An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change

Abstract

As experts predict that at least some irreversible climate change will occur with potentially disastrous effects on the lives and well-being of vulnerable communities around the world, it is paramount to ensure that these communities are resilient and have adaptive capacity to withstand the consequences. Adaptation and resilience planning present several ethical issues that need to be resolved if we are to achieve successful adaptation and resilience to climate change, taking into consideration vulnerabilities and inequalities in terms of power, income, gender, age, sexuality, race, culture, religion, and spatiality. Sustainable adaptation and resilience planning that addresses these ethical issues requires interdisciplinary dialogues between the natural sciences, social sciences, and philosophy, in order to integrate empirical insights on socioeconomic inequality and climate vulnerability with ethical analysis of the underlying causes and consequences of injustice in adaptation and resilience. In this paper, we set out an interdisciplinary research agenda for the inclusion of ethics and justice theories in adaptation and resilience planning, particularly into the Sixth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6). We present six core discussions that we believe should be an integral part of these interdisciplinary dialogues on adaptation and resilience as part of IPCC AR6, especially Chapters 2 ("Terrestial and freshwater ecosystems and their services"), 6 ("Cities, settlements and key infrastructure"), 7 ("Health, wellbeing and the changing structure of communities"), 8 ("Poverty, livelihoods and sustainable development"), 16 "Key risks across sectors and regions"), 17 ("Decision-making options for managing risk"), and 18 ("Climate resilient development pathways").: (i) Where does 'justice' feature in resilience and adaptation planning and what does it require in that regard?; (ii) How can it be ensured that adaptation and resilience strategies protect and take into consideration and represent the interest of the most vulnerable women and men, and communities?; (iii) How can different forms of knowledge be integrated within adaptation and resilience planning?; (iv) What trade-offs need to be made when focusing on resilience and adaptation and how can they be resolved?; (v) What roles and responsibilities do different actors have to build 3 resilience and achieve adaptation?; (vi) Finally, what does the focus on ethics imply for the practice of adaptation and resilience planning?

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

“…The requirements put forward in this paper are relevant to two different bodies of literature. In the climate justice literature, hitherto, the role of IAMs has not previously been discussed as a separate domain of climate justice requiring its own sphere of discussion (Byskov et al, 2019; Gardiner, 2010). Building on Beck and Krueger (2016), we argue that many justice considerations are actually intrinsic to IAMs and therefore require specific attention.…”

“…These responsibilities could be based on countries' past emissions (based on the principle of “you‐broke‐it‐you‐fix‐it”), their ability to bear mitigation cost (i.e., capacity determines responsibility) but also future forecasts of GHG emissions (Okereke, 2010; Posner & Weisbach, 2010; Singer, 2002). Recent debates have broadened the domain of climate justice to issues pertaining to equity measurement of adaptation success, distribution of funding and resources for adaptation, and trade‐offs between mitigation and adaptation (Byskov et al, 2019; Gardiner, 2010; Grasso, 2007; Klinsky et al, 2017; Paavola & Adger, 2006; Pelling & Garschagen, 2019).…”

Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice

“…It frames EA as redressing imbalances in order to achieve more equitable adaptation and reduce socially unjust outcomes. It makes the case for ensuring that the most vulnerable are shielded from climate impacts and that their well-being is not compromised further through actions taken to respond to climate change (Byskov, 2021;Marino & Ribot, 2012;Schlosberg et al, 2017;Shackleton et al, 2015;Tschakert & Machado, 2012;Ziervogel, 2017). Justice and equity framings also draw attention to the asymmetries of structure and power that shape differential vulnerability and adaptive capacity, and argue that these can ultimately undermine inclusive adaptation (Malloy & Ashcraft, 2020).…”

Avoiding climate Apartheid: Climate Justice as a Necessary Condition for Equitable Transformational Adaptation

“…However, existing policy systems and processes in many climate-vulnerable nations are highly unequal and weighted heavily against the poorwho are also more vulnerable to climate shocks than wealthier citizens (World Bank 2014;Tanner and Mitchell 2008;Brainard et al 2009). Protecting inequitable political systems and processes from the impacts of climate change, particularly without ensuring community participation and tailoring adaptation to specific local needs, is thus likely to further entrench existing power structures (Byskov et al 2019). This will inevitably leave the poor just as, or more, disempowered, vulnerable, and exposed (Alston 2019, para 11;IPCC 2018, p. 451).…”