A/HRC/16/62 11. Stephen Humphreys, of the London School of Economics and Political Science, identified five causes for concern, namely that: (a) climate change was not being effectively addressed; (b) even before climate change was taken into account economic, social and cultural rights were not being adequately addressed; (c) climate change would exacerbate these rights failures; (d) the space for development had been largely used up; and finally, (e) there were complex and insidious linkages between all these phenomena, connecting economic growth, rising emissions and excessive energy use, on one hand, and poverty, vulnerability to climate change and food and water scarcity, on the other. He emphasized an apparent paradox in that the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights required development, that development fuelled climate change, and that climate change would in turn worsen human rights. Having queried whether a dedicated human rights special procedure would be a good idea, Mr. Humphreys proposed engaging with climate change law and policy in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as there were numerous principles which could be mobilized to human rights ends, such as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the elaboration of adaptation strategies and the principle of technology transfer. He argued that the right to development should be rethought: what kind of right do humans have to development, and how should it be distributed. 12. Yves Lador, of Earthjustice, emphasized the well accepted human rights dimension to climate change, and that discussions should move beyond that to how to deal with the adverse effects. Legal cases brought before regional mechanisms such as the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, the work of United Nations human rights machinery (e.g. special procedures on housing, food, health, and extreme poverty, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the universal periodic review) and of international development and humanitarian organizations, including on migration, food and drought, were essential in providing affected individuals and those working in that field with better tools and understanding of the consequences of climate change. He also highlighted that the national and international responsibilities could not be separated, and that international responsibility was not simply supplementary: it was directly called for at the front line of the protection of human rights. Mr. Lador supported the idea of establishing a special procedure with the view to ensuring the follow-up in integrating human rights into climate change discussions. 13. In the ensuing interactive debate, Cuba, Nord-Sud XXI and the World Council of Churches made interventions. It was reaffirmed that climate change was one of the most serious challenges and that it had negative effects on human rights, in particular on the right to life and food and the right to self-determination. Further, climate change was deemed to exacerbate national disasters with regard to the impact on life, water, health, property and housing, and had a disproportionate effect on the vulnerable, especially women, children and persons with disabilities. In that regard, the importance of local, national, regional and international measures and actions were noted, as was North-South and South-South cooperation. The debate also highlighted the challenges in integrating human rights language in any texts under climate change negotiations, and the crucial angle of gender issues in looking at climate change. 2. Human rights concerns of specific vulnerable groups, in particular indigenous communities, women, children and internally displaced persons, with a special focus on economic, social and cultural rights 14. Ariranga Govindasamy Pillay, a member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, gave an overview of the activities of the Committee in addressing the negative impact of climate change on human rights including with reference to general comments No. 12 (1999) on the right to food; No. 7 (1997) on the right to adequate housing: forced evictions; No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health 5