Exploring Power and Procedural Justice Within Climate Compatible Development Project Design

• Author: Benjamin T. Wood,Lindsay C. Stringer,Andrew J. Dougill,Claire H. Quinn
• Date: 01 December 2016
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/1070496516664179
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Exploring Power and

Procedural Justice Within

Climate Compatible

Development Project

Design: Whose Priorities

Are Being Considered?

Benjamin T. Wood

1

, Andrew J. Dougill

1

,

Claire H. Quinn

1

, and Lindsay C. Stringer

1

Abstract

Climate compatible development (CCD) is gaining traction as a conceptual framework

for mainstreaming climate change mitigation and adaptation within development

efforts. Understanding whether and how CCD design processes reconcile different

stakeholder preferences can reveal how the concept contends with patterns of socio-

cultural and political oppression that condition patterns of development. We, there-

fore, explore procedural justice and power within CCD design through a case study

analysis of two donor-funded projects in Malawi. Findingsshow that donor agencies are

driving design processes and involving other stakeholders selectively. While consider-

able overlap existed between stakeholders’ “revealed”priorities for CCD, invisible

power dynamics encourage the suppression of “true”preferences, reducing the like-

lihood that CCD will be contextually appropriate and have widespread stakeholder

buy in. Visible, hidden, and invisible forms of power create barriers to procedural

justice in CCD design. We present five recommendations to help policy makers and

practitioners to overcome these barriers.

Keywords

social justice, equity, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, policy,

triple wins, trade-offs

Journal of Environment &

Development

2016, Vol. 25(4) 363–395

!The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1070496516664179

jed.sagepub.com

1

Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Corresponding Author:

Benjamin T. Wood, Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of

Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.

Email: ee12btw@leeds.ac.uk

Climate change is already making development objectives more dif‌f‌icult to rea-

lize (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014b). It represents a

double source of inequity because those most adversely af‌fected by it have

benef‌itted least from carbon-intensive development pathways (IPCC, 2014b).

In this context, climate compatible development (CCD) is proving attractive

as a conceptual framework for mainstreaming climate change mitigation and

adaptation within development ef‌forts in order to reduce vulnerabilities

(Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010). Vulnerability is seen as a function of exposure to

sociocultural, economic, political, and environmental (including climatic) shocks

and stressors; sensitivity to these shocks and stressors; and capacities to adapt

and respond to them (IPCC, 2014a).

According to the IPCC (2014a), climate change mitigation constitutes human

action to reduce greenhouse gas sources or enhance sinks. Climate change adap-

tation commonly denotes anticipatory or reactive actions that enable adjustment

to actual or expected climate impacts (IPCC, 2014a). In line with human devel-

opment discourses, development is def‌ined as a function of individuals’ and

groups’ sociocultural, political, and economic freedoms (Sen, 2001).

So far, the operationalization of CCD has outpaced academic inquiry into the

concept. While the CCDliterature is growing and research is beginning to critique

CCD theory and practice (e.g., through evaluations of CCD outcomes—

Tompkins et al., 2013; discourses—Ka

¨ko

¨nen, Lebel, Karhunma, Dany, &

Thuon, 2014; and political economy—Tanner et al., 2014), overall, critical

research remains limited. CCD’s procedural justice implications have been under-

explored, and this represents a pressing research gap. Linked to this, there is a

scarcity of social justice research that explores how CCD interventions allocate

opportunities, privileges, burdens, and disadvantages (Schlosberg, 2007).

Procedural justice requires that stakeholders can participate in, and have their

preferences recognized through, CCD design processes (Schlosberg, 2007).

Participation and recognition constitute the political and sociocultural pillars

of procedural justice, respectively. Participation denotes opportunities to take

part in decision making (Hurlbert & Gupta, 2015), while recognition is achieved

when stakeholders’ identities, cultures, and values are acknowledged and

respected throughout CCD design processes (Tschakert, 2009). Participation

and recognition share a reciprocal relationship, whereby those who go unrecog-

nized are unlikely to be af‌forded participatory opportunities, while the depth

and breadth of stakeholders’ participatory opportunities condition whether they

command recognition (Schlosberg, 2007). CCD outcomes are more likely to be

favorable to those whose views are considered within decision-making processes,

suggesting that procedural justice can create pathways to distributive justice

(Schlosberg, 2007).

Some studies touch upon procedure in CCD design (e.g., Mustalahti, Bolin,

Boyd, & Paavola, 2012; Sova et al., 2015), but systematic evaluations are scarce.

Empirical insights from project-level initiatives that explicitly pursue triple wins

364 Journal of Environment & Development 25(4)

for adaptation, mitigation, and development are particularly lacking. Power

constitutes the networks of societal institutions (formal and informal) and

resources that delimit the boundaries and scope of procedural justice opportu-

nities (Gaventa, 2006). Linked to a shortage of tools and frameworks that

facilitate their holistic analysis, there is restricted understanding of the relation-

ships between procedural justice and power within CCD design.

CCD professes to be a “development f‌irst” approach (Picot & Moss, 2014).

However, limited consideration of procedural justice and power means it is

uncertain how projects contend with patterns of sociocultural and political

oppression that condition underdevelopment (Sen, 2001). Considering CCD’s

procedural justice implications is important because development, mitigation,

and adaptation outcomes are experienced dif‌ferently across diverse temporal

and spatial scales (Klein, Schipper, & Dessai, 2005). Understanding whether

and how dif‌ferent components are prioritized and balanced within design pro-

cesses can help signpost which individuals and groups will “win” and “lose”

from them, allowing remedial actions to be taken to target injustices.

This article explores procedural justice opportunities and power within the

design of two donor-funded projects that pursue CCD triple wins in Malawi.

Together, the projects form the Enhancing Community Resilience Programme

(ECRP), which seeks to improve the lives of over 600,000 vulnerable Malawians.

In this article, we (a) develop a framework for exploring CCD’s procedural

justice implications in the context of power, (b) identify dif‌ferent stakeholders’

priorities for ECRP project design, and (c) evaluate stakeholder recognition and

participation in ECRP design processes.

Designing CCD: Multistakeholder Preferences,

Procedural Justice, and Power

CCD stakeholders refer to actors or organizations that are interested in, or

impacted by, CCD (Freeman, 1984). Multistakeholder partnerships incorporating

actors and organizations that operate across global, national, and local scales can

facilitate CCD design. They allow linkages between development, mitigation, and

adaptation to be harnessed and trade-of‌fs to be minimized (Dyer et al., 2013).

They can also help reduce implementation costs (Larraza

´bal, McCall,

Mwampamba, & Skutsch, 2012) and encourage long-lasting benef‌its (Peskett,

Huberman, Bowen-Jones, Edwards, & Brown, 2008). Hence, stakeholder recogni-

tion and participation within design processes could make CCD ef‌fective and

ef‌f‌icient, as well as socially just. Accordingly, policy standards that encourage

CCD outcomes (e.g., REDD+, the Clean Development Mechanism) mandate

that interventions consider stakeholder preferences (United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, 2006, 2011).

Professional CCD stakeholders comprise individuals, or organizations with

employees, who earn a living through work related to mitigation, adaptation,

Wood et al. 365