Poverty and Inequality Research Cluster

Global Climate Change Justice: Toward a Risk-Adjusted Social Floor

Paul B. Siegel and Steen L. Jorgensen July 2013

IDS WORKING PAPER Volume 2013 No 426

2

The Poverty and Inequality research cluster, part of the Vulnerability and Poverty Reduction team at IDS, produces research on poverty, inequality and wellbeing. Our research challenges orthodox views on the nature of poverty, how poverty is understood and how policy can best accelerate poverty reduction. Our work focuses on poverty and wellbeing through the lens of equity and inequality. Poverty is not only about 'poor' people but also about the social and economic inequalities that compound and reproduce poverty. Email: poverty@ids.ac.uk Web: www.ids.ac.uk/research-teams/vulnerability-and-poverty-reduction-team/research-themes/poverty-inequality-and-wellbeing PI WP4

The Vulnerability and Poverty Reduction (VPR) Team aims to construct dynamic and multi-dimensional perspectives on vulnerability and poverty in order to transform thinking, policy and practice. The VPR team produces working papers on social protection; conflict, violence and development; and poverty and inequality. Note: The views expressed in this paper/presentation are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the VPR team, or the Institute of Development Studies. Global Climate Change Justice: Toward a Risk-Adjusted Social Floor Paul B. Siegel and Steen L. Jorgensen IDS Working Paper 426 © Institute of Development Studies 2013 ISSN: 1353-6141 ISBN: 978-1-78118-122-5 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. Reproduction, copy, transmission, or translation of any part of this publication may be made only under the following conditions: • with the prior permission of the publisher; or • with a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd., 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK, or from another national licensing agency; or • under the terms set out below. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for teaching or nonprofit purposes, but not for resale. Formal permission is required for all such uses, but normally will be granted immediately. For copying in any other circumstances, or for re- use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher and a fee may be payable. Available from: Central Communications, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1273 915637 Fax: +44 (0) 1273 621202 E-mail: bookshop@ids.ac.uk Web: www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop IDS is a charitable company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No. 877338)

3

Global Climate Change Justice: Toward a Risk-Adjusted Social Floor

Paul B. Siegel and Steen L. Jorgensen

Summary Addressing climate change from social justice and human rights perspectives is a global challenge, and international negotiations dealing with climate change need to incorporate such concerns. This paper reviews existing literature on sustainable development, social justice, human rights, and climate change justice and argues that all approaches lead to a focus on providing everyone a guaranteed social minimum of basic needs, or a social floor. A social floor needs to be dynamic and flexible so that it also includes a risk adjustment (or insurance) component to compensate for the unknown direct and indirect impacts of climate change on households, communities and nations. The proposed globally guaranteed, nationally designed and managed, and locally implemented risk-adjusted social floor is a forward-looking approach to climate change justice that focuses on creating resilient economic, social and environmental systems that are equitable and sustainable. The risk-adjusted social floor is based on UN agreements that guarantee human rights and basic needs, and the security of basic needs. The risk-adjusted social floor is consistent with principles of the UN Social Protection Floor Initiative and the proposed Global Fund for Social Protection. Implementation of a risk-adjusted social floor could draw upon existing social protection practices around the world that deliver basic needs (e.g., conditional cash transfers, use of vouchers, fee waivers, feeding programs, micro-insurance, productive safety nets), along with advances in the use of early warning and rapid response systems to target and deliver emergency assistance. There are also innovations in global insurance instruments and risk pooling methods. The risk-adjusted social floor integrates key aspects of risk-based and rights-based approaches to social protection and poverty reduction.

Keywords: climate change, human rights, climate change justice, social minimum, social floor, social protection floor, social guarantees, sustainable development, social protection.

Paul B. Siegel has been a consultant with the World Bank for over 25 years on a variety of issues related to agricultural, rural, and regional development, especially issues related to risk management, and more recently with climate change. Dr. Siegel was a professor in the USA and Israel, and has worked in many countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Middle East. Contact: psiegel@worldbank.org or pbs11pbs@yahoo.com

Steen L. Jorgensen is Sector Director for Human Development in the Middle East and North Africa Region of the World Bank covering health, education, labor and social protection. Mr. Jorgensen has worked in different regions on strategy and operational activities across a number of themes and sectors including economic and social development, governance, and community empowerment in his 25+ years at the World Bank. Contact: sjorgensen@worldbank.org

Note: The views expressed in this paper/presentation are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the World Bank, or its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent.

4

Contents

Summary 3 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction 6 1. Setting the Stage: Crises, Vulnerability, and Insecurity 7 2. Guiding Principles from Sustainable Development and Climate Change 8 2.1 Sustainable Development: The Brundtland Commission and Basic Needs 8 2.2 Convergence of Sustainable Development with Livelihood and

Asset-Based Approaches 9 2.3 Precautionary Principle and Safety-First Approach 9 2.4 Climate Change and Common but Related Differentiated Responsibilities 10 2.5 Stern Review: Global Climate Change Requires Global Solutions 10 2.6 Climate Change: Toward Equity with Efficiency 100 2.7 Discount Rates: Accounting for an Uncertain Future in the Present 11 2.8 No-Regrets and Co-Benefits: Dealing with Uncertainty and Externalities 12 3. Guiding Principles from Social Justice and Human Rights 12 3.1 Basic Concepts of Social Justice and Fairness: Egalitarian Liberal Perspectives 12 3.2 Introducing the Idea of a Social Minimum (or Social Floor) 14 3.3 Human Rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 14 3.4 UN Global Compact 15 3.5 Social Justice, Human Rights and Basic Needs: Toward Practical Solutions 16 4. Principles of Social Justice and Human Rights Applied to Climate Change 16 4.1 Egalitarian-Liberal Perspectives versus Utilitarian Market-Based Perspectives 16 4.2 Guidance on Human Rights and Climate Change Justice from Egalitarian-Liberal Perspectives 17 4.3 Climate Change Justice and Fairness: Processes and Procedures 20 5. Conclusion: Moving from Concepts to Practice 21 References 23

5

Acknowledgements This is a revised version of a paper presented at the Conference on “Social Protection for Social Justice,” Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. April 13-15, 2011. The original paper is referenced as Siegel and Jorgensen (2011). The authors wish to dedicate this paper to our colleague Estanislao Gaitua-Maria, who before his untimely death drove us all to focus directly on justice for all in everything we do. Thank you Estanislao. The authors also want to dedicate this paper to our parents, who instilled in us a strong sense of fairness and justice, and the passion to pursue it.

6

Introduction There are forecasts of a world with a higher frequency, severity and geographic spread of natural hazards (e.g., droughts, floods, hurricanes and other storms, heat spells, earthquakes), along with increasing weather/climate variability, climate change, and extreme weather events (World Bank, 2009a; UNISDR, 2011; IPCC, 2012). These natural hazards are expected to trigger other hazards/risks1 (e.g., increased disease and insect vectors, wind storms, forest fires, soil/water/air pollution); all of which negatively affect human, animal and plant health, well-being and productivity. However, the actual impacts on specific eco-systems and households are not known with any degree of certainty. Although there is certainty about the phenomena of climate change, there still is a great deal of uncertainty about where impacts might take place, how they will be manifested, who will be impacted, and the magnitude of impacts on places and people over time.

In general, poor and vulnerable households and communities (and nations) are expected to suffer the most from climate change, because of the higher exposure and sensitivity of their assets and livelihoods to hazards/risks associated with climate change, and their lower capacity to manage the hazards/risks and prevent negative impacts on well-being and household assets and livelihoods. On the other hand, persons and places that are suffering most from negative impacts of climate change tend to be those who have contributed the least to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Stern, 2007; ICHRP, 2008; Burkeman, 2008; World Bank, 2009a). Hence, there are critical issues of global social justice (or injustice) and the protection (or erosion) of human rights in relation to climate change. This requires global approaches.

Climate change is one of many globalizing factors transforming economic, social, political and environmental systems and institutions, creating new opportunities and increased risks that are unevenly distributed among places, sectors, and people (Jorgensen and Serrano-Berthet, 2009). Comprehensive social protection (SP)2 based on principles of human rights, social justice, and environmental protection is needed. Comprehensive SP should provide a guaranteed minimum standard of well-being and help all individuals be better managers of downside risk and uncertainty (Jorgensen and Serrano-Berthet, 2009). This calls for expansion of the concept of SP toward a comprehensive global social contract, whereby there is an agreement between citizens and governments to guarantee access to basic needs by all (van Ginneken, 2011).

This paper introduces the idea of a globally guaranteed, nationally designed and managed, and locally implemented risk-adjusted social floor, which draws on concepts of sustainable development, human rights and social justice, and is consistent with principles underlying the United Nations (UN) SP Floor Initiative (ILO/WHO, 2009; ILO, 2011), and the proposed Global Fund for SP (de Schutter and Sepulveda, 2012). The good news is that experiences with SP around the world have demonstrated the capacity to deliver basic needs to the poor and vulnerable (Davis, Oswald, Mitchell, 2009; Siegel and Jorgensen, 2011; Bene, 2012; Kuriakose, et. al., 2012; World Bank, 2012; Rawlings, Murthy, Winder, 2013). Furthermore, there has been increasing integration of SP, disaster risk management (DRM), and climate change adaptation (CCA), which has enhanced the capacity for early warning and rapid response systems to target and deliver basic needs using information and communication technology (ICT), global positioning systems (GPS), geographic information systems (GIS), and spatially data infrastructures (SDI) in the context of spatially enabled governance

1 The terms hazards, risks and hazards/risks refer to exogenous events that an impact human well-being. Hazards/risks

can be natural and/or related to social-economic-political factors. 2 Social protection (SP) encompasses all public interventions that help individuals, households, and communities manage

risk or provide support to the critically poor (World Bank, 2001, Executive Summary).

7

(Siegel, 2011; Siegel, Gatsinzi, Kettlewell, 2011). The proposed risk-adjusted social floor draws upon both risk-based and rights-based approaches to SP and poverty reduction.3

Section 1 of this paper provides some key definitions and concepts. Section 2 presents basic principles related to sustainable development that serve as guidelines for human rights and social justice approaches to climate change. In Section 3 the paper presents guiding principles from the human rights and social justice literature, and then Section 4 specifically links human rights and social justice with climate change. To conclude, Section 5 examines how to move from concepts to practice in order to implement the risk-adjusted social floor.

1. Setting the Stage: Crises, Vulnerability, and Insecurity Since 2008, ongoing global economic and financial crises have elevated concerns of individuals and governments around the world about hazards/risks and uncertainty, and the capacity of existing institutions at community, local, national and international levels to manage a range of hazards/risks. There is an increasing awareness about human vulnerability to multiple hazards/risks, be they natural, economic/financial, social/political, and/or interlinked, that can negatively impact household assets, livelihoods and well-being for many people in many places in the world (Heltberg, Siegel, Jorgensen, 2009). As such, there is increasing interest in how to build resilience (i.e., the ability to withstand and/or recover quickly) to multiple hazards/risks. In fact, there seems to be a paradigm shift in the development community to increasingly focus on causes and cures of human vulnerability and on building resilience to multiple hazards/risks (Siegel, 2011). The increased focus on vulnerability and resilience of individuals/ households (and communities) to climate change needs to be integrated with global strategies to reduce poverty and vulnerability (World Bank, 2009a; Kuriakose, et. al., 2012; World Bank, 2012). The perception of uncertainty (and related feelings of anxiety and apprehension about the future) with respect to climate change -- and other factors -- has elevated the concept of security (or insecurity) to a major component of human well-being (Jacobs, 2007; Thomson, 2007; Adger, 2010; Kanbur, 2010; Vos and Kozul-Wright, 2011).4 For many developing countries, recurrent crises and insecurity are becoming the “new normal”, with multiple hazards/risks ranging from climate change to globalizing markets (Kanbur, 2010). The UN’s Commission on Human Security highlights the importance of human security and well-being, and the fact that human rights and the provision of basic needs are at the core of protecting human security. A recent report to the UN General Assembly highlights the multiple global hazards/risks, including climate change, that are leading to increased human insecurity and proclaims: “Broadly defined, human security encompasses freedom from fear, freedom from want, and freedom to live in dignity (UN, 2010, p.2).” The importance of basic needs and security of basic needs is essential for persons to be free from fear, want, and to achieve dignity in a world of climate change (compounded by other hazards/risks in a globalizing world). This justifies consideration of a risk-adjusted social floor.

3 Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler (2007a) provide a description of risk-based (“instrumentalist”) and rights-based

(“activist”) approaches to SP and poverty reduction, and evidence of possible convergence. Mestrum (2012) provides a critique of the possible convergence of risk-based and rights-based approaches in the context of the UN SP Floor Initiative, and different approaches to social protection.

4 According to Jacobs (2007) economic insecurity can best be understood as the intersection between anticipated and actual downside risk.

8

Gardiner (2010) notes that there is something special about climate change that makes it raise fundamental questions about conventional social and political practices, and that is the concern about human security. Adger (2010) claims that climate change already is having major effects on the security of households, communities, and nations and climate change policies must simultaneously address issues related to vulnerability, resilience, adaptation, and justice. By applying a human security lens to climate change it is possible to find new approaches which might lead to a more equitable and sustainable future for vulnerable households and groups (O'Brien, et. al., 2010). However, a major challenge for global approaches to climate change justice is the lack of success of global economic, financial, political, and social institutions to articulate, manage, and coordinate these efforts (Gardiner, 2010). Recognizing the lack of progress in achieving binding international agreements to mitigate sources of climate change, UNISDR (2011) and IPCC (2012) claim that CCA and DRM need to be better integrated with SP (and vice versa), especially to pro-actively assist poor and vulnerable people and places. Adaptive SP is a rights-based approach that explicitly promotes the integration of SP with DRM and CCA to address human vulnerability to multiple hazards/risks that are directly and indirectly related to natural disasters and climate change (Davis, Oswald, Mitchell, 2009; Siegel, 2011; Siegel, Gatsinzi, Kettlewell, 2011; Bene, 2012).

2. Guiding Principles from Sustainable Development and Climate Change This section presents some guiding principles from literature on sustainable development and climate change that are relevant for the proposed risk-adjusted social floor.

2.1 Sustainable Development: The Brundtland Commission and Basic Needs A tipping point for international thinking about relationships between global environmental degradation, climate change, and development is the report Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), which is often referred to as the report of the “Brundtland Commission”. The key definition of the Our Common Future is that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition of sustainable development is pointedly human-centric and contains two key concepts: a) the focus on human needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given, and b) the key role of technology and social/political institutions (i.e., governance) to help meet present and future human needs in a world with limited natural resources and environmental degradation.

The Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development exemplifies a concern for social equity between generations, which is a concern that should be logically extended to equity within each generation. The report claims that: “The satisfaction of human needs and aspirations is the major objective of development. The essential needs of vast numbers of people in developing countries for food, clothing, shelter, jobs - are not being met, and beyond their basic needs these people have legitimate aspirations for an improved quality of life. A world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always be prone to ecological and other crises. Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life (Chapter 2, para 4).”

Our Common Future provides guidelines for dealing with global climate change from the perspective of human rights and social justice, especially its focus on the fundamental role of

9

poverty reduction -- notably the provision of basic needs for all persons -- as a necessary condition for achieving sustainable development. The Brundtland Commission also highlights the importance of identifying and adopting appropriate technologies, policies, and institutional arrangements (i.e., governance regimes) to achieve basic needs of all persons within and between generations, while applying a global approach. Although there is a focus on the provision of basic needs in this paper, the goal of sustainable development is for individuals and society to achieve higher levels of well-being over time, which requires economic growth via improved technologies and governance.

2.2 Convergence of Sustainable Development with Livelihood and Asset-Based Approaches

Some development practitioners have identified the close link between the underlying problems and solutions related to sustainable development and addressing climate-related hazards/risks, vulnerability, poverty, resilience and adaptation. Munasinghe and Swart (2005, p.149-150) note that: “Sustainable development and adaptation are interlinked. The great majority of sustainable development strategies are not related to climate change, but they could make adaptation more successful. Similarly, many CCA policies will help to make development more sustainable.”

Munasinghe and Swart (2005, p.114) also note that: “… an important objective of poverty alleviation is to provide poor people with assets (e.g., enhanced human, natural, physical, and financial resources) that will reduce their vulnerability. Such assets increase the capacity for both coping (i.e., making short-run changes) and adapting (i.e., making permanent adjustments) to external shocks”. They go on to note how this view is consistent with sustainable livelihoods and asset based approaches. There is a need to focus on the quantity and quality (including the exposure/sensitivity) of households’ assets which, in turn condition the livelihood options and well-being outcomes. The impact of hazards/risks on household asset portfolios, livelihood strategies and well-being outcomes, and the key role of policies and institutions at local, national and international levels are highlighted by Cafiero and Vakis (2006), Heltberg, Siegel, Jorgensen (2009), Siegel, Gatsinizi, Kettewell (2011), and Kuriakose, et. al. (2012).

