https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3343168.pdf

Development as Freedom

The term ‘vulnerability’ is used in many different ways by various scholarly communities. The resulting disagreement about the appropriate definition of vulnerability is a frequent cause for misunderstanding in interdisciplinary research on climate change and a challenge for attempts to develop formal models of vulnerability. Earlier attempts at reconciling the various conceptualizations of vulnerability were, at best, partly successful. This paper presents a generally applicable conceptual framework of vulnerability that combines a nomenclature of vulnerable situations and a terminology of vulnerability concepts based on the distinction of four fundamental groups of vulnerability factors. This conceptual framework is applied to characterize the vulnerability concepts employed by the main schools of vulnerability research and to review earlier attempts at classifying vulnerability concepts. None of these one-dimensional classification schemes reflects the diversity of vulnerability concepts identified in this review. The wide range of policy responses available to address the risks from global climate change suggests that climate impact, vulnerability, and adaptation assessments will continue to apply a variety of vulnerability concepts. The framework presented here provides the much-needed conceptual clarity and facilitates bridging the various approaches to researching vulnerability to climate change.

Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research

/pdf/a-comprehensive-set-of-high-resolution-grids-of-monthly-1h2s5li25d.pdf

A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100).

https://www.unisdr.org/files/1140_sdarticle.pdf

Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions

Issues of equity and justice are high on international agendas dealing with the impacts of global climate change. But what are the implications of climate change for equity and justice amongst vulnerable groups at local and sub-national levels? We ask this question for three reasons: (a) there is a considerable literature suggesting that the poorest and most vulnerable groups will disproportionately experience the negative effects of 21st century climate change; (b) such changes are likely to impact significantly on developing world countries, where natural-resource dependency is high; and (c) international conventions increasingly recognise the need to centrally engage resource stakeholders in agendas in order to achieve their desired aims, as part of more holistic approaches to sustainable development. These issues however have implications for distributive and procedural justice, particularly when considered within the efforts of the UNFCCC. The issues are examined through an evaluation of key criteria relating to climate change scenarios and vulnerability in the developing world, and second through two southern African case studies that explore the ways in which livelihoods are differentially impacted by (i) inequitable natural-resource use policies, (ii) community-based natural-resource management programmes. Finally, we consider the placement of climate change amongst the package of factors affecting equity in natural-resource use, and whether this placement creates a case for considering climate change as ‘special’ amongst livelihood disturbing factors in the developing world.

Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies

Adaptation to climate change presents dilemmas of justice to the international community, including those around the responsibility of developed countries to assist developing countries in adapting to changing climate. We propose a framework for analysing justice issues in these contexts and examine justice implications of international environmental law on adaptation. We argue that adaptation involves both distributive and procedural justice; the former focusing on the incidence of consequences of adaptive responses and the latter on how decisions on adaptation are made. Moreover, both consequentialist and deontological concerns must be recognised in the two areas of justice. Adaptation is comprised of inaction and proactive and reactive responses at the international, national, local and individual levels. Inaction at higher levels delegates the responsibility for adaptation to lower levels, and higher-level responses influence alternatives that are available at lower levels. Justice is thus always implicit in the choice of adaptive responses. We discuss how international law on adaptation expresses a commitment to assist developing countries but does not provide a clear foundation for it and does not resolve how the burden of funding ought to be shared and how the adaptation funds ought to be distributed. The Marrakech Accords of the Framework Convention on Climate Change have increased the emphasis on procedural justice, such as the role of developing countries in decisions on adaptation. While creating ways to acknowledge and hear developing country and local voices, the recent legal changes do not create full rights to participation in decision-making on adaptive responses.

Neil Adger

Papers

Justice and adaptation to climate change