Equity and justice in climate change adaptation : Policy and practical implication in Nigeria

Over the past decade, justice and equity have become a quasi-universal answer to problems of environmental governance. The principles of justice and equity emerged as a useful entry point in global governance to explore the responsibilities, distribution, and procedures required for just climate change adaptation. These principles are designed primarily through the establishment of funding mechanisms, top-down guides, and frameworks for adaptation, and other adaptation instruments from the UNFCCC process, to ensure effective adaptation for vulnerable countries like Nigeria that have contributed least to the issue of climate change but lack adaptive capacity. Global adaptation instruments have been acknowledged for adaptation in Nigeria. Climate change has a detrimental impact on Nigeria as a nation, with the burden falling disproportionately on the local government areas. As Nigeria develop national plans and policies to adapt to the consequences of climate change, these plans will have significant consequences for local government areas where adaptation practices occur. Although the local government’s adaptation burden raises the prospects for justice and equity, its policy and practical implication remains less explored. This chapter explores the principles of justice and equity in national adaptation policy and adaptation practices in eight local government areas in southeast Nigeria. The chapter argues that some factors make it challenging to achieve equity and justice in local adaptation practices. With the use of a qualitative approach (interview (n = 52), observation, and document analysis), this chapter identified some of the factors that constraints equity and justice in local government adaptation in southeast Nigeria.publishedVersio

Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance

Climate engineering (geoengineering) is rising up the global policy agenda, partly because international divisions pose deep challenges to collective climate mitigation. However, geoengineering is similarly subject to clashing interests, knowledge‐traditions and geopolitics. Modelling and technical assessments of geoengineering are facilitated by assumptions of a single global planner (or some as yet unspecified rational governance), but the practicality of international governance remains mostly speculative. Using evidence gathered from state delegates, climate activists and modellers, we reveal three underlying and clashing ‘geofutures’: an idealised understanding of governable geoengineering that abstracts from technical and political realities; a situated understanding of geoengineering emphasising power hierarchies in world order; and a pragmatist precautionary understanding emerging in spaces of negotiation such as UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). Set in the wider historical context of climate politics, the failure to agree even to a study of geoengineering at UNEA indicates underlying obstacles to global rules and institutions for geoengineering posed by divergent interests and underlying epistemic and political differences. Technology assessments should recognise that geoengineering will not be exempt from international fractures; that deployment of geoengineering through imposition is a serious risk; and that contestations over geofutures pertain, not only to climate policy, but also the future of planetary order

Splintering South: Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theory in a Fragmented Global Climate

The article examines the changing nature of politics in the United Nations climate negotiations through the lens of ecologically unequal exchange theory, focusing on the lead up to and aftermath of the 2015 Paris negotiations. We identify and discuss three areas of tension that have emerged within the G-77 coalition: tensions within the global semi-periphery, tensions between the semi-periphery and periphery, and tensions within the periphery. Together, these tensions challenge the main link of solidarity in the G-77 coalition: the idea that all countries in the global South share a common predicament in the global system, with the North solely to blame. Drawing upon this case, we offer three related insights to develop ecologically unequal exchange theory. First, theory and empirical work must better consider the role of the semi-periphery, and divisions within the semi-periphery, in reproducing ecologically unequal societies. Second, theory should account for how fragmentation between the periphery and semi-periphery may produce distinct challenges for peripheral states to resist governance forms which intensify ecologically unequal exchange. Third, theory should better account for the ways in which ecologically unequal exchange as mobilized as a collective action frame reflects and diverges from the real-world distribution of environmental goods and bads in the world system