2.3 Precautionary Principle and Safety-First Approach The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty signed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The UNFCC states: “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.” Uncertainty has traditionally been incorporated into thinking about sustainable development through the precautionary principle, which is a safety-first approach that advocates caution in the face of the uncertainties associated with climate change, while acknowledging that a wrong decision could be catastrophic.

The precautionary principle and safety-first approach both focus on preventing environmentally destructive actions, and they also highlight the need to proactively deal with potential negative impacts of climate change. The precautionary principle and safety-first approach could justify more attention on achieving basic needs for all as a pro-active measure to make persons less vulnerable and more resilient, and better able to adapt. In this context, the precautionary principle and safety-first approach can be considered precursors to the “no-regrets approach” to climate change, which is discussed below in Section 2.8.

10

2.4 Climate Change and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities The Earth Summit of 1992 was the first major attempt to act upon global environmental concerns, and attempt to design policies and allocate funds to address these concerns as a “global community”. However, there were (and still are) a lot of disagreements within the “global community” on how to address climate change in an efficient and equitable manner. The parties agreed that they would recognize common but differentiated responsibilities, with greater responsibility for reducing GHG emissions placed on developed/industrialized countries that bear most responsibility for generating GHG emissions.

The Earth Summit was a milestone, in that it explicitly recognized the unequal causes and impacts of global climate change. However, there is still a lack of agreement on how the principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities can be translated into a human rights and social justice based framework for addressing climate change. The UNFCC-sponsored 18th Global Climate Change Conference held in Doha in November 2012 points to ongoing difficulties in arriving at a legal rights-based global framework to deal directly with the causes and impacts of climate change. On the other hand, the existence of a “global community” approach provides an entry point for dealing with climate change issues based on the principal of common rights, but differentiated responsibilities for dealing with global climate change.

2.5 Stern Review: Global Climate Change Requires Global Solutions The Stern Review of Climate Change (Stern, 2007) was a turning point in global debates on climate change because it combined climate models with economic models. Stern (2007) claims that climate change is evidence of the greatest market failure the world has seen, and that there is increasing evidence about the dangers associated with inaction or delayed action. Stern (2007) claims that the problems associated with market failures and externalities are global, so the response must be greater cooperation on a global scale.

Acknowledging the need to adopt the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, Stern (2007) presents the following key components for addressing global climate change:

a) Emissions trading: to support the transition to low-carbon development paths, b) Technology cooperation: support for the deployment of new low-carbon technologies, c) Action to reduce deforestation: as a way to reduce emissions, and d) Adaptation: since the poorest countries are most vulnerable to climate change, it is

essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policy, and that rich countries honor their pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance.

From the list, a, b), and c) are all related to attempts at reducing the emissions problem (i.e., mitigation). The last element, adaptation focuses on the poor and vulnerable, and highlights the need to transfer resources from richer to poorer countries.

Stern (2007) advocates “collaboration on a global scale” and “global collective action,” to produce an effective, efficient, and equitable response. Stern (2007) has been an important wake-up call highlighting the need for more attention to inter- and intra-generational equity in the context of climate change, and global solutions to this global problem using the most economically efficient approaches.

2.6 Climate Change: Toward Equity with Efficiency According to Kasperson and Kasperson (2001), an effective climate regime needs to be rooted in social justice principles that can be supported by developed and developing countries alike. Useful principles include:

11

a) Historical responsibility: those who created the existing environmental problem have primary responsibility to reduce further emissions and to ameliorate harm,

b) Capacity to take actions: those with the greatest capacity and resources to reduce future emissions and to avert potential climate-related harm have the primary responsibility to undertake mitigation actions and to assist those with fewer capabilities, and

c) Focus on the poorest, most vulnerable: those who are most vulnerable to climate change and who will bear the greatest harm deserve special consideration and protective assistance by those who will be less affected.

Historical responsibility and capacity to take action are explicitly included in the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, whereas the “focus on the poorest, most vulnerable” is an added dimension. However, since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, most emphasis in international negotiations has been on emission reductions and seeking economically efficient ways of achieving them. New types global efforts are needed to achieve a comprehensive and equitable agreement on climate change to that is based on principles of social justice and efficient use of scarce resources (Kasperson and Kasperson, 2001; Stern, 2007; Okereke and Dooley, 2010; Mattoo and Subramanian, 2012).

2.7 Discount Rates: Accounting for an Uncertain Future in the Present Ensuring that proposed policies and investments for climate change justice are economically efficient and socially equitable requires use of appropriate discount rates. Stern (2007) argues for a zero discount rate (or small positive discount rate that does not reflect market rates) to ensure inter-generational justice. In contrast, Nordhaus (2007) argues that the market discount rate should be used. Each approach leads to different recommendations. Stern (2007) concludes that urgent and massive investments are needed for reducing emissions in the present to possibly prevent a catastrophic future. Nordhaus (2007) concludes that a slower roll-out and more modest investments are required, as rapid and/or massive investments and inappropriate changes in resource allocations will impose large costs on present generations - to the possible benefit of future generations.

Weisbach and Sunstein (2008) divide the world into ethicists, who are concerned with distributional justice across generations and support a zero discount rate, and positivists who are concerned with efficiency of resource allocations across generations. They identify a third way, whose adherents are referred to as ethical-positivists – which are persons who believe that resource allocation decisions should be made using the market discount rate (adjusted for uncertainty) and that resources should be distributed in a just and fair manner at any given point in time. Thus, they are advocating discounting at the market rate - properly adjusted for uncertainty and catastrophic risks. Comparing the merits of different discount rates for analyzing and assessing climate change projects, Weitzman (2007, p.716) notes that whatever assumptions are used about the discount rate: “Human-capital investments in education or public health have consistently been found to have high rates of return arguably far greater than 10 percent for less developed countries and regions.”

Hence, Weitzman (2007), Nordhaus (2007), and Weisbach and Sunstein (2008) provide economic, legal and justice arguments to support a human-centric approach to increasing resilience with a focus on investments in human-capital (e.g., basic needs such as education and health/nutrition) for the poorest and most vulnerable. This conclusion is consistent with the no-regrets approach to human vulnerability to climate change (Heltberg, Siegel, Jorgensen, 2009). This is also the concept underlying conditional cash transfers (CCTs)5 5 Most CCTs provide food, education, and health/nutrition benefits to families in return for reinforcing behavior

modification.

12

which Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler (2007a) note as an example of increasing convergence between risk-based and rights-based approaches to SP and poverty reduction.

2.8 No-Regrets and Co-Benefits: Dealing with Uncertainty and Externalities Traditional economic models and analyses do not explicitly account for risk and uncertainty over time or space. Therefore, alternative approaches are needed. One such approach is the no-regrets approach to climate change, whereby actions are taken that can be justified from economic, and social, and environmental perspectives whether or not uncertain events such as those resulting from climate change take place or not (Heltberg, Siegel, Jorgensen, 2009; World Bank, 2009a; Siegel, 2011; Kuriakose, et. al., 2012). The no-regrets approach encourages an evaluation of available options for achieving “good” (from individual and social perspectives) outcomes in the future, when faced with uncertainty and possibly catastrophic risks, with a specific focus on providing basic needs and security of basic needs to the poor and vulnerable. This requires cost-effectiveness analyses with well-defined social objectives as opposed to traditional benefit-cost analyses.

The no-regrets approach to climate change was introduced by Adler et. al. (2000, p.12) who claimed that: “Unforeseen events, natural and human-induced, will occur. For these reasons, the best insurance policy is one that improves society’s generalized ability to cope with disasters, environmental and otherwise, not simply to mitigate one potential disaster scenario that may or may not occur.” Because of the pessimism with respect to achieving international agreements on climate change policies (especially emissions reductions), the no-regrets approaches are getting more attention (Tomich, 2010) as pro-active means to reduce present and future risks, and lower uncertainty.

There are also potential co-benefits associated with actions to address climate change. Kasperson and Kasperson (2001) and Munasinghe and Swart (2005) highlight the possible existence of co-benefits (defined as positive spillover effects or externalities) from policies and investments that promote mitigation and/or adaptation, especially those focused on poor and vulnerable people and places. Perch (2010) and Kuriokose, et. al. (2012) highlight the potential co-benefits from pro-poor CCA, including improvements in technology and governance. The key principle is that many investments that focus on lowering vulnerability and increasing resilience, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable, are no-regrets and/or have co-benefits. These are win-win investments for individuals and society.

3. Guiding Principles from Social Justice and Human Rights In this section, we examine some guiding principles from the human rights and social justice literature that can be applied to climate change.

3.1 Basic Concepts of Social Justice and Fairness: Egalitarian-Liberal Perspectives For this paper, the authors draw upon the egalitarian-liberal approach. This approach to social justice combines the concepts of equality (i.e., notions of equity, justice, fairness), personal freedom (i.e., liberty), and personal responsibility (and also social contracts). It is not strict egalitarianism because it considers inequalities that stem from innate personal differences and differences in individual’s choices.. Egalitarian-liberals focus attention on equal opportunities and outcomes – and rights (or entitlements), while recognizing differences among people and places. It is believed that commonalities among people’s

13

basic needs are greater than the differences, thereby facilitating the identification of minimum asset-livelihood portfolios for individuals/households that are location-specific, and a universal set of basic needs that could be guaranteed globally. Egalitarian-liberals support guarantees of basic needs, because without basic needs, individuals/households are not really free to exercise their human rights, nor can social justice be achieved.

Rawls (1971; 2001) is usually cited when discussing the issue of justice as fairness. Rawls (1999) extends some of these ideas to groups of nations and the international arena. Sen (1999; 2009), Dworkin (2000) and Nussbaum (2006) draw upon, extend and critique the works by Rawls. The justice and fairness approaches of Rawls, Sen, Dworkin, and Nussbaum are to a large extent, human rights approaches, because they devote a lot of attention to the importance of guaranteeing the “essential” material and non-material human needs, with a focus on the poorest and most vulnerable. Dworkin (2000) and Nussbaum (2006) highlight underlying inequalities between people, especially those with handicaps and disabilities, and argue that there should be preferential treatment based on principles of equity (as opposed to equal treatment) under such circumstances.

Rawls’ most popular philosophical concepts are the original position and the veil of ignorance (see Rawls, 1971; 2001). To paraphrase Rawls 6, if a person knew that he/she would be dropped from outer space onto Spaceship Earth, but did not know where they would fall, what assets and entitlements they would have, and/or what governance system the given society would have … a risk-averse, rational and reasonable person facing these uncertain conditions would choose an outcome that was close to the average expected level of well-being of all humans. That is, a person would choose more egalitarian outcomes for themselves and others if faced with uncertainty about his or her future well-being. If we extend this parable to include the possibility that uncertain and unpredictable meteor showers (i.e., climate change) might descend anywhere on Spaceship Earth (with possible increasing frequency, severity, and spread), it might be possible to extend/adjust the Rawlsian egalitarian individual outcome to a preference for an egalitarian global outcome, plus an “insurance policy” against meteor showers, wherever the person is located. Dworkin (2000) also considered that individuals might miscalculate the hazards/risks that they face and/or misjudge their abilities to manage hazards/risks, making it rational for everyone to seek both a basic needs package and an insurance policy to protect themselves, regardless of the situation. The concept of the risk-adjusted social floor is similar to an “augmented poverty line”, which is a poverty line augmented by the imputed cost of insurance for a person to cover the potential negative impacts of all possible hazards/risks they face (Cafiero and Vakis, 2006).7 Individuals use different types of self-insurance, market insurance, and safety-nets to cover these costs, but “uninsured losses” (those losses not covered) are a major cause of poverty and poverty traps (Cafieo and Vakis, 2006).

Based on the original position and veil of ignorance, Rawls (2001, p.43) presents several guiding principles for achieving justice and fairness in a liberal society:8

a) All persons in a society are equally entitled to guaranteed basic rights and liberties, which are compatible with and reinforce basic rights and liberties for all other persons,

b) Equality of opportunities of all persons (i.e., inclusive access to assets and livelihoods) in a society to achieve a guaranteed minimum of well-being to be able to, in fact, exercise their rights and liberties, and

6 See Rawls (2001, p.15, section 6.a). 7 Note that we refer to an “imputed cost” of insurance, acknowledging that it is difficult (i.e., impossible) to measure the

actual cost of insurance. 8 Rawls specifically refers to a “liberal society” as one that acknowledges and respects human rights.

14

c) Social and economic inequalities in opportunities and outcomes in a society should be adjusted by policies that specifically target, and provide the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society.

Rawls refers to the 3rd principle as the difference principle or the maxi-min principle because improvements in well-being should generate maximum benefits for those with minimum levels of well-being, thereby making the biggest difference in improving justice and fairness in society. The risk-adjusted social floor is consistent with the maxi-min principle.

3.2 Introducing the Idea of a Social Minimum (or Social Floor) Sen (1999; 2011) and Nussbaum (2006) refer to capabilities, which are the complementary assets and livelihoods (including policies/institutions) needed to transform “primary goods” into measures of household well-being. That is, social justice needs to be measured in terms of the freedom an individual has to achieve his or her goals and objectives, not simply in terms of having some basic needs satisfied. The freedom to self-actualize requires a system of governance that provides protection from discrimination, access to social networks, respect, autonomy, self-awareness, political and civil rights, and institutions that guarantee equal treatment. Thus, concepts of basic needs and capability require governance systems that recognize the moral equality of all persons and guarantees basic needs and capabilities as rights. This is the underlying logic of a social minimum (White, 2008).

The idea of a social minimum9 or social floor was proposed by the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization (2004), which states: “A certain minimum level of SP needs to be an accepted and undisputed part of the socio-economic floor of the global economy.” Since then, the term social floor or SP floor has been used to describe a set of basic social and political rights, as well as basic needs to which citizens in the global economy should be entitled to.

The justification of a social minimum draws heavily on egalitarian-liberal principles, and is often considered a foundation for citizenship, as part of a social contract that entitles citizens to basic needs and capabilities to exercise their human rights. Thomson (2007) extends the concept to a universal social minimum. He claims that it could help to create a coherent framework that responds to the increasing economic, social and environmental vulnerabilities and risks afflicting all humans, especially those living in poverty. Thomson (2007) claims that the idea of a universal social minimum should be part of a comprehensive SP strategy, and that this requires a multi-sectoral approach.10 The UN’s proposed SP Floor can be viewed as a global social contract that ensures universal access to socially determined minimum levels of “basic needs”, as guaranteed in universal human rights agreements (van Ginneken, 2011). That is, the principle of guaranteed basic needs is universal, but the social minimum is nationally designed and managed, and locally administered.

3.3 Human Rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights To implement a universal social minimum would require international consensus that the secure provision of basic needs is indeed an inalienable human right for all. In 1948 the General Assembly of the UN adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which includes:

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 9 See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-minimum/ for definition of social minimum. 10 See Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler (2007b) for an interesting and relevant critique of a universal social minimum as

global social justice or “apple pie in the sky”?

15

Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State.

Article 25. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26. Everyone has the right to education.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a right to “basic needs” and a right to the “security of basic needs” (UN, 2010), which is consistent with the concept of a risk-adjusted social floor. Thus, there is a global legal framework for dealing with human rights that is consistent with the concepts of justice and fairness applied by Rawls, Sen, and Nussbaum – and a global commitment to guarantee these human rights. This approach implies the need to guarantee a social minimum for all individuals and places in the world, present and future. That is, a universal social floor that is locally determined, nationally designed and managed, and enforced through a global social contract (van Gilleken, 2011). This does not mean paying out equal amounts to all persons; rather, it means that every individual has a right to access basic needs if certain conditions prevail and/or events take place (Jorgensen and Serrano-Berthet, 2009).

3.4 UN Global Compact The UN Global Compact,11 launched in 2000, explicitly links human rights with environmental protection and good governance. The UN Global Compact encourages the private sector to embrace universal principles related to human rights and labor laws, environmental protection, and good governance. The UN Global Compact includes principles based on accepted UN declarations:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – basic needs and security of basic needs,

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work – non-discrimination, prohibition of forced labor, and child labor,

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development – including precautionary principle, and

Convention Against Corruption – zero-tolerance for corruption in private, and public sectors.

The UN Global Compact’s principles, especially the links between human rights, environmental protection, and good governance (anti-corruption) are fundamental to human rights and social justice approaches to climate change. Dedication to anti-corruption and good governance in private and public sectors and civil society, and in public-private sector and civil society relationships is fundamental for political and financial support for a social minimum that is operationalized as a globally guaranteed, nationally designed and managed, and locally administered risk-adjusted social floor. As such, van Ginneken (2011) notes that when designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating SP programs that are part of a social contract, governments and other stakeholders must ensure compliance of four main human rights principles, including a) equality and non-discrimination, b) participation, c) transparency and access to information and d) accountability.

11 http://www.unglobalcompact.org/

16

3.5 Social Justice, Human Rights and Basic Needs: Toward Practical Solutions Sen (2009) declared that guaranteed human rights might be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for basic needs. Sen (2009) differentiates between social policies that attempt to achieve perfect social justice, and approaches which focus on eliminating the greatest injustices by trying to provide incentives for “good” human behavior and penalties for “bad” human behavior, with greater reliance on efficient market-driven systems that “should” result in socially just outcomes.12 Sen (2009) advocates greater attention to practical solutions that eliminate the greatest injustices, showing clear parallels to Rawlsian concepts of social justice and no-regrets approaches to inclusive and sustainable development. The final section of this paper (Section 5) highlights some practical aspects of implementing the proposed risk-adjusted social floor.

4. Principles of Social Justice and Human Rights Applied to Climate Change Climate change is often presented as a social justice and human rights issue because of the disconnect between those who: a) cause, b) benefit, and c) pay for the problem; and the complexities in trying to sort out the causes, benefits, and costs across people, sectors, places, and time (Gardiner, 2004). Climate change justice is often presented as: Climate change has been caused by wealthy, developed, industrialized countries, whose citizens have benefited by the associated production and consumption activities, and poor and vulnerable countries bear the brunt of the costs. This is an oversimplification of reality because there are also wealthy persons in poor countries and poor persons in wealthy countries, and some poor persons resort to environmentally destructive practices for survival. Thus, it is important to examine how principles of human rights and social justice presented in Section 3 can be applied to climate change.

4.1 Egalitarian-Liberal Perspectives versus Utilitarian Market-Based Perspectives Okereke and Dooley (2010) and Okereke (2010) note that it is a major challenge to (re)frame global debates about climate change in terms of human rights and social justice, instead of in terms of efficiency and markets. These authors claim that utilitarian and market-based approaches to climate change have dominated global debates and sidelined human rights and social justice arguments. At best, social justice and human rights aspects of global climate change have been approached from utilitarian and efficiency perspectives, which crowds out the search for global social justice based on a human-rights perspective. Egalitarian-liberal approaches point to the need to link justice and fairness with the provision of basic needs as part-and-parcel of a social contract based on human rights principles.

The following table highlights some perspectives for dealing with issues related to climate change justice and human rights. The table illustrates the differences between utilitarian and market-justice and liberal-egalitarianism, and meeting needs approaches.

12 Pritchett (2005) and Devereaux and Sabates-Wheeler (2007a; 2007b) also discuss issues related to the political

“practicality” of different approaches to SP that attempt to address poverty and vulnerability.

17

Table 1 Summary of Different Approaches to Social Justice

Approach Description Policy Indicators Beneficiaries Environmental Synergies

Utilitarian Maintaining and increasing utility for the greatest amount of people.

Utility/preference measurement. Apparent good.

Majority/consumer class.

Decisions based on preferences with no weighing for environmental soundness of preferences.

Market Justice Relies on market as main agent of wealth re(distribution). Performance based.

Define property rights and then sell them. Results in market-based policy approaches.

Privileged benefit power/ownership.

Market defines environmental value.

Liberal Egalitarianism

Equal rights to basic social goods and opportunity. Distribution should benefit the most disadvantaged.

Welfare recognized – differential assistance for most disadvantaged.

All benefit but relative inequality allowed despite reduced poverty.

Individual autonomy emphasized; environmental limits not recognized.

Meeting Needs Moral equality of ‘human basic needs for all’ takes precedence over rights of individuals. Positive rights obligate authorities to meet basic needs of citizens.

Policy focus protects most vulnerable rather than furthering the interest of the privileged and powerful.

Most vulnerable. Compatible with long-term sustainability and finite biosphere.

Source: Okereke and Dooley (2010) The perspective of human rights and social justice taken in this paper is framed by liberal-egalitarian principles and meeting needs approaches.13 However, it is also crucial to invoke utilitarian and market-justice principles and approaches that focus on allocative efficiency, as a 2nd criteria. This is in contrast to the current practice of applying utilitarian and market-justice principles and allocative efficiency approaches, and dealing with justice and human rights issues as a secondary issue or ignoring them altogether. Thus, in terms of a global social welfare function, the 1st order objective is to maximize equity (as defined by providing a universal social floor with a built-in insurance component), and the 2nd order objective is to maximize economic efficiency

4.2 Guidance on Human Rights and Climate Change Justice from Egalitarian-Liberal Perspectives Egalitarian-liberals such as Rawls, Sen, and Nussbaum provide little direct guidance for dealing with climate change. However, their guidelines on human rights and social justice have been applied and extended by others.

Paavola and Adger (2002; 2006) draw upon several different concepts and approaches to human rights and social justice and relate them to climate change, focusing on CCA. They also claim that communities and individuals are the ones who suffer the brunt of climate change and have to make decisions about adaptation. Thus global and national perspectives on climate change adaptation are inherently “unjust”, because they ignore the

13 White (2008) claims that utilitarians might not be totally opposed to a social minimum, especially considering the

principle of “diminishing marginal utility”, which assumes a poor person values an extra dollar more than a wealthier person. However, utilitarian and market-based approaches question the “(dis)incentive effect” of providing a social minimum to all.

18

differences in local conditions (or local “vulnerabilities”14) and the distributional impacts within and among countries. Therefore, they propose that social justice approaches to climate change include dimensions of both distributive justice and procedural justice. Procedural justice focuses on the processes to empower participation of communities (and households/individuals) in planning and decisions about adaptation actions globally and nationally. The UN SP Floor Initiative highlights the need for participatory processes with many stakeholders to establish national SP Floors, and norms for local implementation. As Sen (1999) points out, the processes under which just solutions are achieved must also be just and representative, and following Rawls (1971), they should be proactively targeted to the poor and vulnerable.

Paavola and Adger (2002; 2006) also highlight the differences between Pareto Optimal conditions of welfare economics based on utilitarianism (that winners can hypothetically compensate losers to achieve a social optimum), and the Rawlsian criteria of social welfare where changes are justified if they improve the well-being of the poorest and most vulnerable (i.e., the “maxi-min” principle). In contrast to utilitarian approaches that add-up all goods into a money-metric. Paavola and Adger (2002; 2006) argue that there are other approaches that include tangible and intangible values. Paavola and Adger (2002, p.5) claim: “that there are several irreducible goods that may demand different basis for justice in different context. For example, human welfare, health, absence of danger and preservation of the non-human species could be considered outcomes that mark what is just in the area of distributive justice.” When discussing rights-based approaches to justice they draw upon Sen (1999), which includes rights to citizenship, well-being, security, and a place to live. Security includes economic security, but is much broader, as it includes aspects of physical, social, and environmental security, and hopefulness toward the future.

Paavola and Adger (2002; 2006) present four guiding principles for Fair Adaptation to Climate Change to address distributive and procedural justice in a forward-looking manner:

a) Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: by limiting future global emissions to a “safe-maximum standard”, and adopt the “precautionary principle”,

b) Forward-Looking Responsibility: by adopting a progressive carbon tax reflecting the real cost of present and future emissions, and using the tax revenues to compensate those communities harmed by climate change, and by assisting potential losers to implement adaptation strategies,

c) Put the Most Vulnerable First: by adopting a global vulnerability maxi-min rule (ala Rawls) whereby assistance would be targeted to the most vulnerable people and places in the world, and

d) Equal Participation for All: by promoting inclusive participation in decision-making and funding allocations to civil society, including community groups, NGOs, and other stakeholders.

Reflecting on these guidelines (Paavola and Adger, 2006, p.607) conclude: “The principle of avoiding dangerous climate change can provide a degree of absolute protection to all vital interests, the principle of forward-looking responsibility gives effect to efficiency concerns and the principle of putting the most vulnerable first justifies progressive redistribution to those who are in most need. The last principle provides a guideline for resolving the dilemma of procedural justice, suggesting that all affected parties have rights, which have to be respected by recognition and participation.” All of these guidelines are linked and need to be considered in tandem, as in the proposed risk-adjusted social floor.

14 Vulnerability is therefore closely related to resilience, and capacity to adapt. “This definition draws attention to factors

such as assets, sources of livelihood, class race, ethnicity, gender and poverty … (Paavola and Adger (2006, p 604).”

19

Vanderheiden (2008) draws upon Rawls as the basis for a justice and fairness approach to climate change from international and inter-generational perspectives. He concludes that Rawls offers limited practical guidelines beyond the Brundtland Commission’s concept of “sustainable development”, with its human-centric approach that focuses on maintaining human wants and needs over time. That is, Vanderheiden (2008, p.116) presents a strong argument for investing in human capital, as it is the combination of human-made capital and natural assets that will allow societies to fulfill the Rawlsian obligation for each generation to equitably allocate resources over time by requiring that “each [generation] receives from its predecessors and does its fair share for those who will come later (Rawls, 1971, p.291).” According to Vanderheiden (2008), achieving climate change justice and fairness will require a global agreement that is forward-looking, and based on a polluter pays principle (e.g., by having a carbon tax). This is consistent with principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities.

Posner and Sunstein (2007; 2008) and Posner and Weisbach (2010) assert that the question of climate change justice has received relatively little attention from a formal legal perspective. They present and analyze climate change justice in terms of “corrective justice” and “distributive justice”. Corrective justice focuses on attributing legal responsibility for causing climate change while distributive justice focuses on who/how/when those who contribute to climate change will compensate those suffering its consequences. Thus, corrective justice and distributive justice are closely related. Based on legal concepts of justice, the authors conclude that the basic principles of corrective justice and distributive justice are not easily applied to climate change justice, especially if the objective is to help the poorest and most vulnerable people and places.

The main arguments of Posner and Sunstein (2007; 2008) and Posner and Weisbach (2010) are:

a) Corrective Justice is not so straightforward: attributing responsibility for past emissions based on national boundaries ignores the global benefits of trade, and blames present generations for actions of past generations. The problem for any approach to climate change justice from an inter-generational perspective is the uncertainty about climate change and about anything else in the future that contributes to human well-being, which is the “non-identify problem” (Page, 2006).

b) Intergenerational Justice is not so straightforward: Emissions reductions will mostly help future generations of poor persons as opposed to poor and vulnerable persons living in the present and near future, thus placing a disproportionate burden on the present poor who might become poorer and more vulnerable. Furthermore, with changes in technology and increases in productivity and changing tastes, it is hard to predict who will be poor and vulnerable in the future.

c) Climate Change impacts are location and household specific: Current climate change models predict significant negative impacts for India, Bangladesh, and much of Africa. However, depending on their location in the world, millions of poor and vulnerable people in the world (e.g., in Russia, China) might actually benefit from short term and longer term climate change. Also, there are rich households in countries that are poor and vulnerable, and poor and vulnerable households in rich and resilient countries.

Posner and Sunstein (2007; 2008) and Posner and Weisbach (2010) conclude that even if global warming is taking place (whatever its cause), there are more efficient and equitable means for achieving distributive justice than emission reductions set at national and global levels. An important observation is that concerns about distributive justice and corrective justice, in the name of the poorest and most vulnerable households might actually be impeding immediate actions to help the poorest and most vulnerable households to adapt to

20

climate change, because the ongoing international debates over corrective and distributive justice are hindering efforts to identify a “feasible” global treaty – which they feel is urgently required to deal with the manifestations of climate change. They thus propose a “forward-looking, pragmatic perspective” as opposed to a backward-looking, idealistic perspective as the most constructive way to assist the poorest and most vulnerable nations and households, and consistent with social justice objectives.

The need for forward-looking approaches to climate change justice based on common, but differentiated responsibilities and abilities is highlighted in a new book: Greenprint: A New Approach to Cooperation on Climate Change by Mattoo and Subramanian (2013). Acknowledging the futility of attempts to negotiate emissions reductions, Mattoo and Subramanian (2013) take a utilitarian and market justice approach and advocate more global technology transfer and improved governance of global trade as justice-based solutions to global climate change and associated poverty and vulnerability. They propose a global Green Tehnology Fund to help transfer technologies that lower emissions and promote economic growth. In contrast, this paper focuses attention on directly targeting the poor and vulnerable by guaranteeing basic needs as a no-regrets approach to climate change justice. As pointed out in the Brundtland Commision report, both equity and efficiency considerations are important for climate change justice, but a direct, explicit focus on poverty reduction is needed. Interestingly, in the foreword to Greenprint (p. vii), Lord Stern writes: “The issues of climate change, growth, and poverty reduction are inextricably intertwined. Failure to manage climate change will undermine development and poverty reduction; failure to promote development and reduce poverty will further exacerbate climate change.”

4.3 Climate Change Justice and Fairness: Processes and Procedures Governance, including institutional structures and the processes and procedures used to define, achieve and enforce human rights and social justice are critical for design of an appropriate and practical strategy for climate change justice. Paavola and Adger (2006) highlight the importance of participatory processes and empowerment of the poorest and most vulnerable households and communities as an important aspect of strategies to achieve climate change justice. Agrawal (2010) highlights the critical roles of processes and institutions, especially at the local level, in facilitating equitable and efficient approaches to climate change.15 Implementation of the risk-adjusted social floor should be as local as possible, with strong community-based participation. This is also consistent with ongoing global trends toward decentralization of governance. There is some evidence of community-based risk management systems that are inclusive and effective because of available local information on hazards/risks, assets/livelihoods, and risk management capacity (Davies, Oswald, Mitchell, 2009; World Bank, 2009b; IDS, 2012; Kurkiose, et al., 2012).

If communities and local governments can be trusted to help target beneficiaries and benefit packages, this could help establish flexible and responsive systems to locally implement a risk-adjusted social floor. However, concerns about exclusion of those “needing” assistance, and/or elite capture and/or spreading of benefits within a community are very real. Pritchett (2005) highlights some of the positive and negative aspects of stronger involvement from national governments and more centralized targeting and benefits packages compared to more decentralized processes, and concludes that the ideal balance for comprehensive SP is site-specific and should combine top-down national criteria and bottom-up local discretion.

Social guarantees provide some practical operational guidance on the processes and procedures needed to design and implement SP policies and programs that are based on concepts of human rights and social justice (Gacitua-Mario, et. al., 2009; Ribe, et. al., 2012). 15 See Social Development Department (SDV), World Bank website on Local Institutions and Climate Change:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/0,,contentMDK:22187389~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:244363,00.html

21

Social guarantees are a form of national social contract that guarantees access to basic goods and services for all citizens. Social guarantees identify and clarify minimum standards of well-being and entitlements to basic goods and services (and also set standards for the quality of basic goods and services). Social guarantees can be viewed as “safeguards” that society provides to all its members, ensuring their access to essential levels of well-being.

According to Gacitua-Mario, et.al. (2009) this requires:

a) The definition and widespread communication of rights, entitlements, and standards which enable citizens to hold public policymakers and providers to account for the delivery of social policy,

b) The availability of mechanisms of redress which citizens can utilize if they are unable to enjoy specified entitlements or social minimums, and

c) A commitment to the equitable delivery of the specified rights, entitlements, and standards to all on a universal basis.

In a review of the political economy of social programs that attempt to provide a social minimum, Pritchett (2005) claims that to achieve and maintain wide political support there is a need for strong M&E systems that ensure against corruption, promote equitable and efficient targeting of benefits and beneficiaries, and that also document successes of the program in attaining its objectives for individuals, households and the broader society. Similar points are raised by van Ginneken (2011) with respect to processes and procedures necessary for a global social contract that guarantees a nationally determined SP Floor.

5. Conclusion: Moving from Concepts to Practice This paper introduces the idea of a globally guaranteed, nationally designed and managed, and locally implemented risk-adjusted social floor. This is a forward-looking approach to climate change justice that does not attempt to explicitly redress past injustices, instead focusing on creating resilient economic, social and environmental systems - which are equitable and sustainable for the present and future – and based on the universal provision of a social minimum that is a basic needs package that includes food, health, education, water and sanitation, housing, etc. The proposed risk-adjusted social floor is consistent with principles of the UN SP Floor Initiative (ILO/WHO, 2009; ILO, 2011), and proposed Global Fund for SP (de Schutter and Sepulveda, 2012). The UN SP Floor Initiative focuses on minimum levels of SP (e.g., universal health care, and income support for children, disabled, and unemployed). This paper claims that the UN SP Floor should to be extended to a full package of basic needs, thus a social floor instead of an SP floor. In the face of all the uncertainty brought by future global climate change, and the hazards/risks associated with present manifestations of climate change through increased climate variability and increased extreme weather events, a risk-adjustment factor (i.e., an insurance mechanism) needs to be explicitly added to the social floor. The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes a right to “basic needs” and a right to the “security of basic needs” (UN, 2010), which is consistent with the concept of a risk-adjusted social floor. Based on the principles of common, but differentiated responsibility and ability, there should be global funding for nationally designed and managed, and locally implemented risk-adjusted social floors (de Schutter and Sepulveda, 2012).

To gain global support for a risk-adjusted social floor it is important to be able to move from concept to practice. Implementation of the risk-adjusted social floor can draw upon established and successful approaches to SP that provide basic needs and also build and

22

protect assets and livelihoods (Davies, Oswald, Mitchell, 2009; Siegel and Jorgensen, 2011; Siegel, Gatsinzi, Kettlewell, 2011; Bene, 2012; Kuriakose, et. al., 2012; World Bank, 2012; Rawlings, Murthy, and Winder, 2013). This includes approaches to SP such as conditional cash transfers (CCTs), vouchers, fee waivers, feeding programs, productive safety nets, micro-insurance products for the poor (e.g., health, life, unemployment, disaster) and micro-finance for savings and credit (increasingly using electronic transfers and other mobile banking methods). There are also advances in early warning and rapid response systems, that use ICT (e.g., cellphones, laptops, smartcards), GPS, GIS, and SDI that allow for flexible SP systems that can work in tandem with DRM and CCA, and even be incorporated in to a system of spatially enabled governance (Siegel, 2011, Siegel, et. al., 2011). In addition, there are innovations in global insurance instruments and risk pooling mechanisms (Siegel and Jorgensen, 2011; de Schutter and Sepulveda, 2012).

A risk-adjusted social floor could build on the experience of social guarantees in several Latin American and African countries, whereby there is a social contract to provide basic needs to citizens (Gaciuta-Mario, et. al., 2009; Ribe, et. al., 2012; Rawlings, et. al., 2013). To meet the ideas of procedural justice and the polluter pays principles, and acknowledging that a global social contract is needed, the risk-adjusted social floor would need to be globally guaranteed and financed (von Ginneken, 2011). This is the idea behind the Global Fund for SP (de Schutter and Sepulveda, 2012), to globally guarantee national SP Floors using international insurance and risk pooling mechanisms. The fact that the ILO and IMF are working together to examine the economic/fiscal feasibility of national SP Floors (ILO/IMF, 2012) and the World Bank is working together with UNICEF to examine how to design, manage and implement comprehensive SP systems (Rawlings, et. al., 2013) is an indication of the increasing convergence, in theory and in practice, across rights-based and risk-based approaches to SP and poverty reduction. Using similar arguments for forward-looking global approaches to climate change justice, global funding to transfer technologies that lower emissions and stimulate economic growth should also be considered; to improve efficiency, equity, and environmental quality (Matteo and Subamanian, 2013).

The globally guaranteed, nationally designed and managed, and locally implemented risk-adjusted social floor should generate global welfare solutions that result in social justice and human rights over space and time, and thereby increase perceptions of human security. As such, the costs of a comphrehensive SP approach such as a risk-adjusted social floor need to be considered as social investments, and not costs per se. The global social contract is that all persons would be entitled to access the locally administered risk-adjusted social floor in return for acceptance of the underlying global human rights agreements and principles of social justice that it is based on. This should help make the vision for sustainable development in a Common Future a reality: development that meets the [basic] needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own [basic] needs.

So, imagine that every morning everyone in the world wakes up and has a recharged “Punta Smart Card” with “puntas” that allow the person to obtain a social minimum of basic needs (including basic health, disability and life insurance). The basic needs package for each person’s “Punta Smart Card” would be locally determined and administered, and GPS-oriented so that there could be real-time risk adjustments to the “puntas” to reflect any hazards/risks and/or changes in underlying structural conditions. Thus, the basic needs package would be guaranteed and secured, and the vision of a just world without poverty and with shared prosperity could hopefully be realized.

23

References Adger, W.N. (2010) “Climate Change, Human Well-Being and Insecurity.” New Political

Economy, 15(2): 275 – 292.

Adler, J. and others (2000) “Greenhouse Policy Without Regrets: A Free Market Approach to the Uncertain Risks of Climate Change.” Competitive Enterprise Institute: Washington, D.C. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/7308.pdf

Agrawal, A. (2010) “Local Instiutions and Adaptation to Climate Change.” Chapter 7 in Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World. Edited by R. Mearns and A. Norton. The World Bank: Washington, D.C. 2010. http://website1.wider.unu.edu/lib/pdfs/WB-SDCC-2009.pdf

Bene, C. (2012) “Social Protection and Resilience to Climate and Disaster.” IDS Programme Briefing. March 2012. Institute for Development Studies: University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/ASP_Briefing_WebNew.pdf

Burkeman, S. (2008) “Responding to the Rooftops: Climate change and social justice: what can UK foundations do?” Report Prepared for the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust. http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/getattachment/fa3f386d-cf59-4eaa-a8c7-3eef0f2fe9e1/Responding-to-the-Rooftops--Social-Justice-and-Cli.aspx

Cafiero, C. and R. Vakis (2006) “Risk and Vulnerability Considerations in Poverty Analysis: Recent Advances and Future Directions.” Social Protection Unit, Human Development Network. SP Discussion Paper 0610. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. http://agriskmanagementforum.org/sites/agriskmanagementforum.org/files/Documents/Risk_Vulnerability.pdf

Davies, M. K. Oswald, and T. Mitchell (2009) “Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction and Social Protection.” In Promoting Pro-Poor Growth: Social Protection. DAC Network on Poverty Reduction (POVNET). Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/55/43280946.pdf

de Schutter, O. and M. Sepulveda (2012) “Underwriting of the Poor: A Global Fund for Social Protection.” Briefing Note 7, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. October 2012. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Food/20121009_GFSP_en.pdf

Devereux, S. and R. Sabates-Wheeler (2007a) “Editorial Introduction: Debating Social Protection” IDS Bulletin, 38(3):1-7. Institute for Development Studies: University of Sussex. http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/IntroDevereux38.3.pdf

Devereux, S. and R. Sabates-Wheeler (2007b) “A Universal Social Minimum: A Recipe for Social Justice or ‘Apple Pie in the Sky’? ” IDS Bulletin, 38(3):61-63. Institute for Development Studies: University of Sussex.

Dworkin (2000) Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Gacitua-Mario, E., A. Norton, and S.V. Georgieva (2009) Building Equality and Opportunity Through Social Guarantees: New Approaches to Public Policy and the Realization of Rights. The World Bank: Washington, D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLACREGTOPSOCDEV/Resources/847654-1250627336306/EBook9780821378830.pdf

24

Gardiner, S.M. (2004) “Ethics and Climate Change.” Ethics, 114(3): 555-600. http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Environmental_Philosophy_Sp_09/Gardner_Ethics_and_Climate_Change.pdf?referrer=webcluster&

Gardiner, S.M. (2010) “Climate Change as a Global Test for Contemporary Political Institutions and Theories.” In K. O’Brien, A.L. St. Clair, B. Kristoffersen, editors. Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security, Cambridge Press: Cambridge. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511762475&cid=CBO9780511762475A020

Gardiner, S.M. (2011) “Rawls and Climate Change: Does Rawlsian Political Philosophy Pass the Global Test?” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 14(2): 125-151. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698230.2011.529705#preview

Heltberg, R., P.B. Siegel, and S.L. Jorgensen (2009) "Addressing Human Vulnerability to Climate Change: Toward a 'No Regrets' Approach." Global Environmental Change, 19(1): 89-99. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1232059926563/5747581-1239131985528/GEC.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2012) “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Summary for Policymakers.” A Special Report of the Working Groups I and II of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrocure_FINAL.pdf

International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP, 2008) Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide. Geneva. http://www.ichrp.org/en/projects/136

International Labour Office and World Health Organization (ILO and WHO, 2009) “The Social Protection Floor.” Geneva. http://www.un.org/ga/second/64/socialprotection.pdf

International Labour Office (ILO, 2011) “Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalization.” Geneva. http://www.unwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Social-protection-floor-report.pdf

International Labour Office and International Monetary Fund (ILO/IMF, 2012) “Towards effective and fiscally sustainable Social Protection Floors.” Co-published by International Labor Office (ILO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). http://www.socialsecurityextension.org/gimi/gess/RessShowRessource.do?ressourceId=30810

