The Union of India & Ors, AIR Supreme Court of India, 1997.
13
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, AIR Supreme Court of India 2002.
6
b. To examine the disproportionate impact of environmental degradation and climate change
on vulnerable and marginalized populations.
1.3. Limitations of the study:
a. The research relies on existing reports, scholarly articles, and case law. The rapidly evolving
nature of climate science, international policy, and real-time climate events means some recent
data or developments may not be captured.
b. This paper utilizes data available up to July 2025.
1.4. Methodology:
The research is primarily based on a qualitative analysis of doctrinal and legal sources (e.g.,
declarations, constitutions, court judgments) and secondary literature. It does not involve
original quantitative data collection or empirical fieldwork.
7
Chapter 2: Analysis and Discussion:
2.1. Intersectionality of the Right to Environment and Human Rights
Proponents of conceptualizing environmental protection as a human rights issue14 see value-
added in using respect for human rights to ensure an ecologically-sustainable society.15 The
rights-based approach to environment starts from the premise that the degradation of
environment violates the inherent and inalienable rights attributed to all human beings and their
dignity. The right based approach can be interpreted in two ways first; the approach can be
interpreted to emphasize the right of each human to a certain quality of environment, because
that quality is a prerequisite for, the enjoyment of the human rights.16 And second, the
recognition as a “person” entitles one as competent to exercise rights under law inter alia to
sue and acquire property which could be ascribed to natural entities.
Over 70% of the world’s poor is dependent on natural resources for all or part of their
sustenance. Since, the poor and vulnerable are disproportionally dependant on ecosystem for
their livelihoods, they are most likely to be affected by environmental degradation. Even here,
intersectionality persists. This is because, poverty falls disproportionately on women and girls.
After all, one in every 10 women in the world lives in extreme poverty. A report from UN
women reveals that by 2020, Climate change is set to leave 236 million more women and girls
which is twice as many as men (131 million) in poverty. This disparity is a result of multi-
faceted issues. Compared to men living in extreme poverty, women are less likely to receive
education, more likely to be unemployed, and face significant barriers to economic
participation. Indeed, reports indicate that at prime working age, only 61 per cent of women
are in the labour force, compared to 90 per cent of men.17 While this paper does not overlook
the impacts of environmental degradation on men and boys, it emphasizes women, who are
disproportionately vulnerable, due to the intersectional effects of poverty, inequality, and
climate change.
While everyone everywhere is impact through climate change, its impact vary greatly between
countries and populations. For instance, although, the lowest income countries produce one-
14
Neil Popovic, ‘Pursuing Environmental Justice with International Human Rights and State Constitutions’,
1996.
15
Open Edition Journals, available at [Link] accessed on 27
August 2025.
16
(ibid)
17
1 in every 10 women in the world lives in extreme poverty, 2024, UN women, available at
[Link]
extreme-poverty, accessed on 27 August 2025.
8
tenth of emissions, they are the most heavily impacted by climate change. The countries with
the fewest resources are likely to bear the greatest burden in terms of loss of life and relative
effect on investment and the economy.18 Although, only one-tenth of the world's greenhouse
gases are emitted by 74 lowest income countries, they will be most affected by the effects of
climate change.19
Climate change not only affects health and opportunities, but also agriculture, a major source
of income for most of the world’s poorest and a key sector in the poorest countries. By 2030,
losses of crop yield could mean that food prices would be 12 percent higher on average in Sub-
Saharan Africa. The strain on poor households, who spent as much as 60 percent of their
income of food could be acute.20
Annually, climate change leads to many disasters, such as flood, landslide, etc. In 2024, above
150 ‘unprecedented’ disasters struck the world,21 due to climate change which led to numorous
deaths and casualties. Above 800,000 people were displaced and made homeless.22
Although, the United Nations General Assembly declared in July 2022 that ‘everyone in the
planet has a right to healthy environment’,23 report indicates that the poorest children of the
world shall face the gravest consequences. A global temperature rise of 2–3°C could put up to
5% more people i.e. over 150 million at risk of contracting diseases such as malaria. Cases of
diarrhoea are also expected to become more common, while growing water scarcity would
negatively impact both the quality and hygiene of water. By 2030, these factors could lead to
an estimated 48,000 additional deaths in children under the age of 15 due to diarrheal
diseases.24 Indeed, the poorest children of the world will face the severest consequences.
18
Forum Institutional, ‘The climate criss disproportionately hits the poor. How can we protect them?’, Ruma
Bhargawa & Megha Bhargava, World Economic Forum, 2023, accessed on 28 August 2025.
19
‘Rapid, Climate-Informed Development Needed to Keep Climate Change from Pushing More than 100
Million People into Poverty by 2030, 2015’, [Link]
climate-informed-development-needed-to-keep-climate-change-from-pushing-more-than-100-million-people-
into-poverty-by-2030 accessed on 28th August 2025. [hereinafter ‘Rapid, Climate-Informed Development
Article’]
20
IBID) (n 19).
21
The Guardian, ‘More than 150 ‘unprecedented’ climate disasters struck world in 2024, says UN, Damian
Carrington, 2025’, available at [Link]
disasters-extreme-weather-un-report, accessed on 29 August, 2025.
22
State of the Global Climate 2024, 2025, World Meteorological Organization, available at
[Link] accessed on 29 August 2015.
23
The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, GA Res 76/300, UN GAOR, 76th sess,
91st plen mtg, Agenda Item 18 (b) (28 July 2022).
24
Rapid, Climate-Informed Development Article, (n 19).
9
Apart from poverty and health, poor people shall also be impacted by hunger and waster
scarcity due to changes in food production and higher consumption practices. By 2030, the
likelihood of crop yield failures is expected to rise by 4.5 times, and by 2050 it could be up to
25 times greater in key global breadbasket regions.25 Water availability will also be be further
strained by recurring droughts, higher evaporation rates, and shifts in rainfall and runoff
patterns, particularly in subtropical regions that already face shortages. By 2025, the number
of people affected by water scarcity is projected to reach 5 billion, the number is 1.7 billion
today.26
2.2. Judicial Activism by the Supreme Court in the protection of the Right to Clean and
Healthy Environment :
• The RHE as a Derivative Right: Initially, courts recognized the Right to Environment
not as a standalone right but as intrinsic to fundamental rights like the right to life and
dignity, as seen in Prakash Mani Sharma v. Office of Prime Minister in Nepal. For the
poor, this legal interpretation is crucial. Pollution and environmental degradation are
not abstract concepts but direct threats to their life and health, 27 such as through
increased "diarrheal diseases" or "malaria." The Supreme Court of Nepal thus provides
a tool to argue that a government's failure to prevent pollution violates its duty to protect
the right to life to the most vulnerable citizens of Nepal.
• Intergenerational Equity and the Public Trust Doctrine: The landmark Second
Godawari Marble case in Nepal powerfully articulates the doctrine of Intergenerational
Equity and Public Trust Doctrine.28 By declaring natural heritage the "common
property of all citizens belonging to all generations" and the state a "Trustee," the court
established a legal duty to protect the environment for the future.29 This is profoundly
intersectional with poverty because the poor are often forced by immediate survival
needs to use resources unsustainably. For Instance, the cutting down forests for fuel is
prevalent in districts such as Nawalparasi, Parsa, parts of Chitwan etc. The state's duty
as a trustee is not just to conserve nature but also to break this cycle by providing
25
Monica Caparas and others, ‘Increasing risks of crop failure and waster scarcity in global breadbaskets by
2030’, Environmental Research, 2021, available at [Link]
accessed on 29 August, 2025.
26
WMO, 2021 State of Climate Services, WMO-No. 1278.
27
Prakash Mani Sharma Case (n 6).
28
Second Godawari Marbel Case, (n 7).
29
Advocate Narayan Prasad Devkota v. Office of Prime Ministers, (n 11).
10
sustainable alternatives and ensuring that the burdens of conservation do not fall
unfairly on the poor.
• The Rights-Based Approach to Environment: The Rights- Based approach, frames
environmental protection as a matter of human dignity and justice. It empowers the
poor by positioning them not as victims but as rights-holders who can demand
accountability from the states. Here, the "right to file write petition" also becomes a
powerful tool, allowing communities and advocates to challenge powerful polluting
industries such as Godawari Marbles or the state’s inaction.
11
Chapter 3 : Conclusion:
In conclusion, environmental degradation and climate change are not distant threats but a
present and intensifying crisis, with its most severe consequences falling disproportionately on
the world’s poorest. Their lives, health, and livelihoods are endangered by food insecurity,
water scarcity, and the increased prevalence of diseases such as malaria and diarrhoea. Judicial
activism by the Supreme Court, particularly through the interpretation of the multi-faceted
‘Right to a Clean Environment’, is vital for ensuring protection and accountability. By
anchoring this right in constitutional guarantees, applying principles such as intergenerational
equity, and empowering citizens through public interest litigation, the courts provide a crucial
mechanism to challenge state inaction and corporate negligence. This legal framework is
essential to ensure that environmental justice becomes a tangible reality for the most vulnerable
in Nepal by safeguarding not only their present well-being but also the planet for future
generations.
12