Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-1 (section)

==== 1.4.1.1 Equitable Adaptation Informed by Concepts of Justice ====

<div id="h3-10-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Assessing climate action involves ethical considerations that the literature often describes as climate justice. The term ‘climate justice,’ however, has been used in different ways in different contexts and by different communities. Grassroot organisations and activists often focus on unequal global power relations, wealth, and interests within communities, within nations, and along the North–South divide, as well as the historical responsibility for climate change ( [[#Chatterton--2013|Chatterton et al., 2013]] ). Some national governments also view climate justice as the right of developing countries to industrialise. Balancing these issues, international climate change negotiations have primarily focused on current capacities and responsibilities for addressing climate change as reflected in the UNFCCC principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ ( [[#Fisher--2015|Fisher, 2015]] ).

Since principles of justice are substantive normative commitments that have been debated for centuries, it would be unrealistic to expect a universal consensus. Nevertheless, there is broad agreement about the core issues. Just normative principles are ones that result in fair and equitable allocation of goods, vulnerabilities and risks ( [[#Caney--2014|Caney, 2014]] ; [[#Schlosberg--2009|Schlosberg, 2009]] ; [[#Schlosberg--2013|Schlosberg, 2013]] ; Jafry et al., 2018)

It is common to distinguish between distributive justice, procedural justice and recognition ( [[#Fraser--1999|Fraser, 1999]] ; [[#Schlosberg--2003|Schlosberg, 2003]] ; [[#Schlosberg--2009|Schlosberg, 2009]] ; [[#Reckien--2017|Reckien et al., 2017]] ; [[#Forsyth--2018|Forsyth, 2018]] ; [[#Olazabal--2021|Olazabal et al., 2021]] ). The first refers to the distribution of burdens and benefits; the second to who decides and participates in decision making; while recognition entails basic respect and robust engagement with and fair consideration of diverse values, cultures, perspectives, and worldviews. Recognition is closely linked to distributive and procedural justice ( [[#Hourdequin--2016|Hourdequin, 2016]] ). Without recognition, actors may not benefit from the two other aspects of justice ( ''medium confidence'' ). Recognition thus represents both a normative principle as well as an underlying cause of unjust distribution and lack of democratic participation ( [[#Svarstad--2020|Svarstad and Benjaminsen, 2020]] ). However, recognition is still under-represented in climate justice compared to general scholarship and debate on justice principles ( [[#Chu--2018|Chu and Michael, 2018]] ; [[#Benjaminsen--2021|Benjaminsen et al., 2021]] ).

Three principles of distributive justice are especially relevant to adaptation: ''fairness between individuals'' , ''fairness between states'' and ''fairness between generations'' (Fleurbaey et al., 2014 '')'' . Fairness between individuals means that the distribution of goods, vulnerabilities and risks of climate change should not fall on individuals for arbitrary reasons. It would be arbitrary if, say, a family were disproportionately affected by climate-induced drought by chance alone. Similarly, an adaptation action that protects some and creates risks for others is unfair if the final distribution of burdens and benefits is arbitrary.

The second consideration of distributive justice is ''international justice'' , or fairness between states. An important idea in international climate negotiations has been ''common but differentiated responsibilities'' (CBDR ''')''' and respective capabilities ''',''' stated in Principle 7 in the Rio Declaration (1992), as well as by the Kyoto Protocol (1997). The principle reflects the underlying idea that ''all'' countries must address climate change, but the form of climate action depends on the situation the country finds itself in. Developed countries may find themselves in a position where they can decarbonise more rapidly and ensure financial flows, while the responsibilities of LDCs and SIDS may primarily come in the form of adaptation actions. This means that uneven distribution of wealth and power between (and within) countries is a key driver of climate injustice.

The third consideration of distributive justice relevant to climate adaptation is fairness between generations and the obligation to ensure that future generations are guaranteed at least a minimally decent life ( [[#Jonas--1985|Jonas, 1985]] ; [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-1/Llavador--2010 Llavador et al., 2010] ). For example, youth climate activists and political philosophers have argued that today’s children, as well as generations yet unborn, will be exposed to far greater risks than most living adults so that policymakers should work to avoid shifting all burdens of adaptation to future generations.

Procedural justice addresses the fairness of the processes by which decisions are made and the legitimacy of those making the decisions ( [[#Gutmann--2009|Gutmann and Thompson, 2009]] ; [[#Kitcher--2011|Kitcher, 2011]] ). Criteria include transparency, the application of neutral principles among parties, respect for participants’ rights and inclusive participation in decision making, which often takes the form of participatory processes. Article 6 of the Framework Convention creates a binding commitment on parties to promote public participation in addressing climate change. Increased participation by civil society in climate policy discussion, including new forums such as the Local Communities and Indigenous People’s Platform of the UNFCCC work toward this goal ( [[#UNFCCC--2021|UNFCCC, 2021]] ). Genuine, not merely formal, participation requires communities be well-acquainted with the climate change risks they face and are given a full voice in the process of adaptation planning. Many local communities, especially those most vulnerable to climate change, remain excluded, which is inconsistent with principles of procedural justice. In addition to a normative principle, models of decision making also suggest that diverse, representative decision makers can be expected to make better decisions than more limited groups ( [[#Hong--2004|Hong and Page, 2004]] ; [[#Landemore--2013|Landemore, 2013]] ; [[#Singer--2019|Singer, 2019]] ).

In AR5 WGIII ( [[#IPCC--2014a|IPCC, 2014a]] ) discussions of justice and ethical concepts were combined with discussions of economic principles while the adaptation chapters did not explicitly discuss climate justice. This report moves beyond AR5 by connecting the assessment of policy choices to normative principles and showing how better outcomes are obtained by choosing just ones.

<div id="1.4.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="equitable-and-effective-adaptation-informed-by-concepts-and-measures-of-well-being"></span>