Jacobs, E. (2007) “The Politics of Insecurity: Executive Summary.” Issues in Governance Studies, Number 10. The Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/9/politics%20jacobs/jacobs20070913.pdf

Jorgensen, S.L. and R. Serrano-Berther (2009) “Comprehensive Social Policy for Inclusive and Sustainable Globalization.” In Gacitau-Mario, et. al. (2009) Building Equality and Opportunity Through Social Guarantees: New Approaches to Public Policy and the Realization of Rights. The World Bank: Washington, D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLACREGTOPSOCDEV/Resources/847654-1250627336306/EBook9780821378830.pdf

25

Kanbur, R. (2010) “Protecting the Poor Against the Next Crisis.” Paper presented at the Distinguished Lectures Series of The Egyptian Centre for Economic Studies, Cairo, Egypt, on March 23, 2010. http://kanbur.dyson.cornell.edu/papers/Protecting%20the%20Poor%20Against%20the%20Next%20Crisis.pdf

Kasperson, R.E., and J.X. Kasperson. 2001. Climate change, vulnerability and social justice. Stockholm: Risk and Vulnerability Programme, Stockholm Environment Institute. http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/bcsia/sust.nsf/pubs/pub66

Kuriakose, A.T., R. Heltberg, W. Wiseman, C. Costella, R. Cipryk, and S. Cornelius (2012) “Climate-Responsive Social Protection.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper No. 1210. Background Paper for the World Bank 2012-2022 Social Protection and Labor Strategy. The World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/430578-1331508552354/1210.pdf

Mattoo, A. and A. Subramanian (2013) Greenprint: A New Approach to Cooperation on Climate Change. Center for Global Development: Washington, D.C. http://www.cgdev.org/publication/9781933286679-greenprint-new-approach-cooperation-climate-change

Mestrum, F. (2012) “Social Protection Floor: Beyond Poverty Reduction?” Global Social Justice Website. Prepared March 4, 2012. http://www.globalsocialjustice.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=223:social-protection-floor-beyond-poverty-reduction&catid=5:analysis&Itemid=6.

Munasinghe, M. and R. Swart (2005) Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Facts, Policy Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nordhaus, W. (2007) “A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.” Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3):686-702.

Nussbaum, M. (2006) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. The Belknap Press of Harvard University: Cambridge, USA.

O'Brien, K, A.L. St. Clair, and B. Kristoffersen (2010) Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Okereke,C. and K. Dooley (2010) “Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoid deforestation: Towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement.” Global Environmental Policy, 29:82-95.

Okereke, C. (2010) “Climate justice and the international regime.” Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3): 462-474. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.52/abstract

Page, E.A. (2006) Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations. Edward Elgar Publishers: Cheltenham, UK.

Paavola, J. and W.N. Adger (2002) “Justice and Adaptation to Climate Change.” Working Paper 23, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Paavola, J. and W.N. Adger (2006) “Fair Adaptation to Climate Change.” Ecological Economics. 56:594-609.

26

Perch, L. (2010) Maximizing Co-Benefits: Exploring Opportunities to Strengthen Equality and Poverty Reduction Through Adaptation to Climate Change.” Working Paper Number 75. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC - IG) Poverty Practice, Bureau for Development Policy, United Nation Development Programme (UNDP). http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCWorkingPaper75.pdf

Posner, E.A. and C.R. Sunstein (2007) “Climate Change Justice.” John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 354. The Law School University of Chicago. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008958

Posner, E.A. and C.R. Sunstein (2008) “Global Warming and Social Justice.” Regulation. 31(1):14-20. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121781

Posner, E.A. and D. Weisbach (2010) Climate Change Justice. Princeton University Press.

Pritchett, L. (2005) “The Political Economy of Targeted Safety Nets.” Social Protection Unit, Human Development Network, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. SP Discussion Paper 0501. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Safety-Nets-DP/0501.pdf

Rawlings, L., S. Murthy, and N. Winder (2013) “Common Ground: UNICEF and World Bank Approaches to Building Social Protection Systems.” Joint World Bank/UNICEF publication. www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/UNICEF-WB_systems_note_formatted.pdf

Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University: Cambridge.

Rawls, J. (1999) The Law of Peoples (with The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness. The Belknap Press of Harvard University: Cambridge.

Ribe, H, D. Robalino, and I. Walker, editors (2012) From Right to Reality: Incentives, Labor Markets, and the Challenge of Universal Social Protection in Latin America and the Caribbean. The World Bank: Washington, D.C http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFOSHOP1/Resources/FromRighttoReality.pdf

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University: Cambridge.

Siegel, P.B. (2011) “No Regrets Approach to Decision-Making in a Changing Climate: Toward Adaptive Social Protection and Spatially Enabled Governance.” Background Paper for World Resources Report 2010-2111. World Resources Institute: Washington, D.C. http://www.worldresourcesreport.org/de/responses/no-regrets-approach-decision-making-changing-climate-toward-adaptive-social-protection-a

Siegel, P.B. and S.L. Jorgensen (2011) “No-Regrets Approach to Increased Resilience and Climate Change Justice: Toward a Risk-Adjusted Social Protection Floor.” Presented at conference on “Social Protection for Social Justice” Institute for Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. April 13-15, 2011. http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/SiegelJorgensen2011RiskAdjustedSocialProtectionFloor02CSPconferencedraft.pdf

Siegel, P.B., J. Gatsinzi, and A. Kettlewell (2011) “Adaptive Social Protection in Rwanda: ‘Climate-proofing’ the Vision 2020 Umerenge Programme”. IDS Bulletin. 42(6): 71-78. Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK.

27

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00276.x/abstract http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Siegeletal2011AdaptiveSocialProtectioninRwanda02CSPconferencedraft.pdf

Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge Press.

Thomas, D.S.G. and C. Twyman (2005) “Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource dependent societies.” Global Environmental Change, 15:115-124.

Thomson, K. (2007) “A Universal Social Minimum as a Foundation for Citizenship.” IDS Bulletin, 38(3): 56–60.

Tomich, T. (2010) “Living with No regrets on Climate Change.” Huffington Post, January 6, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-tomich/living-with-no-regrets-on_b_412361.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

United Nations (2010) “Human Security: Report to the Secretary General.” Submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations, March 8, 2010. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/human%20security%20report%20april%206%202010.pdf

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR, 2011) 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development. Geneva. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/index.html

Vanderheiden, S. (2008) Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change. Oxford University Press. http://global.oup.com/academic/product/atmospheric-justice-9780195334609;jsessionid=20E1F7D4AD6D42E899C15AD2BE83D4D7?cc=us&lang=en&

Van Ginneken, W. (2011) “Social Protection, the Millenium Development Goals and Human Rights.” IDS Bulletin. 42(6): 111-117. Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00282.x/abstract

http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/VanGinneken2011HumanrightsbasedapproachtoMDGsCSPconferencedraft.pdf

Vos, R. and R. Kozul-Wright, editors (2011) Economic Insecurity and Development. United Nations: New York. https://unp.un.org/details.aspx?pid=19517

Weisbach, D. and C.R. Sunstein (2008) “Climate Change and Discounting the Future: A Guide for the Perplexed.” Reg-Markets Center Working Paper 08-19. AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies. http://reg-markets.org/admin/authorpdfs/redirect-safely.php?fname=../pdffiles/phpEK.pdf

Weitzman, M.L. (2007) “A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.” Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3):703-724.

White, S. (2008) "Social Minimum", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (editors). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/social-minimum/

World Bank (2001) Social Protection Sector Strategy: From Safety Net to Springboard. Washington, D.C. http://www-

28

wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/01/26/000094946_01011705303891/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf

World Bank (2009a) World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. Washington, D.C. http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2010/0,,contentMDK:21969137~menuPK:5287816~pagePK:64167689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:5287741,00.html

World Bank (2009b) Building Resilient Communities: Risk Management and Response to Natural Disasters through Social Funds and Community-Driven Development Operations. Washington, D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSF/Resources/Building_Resilient_Communities_Complete.pdf

World Bank (2012) Resilience, Equity, and Opportunity: World Bank Social Protection and Labor Strategy 2012-2022. Washington, D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/280558-1274453001167/7089867-1279223745454/7253917-1291314603217/SPL_Strategy_2012-22_FINAL.pdf

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford. http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm

World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization (2004). International Labor Office (ILO): Geneva. http://www.ilo.int/public/english/wcsdg/docs/report.pdf