Local and Global Geographies of Climate Justice

12/8/20220 min read

Fisher (2015) suggests that the approach to climate adaptation adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) is problematic because it assumes and reinforces the continued existence of extant societal frameworks and does not envisage reshaping those frameworks into sites of greater equality (Fisher 2015: 80).

In my view, that assertion is partially correct but the UNFCCC approach is, prima facie, not problematic.

Indeed, it could be argued that, in the UNFCCC literature, adaptation is defined as “adjustments”, in systems or processes, made in response to climate stimuli or impacts; there is no requirement to make deep or widespread changes in underlying social structures.

However, applying the principle of national sovereignty, Parties’ domestic sociopolitical development, save where it pertains to compliance with Article 4 of the Convention, is not a matter under the Convention. Whether climate adaptation is to be understood as measures or solutions addressing direct climatic impacts, or whether such conceptualizations include notions of societal change and improvement, is the prerogative of each Party.

Broadly, pursuant to Article 4(1), Parties’ obligations under international law relate to national inventories of emissions, regional mitigatory programmes, transfer of technologies, sustainable management, cooperation in adaptation, taking account of climate change when developing policies, promoting and cooperating in research and exchange of information and education, and communicating implementation information to the Conference of the Parties.

Therefore, I suggest that any pressure to reconceive the meaning and purpose of adaptation ought not to be expected at an international level but might more appropriately be brought to bear by local and national stakeholders.

Article 1(f) requires that Parties “[take] climate change considerations into account, to the extent feasible, in their relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions, and employ appropriate methods, for example impact assessments, formulated and determined nationally, with a view to minimizing adverse effects on the economy, on public health and on the quality of the environment, of projects or measures undertaken by them to mitigate or adapt to climate change” (emphasis added).

In other words, climate impacts and stimuli are to be taken into consideration during the process of designing and enacting national laws and regulations.

Given that the promulgation of new law and regulation presupposes a departure from the status quo, there are grounds to argue that the Convention anticipates or contemplates adaptation to entail some transformation of existing legal and social apparatus on a national scale.

Scale is important in understanding climate justice because climate change is currently framed as an issue between nation-states (Fisher 2015: 74, 80), climate impacts are actually experienced, and very diversely, by individuals and communities on a local level.

Fisher (2015) discusses the idea of the ‘global trap’ in which climate change, adaptation, and mitigation are perceived as subjects for negotiation between state actors (Fisher 2015: 76). Adopting this outlook may well untether the discourse from grassroots concerns and demands, diminishing the power and involvement of affected local communities (Fisher 2015: 76).

As noted generally above, adaptation is a multi-scalar issue involving the interplay between national and international strategies. Paavola and Adger (2006) further highlight that adaptation also consists of actions by individuals, and that climate responses are needed at different scales (Paavola and Adger 2006: 596). “While climate change impacts do influence what are technically feasible adaptive responses, justice concerns may suggest a change in the level of response” (Paavola and Adger 2006: 597).

If climate change and adaptation is accepted to both affect and be affected by stakeholders at multiple scales from individual to national to international, then adaptation design must undoubtedly incorporate input and feedback at all of those various scales.

References: