Justice in adaptation to climate change

Neil Adger

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

n.adger@uea.ac.uk

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 actionsjust actions - maximise the welfare of the most vulnerableapplication of difference principle to global action would lead all countries acting as if their states would cease to exist

2 Rawls’ ‘veil of ignoranceveil 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 vulnerable (maximin) decisive in allocating costs and benefits

Principles regarding security, avoidance of danger, and rights of non-humans

Who defines and how:

Danger

Vulnerable groups?

Procedural How procedures and practices recognise interests; define rights to voice concerns and to participate; distribute power and constrain its use; and guarantee fair process.

How defined and by whom?

Should outcomes matter in choice of procedures?

Components of external and internal definitions of dangerous climate change

Expert’s dangerous climate change

World development

Global greenhouse gases

Global climate models

Regionalisation

Impacts

Vulnerability(physical)

Vulnerability(social)

Adaptive capacity

Indicators based on:

TechnologyEconomic resourcesInformation & skillsInfrastructure

EquityInstitutions

Experienced or perceived dangerous climate change

Behavioural change observed through markets or other collective action

Amount of information available

Legitimacy of the sources of information

Trust in regulators and other authorities

Personal experience and recall (e.g. of extreme events)

Values and worldviews

Indicators derived from:

Determinants

External definition

Internal definition

Wealth and health

Source: Dessai et al. (2003) at www.tyndall.ac.uk

Physical thresholds for externally defined dangerous climate change

L Large-scale eradication of coral reef systems (O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002)2.       Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Vaughan and Spouge, 2002)3.       Breakdown of the thermohaline circulation (Rahmstorf, 2000)4.       Qualitative modification of crucial climate-system patterns such as ENSO and NAO 5.       Climate change exceeding the rate at which biomes can migrate (Malcom and Markham, 2000)

.       Depopulation of sovereign atoll countries8.   Additional millions of people at risk from water shortage, malaria, hunger and coastal flooding9.       Destabilisation of international order by environmental

refugees and emergence of conflicts1 World impacts exceeding a threshold percentage of GDP

Social thresholds for externally defined dangerous climate change

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 ManifestationsDistributive 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 rules2 for national planning for adaptation3 for regulation of individual adaptation actions

• Justice in mitigation is mirrored in justice in adaptation

• Pluralism is necessary for multi-dimension, multi-values area of adaptation

• Monism more desirable for international law