Download Environmental Justice and Sustainability at Diverse Scales: A

Justice in adaptation to
climate change
Neil Adger
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
[email protected]
Linking justice and environmental
change
‘There will be no lasting peace while there
is appalling injustice and poverty. There
will be no genuine security if the planet
is ravaged by climate change’
Tony Blair - ‘Concerted international effort
necessary to fight climate change’ 24th
February 2003.
What is justice?
Distributive justice or equity - the distribution
of beneficial and adverse consequences
(welfare, impacts, etc.) of an act or choice.
Procedural justice - the way in which
decisions are made. Whose interests count?
Who can participate?How is power
distributed among those that can participate?
Distributive and procedural justice can focus on one
overarching consequence or principle, or acknowledge multiple
consequences or principles
Dilemmas of Climate Justice
Mitigation issues
• Historical responsibility (international)
• Burden sharing rules (international)
• Impacts of domestic mitigation measures (local
scale)
Impact and adaptation issues
• Spatial distribution of impacts (local to global)
• Social distribution of resilience and adaptive capacity
(local to global)
• Threats to non-human species (universal)
Analysing justice in climate
change adaptation
Two year strategic assessment examining:
Justice in international conventions
Justice in adaptation policies
Justice in everyday adaptation actions
What is adaptation?
• Adaptation is (usually) purposive action
• Adaptation is ‘adjustment in ecological,
social or economic systems in response
to actual or expected climate stimuli and
their effects or impacts. … to moderate
damages or to benefit from
opportunities associated with climate
change’
Justice criteria
• Utilitarianism – e.g. Pareto rules on
maximising aggregate welfare
• Rawlsian – maximin / difference
principles
• Simple equality – distribution according
to even division across population
• Desert – fairness determined by
contribution to public good
Justice and the atoll island nations
With global sea level rise, when will islands be uninhabitable (what
criteria)? There are five nations wholly atolls.
Expectations and risk – impacts of expectations of abandonment
on investment, and insurance.
Sustainable utilisation of renewable and non-renewable natural
resources – utilise to extinction and deplete to zero
Expectations of future over-exploitation leads to breakdown in
present day collective action
Source: Barnett and Adger (2003) Climatic Change 61, 321-337
Justice and the atoll island nations
Global action as implied by Rawls ‘Theory of Justice’
1 just actions - maximise the welfare of the most vulnerable
application of difference principle to global action would lead all
countries acting as if their states would cease to exist
2 Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’
states would act as if there were an no prior knowledge of
which state disappears?
3 But Rawls’ theories hold only for individuals, not collective action,
imply risk aversion in decision-making, etc
Source: Barnett and Adger (2003)
Justice in the Context of Adaptation
Justice field Examples of criteria
Issues
Distributive Welfare consequences: benefit to most
Who defines and
how:
vulnerable (maximin) decisive in allocating costs
and benefits
Principles regarding security, avoidance of
danger, and rights of non-humans
Procedural
Danger
Vulnerable groups?
How defined and by
How procedures and practices recognise
whom?
interests; define rights to voice concerns and to
participate; distribute power and constrain its use;
Should outcomes
and guarantee fair process.
matter in choice of
procedures?
Components of external and internal
definitions of dangerous climate change
World development
Indicators derived from:
Global greenhouse gases
Legitimacy of the sources of
information
Global climate models
Regionalisation
Behavioural change observed
through markets or other collective
action
Impacts
Vulnerability
(physical)
Expert’s dangerous climate change
Experienced or perceived dangerous climate change
Determinants
Vulnerability
(social)
Adaptive capacity
Indicators based on:
Economic resources Technology
Information & skills
Infrastructure
Equity
Institutions
External
definition
Source: Dessai et al. (2003) at www.tyndall.ac.uk
Trust in regulators and other
authorities
Amount of information available
Personal experience and recall (e.g.
of extreme events)
Wealth and health
Values and worldviews
Internal
definition
Physical thresholds for externally defined
dangerous climate change
L
2.
3.
4.
5.
Large-scale eradication of coral reef systems (O’Neill and Oppenheimer,
2002)
Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Vaughan and Spouge,
2002)
Breakdown of the thermohaline circulation (Rahmstorf, 2000)
Qualitative modification of crucial climate-system patterns such as ENSO
and NAO
Climate change exceeding the rate at which biomes can migrate (Malcom
and Markham, 2000)
Social thresholds for externally defined
dangerous climate change
.
8.
9.
1
Depopulation of sovereign atoll countries
Additional millions of people at risk from water shortage,
malaria, hunger and coastal flooding
Destabilisation of international order by environmental
refugees and emergence of conflicts
World impacts exceeding a threshold percentage of GDP
Observations on Justice in Local
Adaptation
Justice
Manifestations
Distributive
Adaptation strategies often reduce the vulnerability of the
wealthy and vested interests at the expense of the
marginalised.
Reactive responses in particular reinforce inequality.
Danger and vulnerability are not evenly distributed.
Procedural
Adaptation strategies skewed to protecting the well-off are
usually based on skewed decision-making.
Marginalised groups are made more vulnerable because
they are excluded from decision-making.
Observations on Justice in
International Law on Adaptation
Justice
Manifestations
Distributive
Duty to assist developing countries to participate in UNFCCC
and the most vulnerable countries to adapt to climate
change (Articles 3.2 and 4.8-9).
Special climate change fund, adaptation fund, least
developed countries fund, and the CDM levy (Marrakech).
- Leaves the level and distribution of support unclear
Procedural
Least developed countries expert group and funds.
Guidelines requiring broad public consultation in national
planning processes for adaptation.
Towards a ranking of principles consistent
with sustainable development
1 Maximin principle
Resources for adaptation
for the most vulnerable
2 Simple equality
Equal distribution of the
means of adaptation
3 Desert
Contribution to social
goals supported
4 Utilitarian
Greatest adaptation per
unit resource input
Implications of this ranking
International action on
adaptation
Anticipatory planning
for adaptation
1 Maximin
principle
Funding targeted to most
vulnerable countries
Identification of most
vulnerable individuals,
sectors, regions
2 Simple
equality
Equal amount of assistance
to eligible countries under
Convention
Investment only in
public good provision
benefiting all citizens
equally
3 Desert
‘Conditionality’ –
governance, emissions
targets etc
Investment in public
good (cultural heritage,
conservation)
4 Utilitarian
Assistance to those
advanced in planning
Investment in mobilised
sectors and greatest
vested interest
Judging whether adaptation is
sustainable
Justice is one element
Efficiency (e.g. cost effectiveness)
Effectiveness (e.g. reduction of
risk, impact on well-being)
Equity
Legitimacy
Justice
Conclusions
•
Justice has distributive and procedural implications:
1 for the UNFCCC rules
2 for national planning for adaptation
3 for regulation of individual adaptation actions
•
Justice in mitigation is mirrored in justice in
adaptation
•
Pluralism is necessary for multi-dimension, multivalues area of adaptation
•
Monism more desirable for international law