IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v145y2017i3d10.1007_s10584-017-2106-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A six-component model for assessing procedural fairness in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Author

Listed:
  • Chukwumerije Okereke

    (University of Reading)

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) focusing on procedural justice. I demonstrate how, to what end, and with what effects questions of justice and procedural fairness matter in the IPCC work. Then, with the aim to advance crtical research, policy and practice on this important subject, I draw on scholarship from social psychology and legal procedures along with socio-political literature on the IPCC, to develop a six-component framework for evaluating procedural fairness in the IPCC. These include the following: (1) formal rules about representation and participation; (2) formal rules about governance and management structure; (3) formal rules relating to decision-making processes; (4) formal rules on fair treatment of authors; (5) informal quality of decision-making rules by authorities; and (6) informal quality of the interactional environment. Systematic assessment is required to validate the six-component procedural justice model and to reveal existing strengths of, and areas for improvements for, the IPCC procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • Chukwumerije Okereke, 2017. "A six-component model for assessing procedural fairness in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-522, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:145:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-017-2106-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-017-2106-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-017-2106-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-017-2106-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Biermann, Frank & Gupta, Aarti, 2011. "Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1856-1864, September.
    2. Gary Yohe & Michael Oppenheimer, 2011. "Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 629-639, October.
    3. James Ford & Will Vanderbilt & Lea Berrang-Ford, 2012. "Authorship in IPCC AR5 and its implications for content: climate change and Indigenous populations in WGII," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 201-213, July.
    4. David Holland, 2007. "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick†Affair and its Implications," Energy & Environment, , vol. 18(7), pages 951-983, December.
    5. Neha Khanna & Duane Chapman, 1996. "Time Preference, Abatement Costs, And International Climate Policy: An Appraisal Of Ipcc 1995," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(2), pages 56-66, April.
    6. Adil Najam & Atiq A. Rahman & Saleemul Huq & Youba Sokona, 2003. "Integrating sustainable development into the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup1), pages 9-17, November.
    7. Thomas F. Stocker & Gian-Kasper Plattner, 2014. "Climate policy: Rethink IPCC reports," Nature, Nature, vol. 513(7517), pages 163-165, September.
    8. Obermeister, Noam, 2017. "From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 80-86.
    9. Changyi LIU & Jiahua PAN & Ying CHEN & Mengmei CHEN, 2014. "Countries' Historical Emission Responsibilities: A Normative Perspective," Chinese Journal of Urban and Environmental Studies (CJUES), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(02), pages 1-16.
    10. Esteve Corbera & Laura Calvet-Mir & Hannah Hughes & Matthew Paterson, 2016. "Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 94-99, January.
    11. James D. Ford & Laura Cameron & Jennifer Rubis & Michelle Maillet & Douglas Nakashima & Ashlee Cunsolo Willox & Tristan Pearce, 2016. "Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 349-353, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michelle Scobie, 0. "International aid, trade and investment and access and allocation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    2. Michelle Scobie, 2021. "Treaty Preambles and The Environmental Justice Gap," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(3), pages 273-285, May.
    3. Michelle Scobie, 2020. "International aid, trade and investment and access and allocation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 239-254, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jennifer Garard & Martin Kowarsch, 2017. "Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Wim Carton & Adeniyi Asiyanbi & Silke Beck & Holly J. Buck & Jens F. Lund, 2020. "Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    3. E. Lisa F. Schipper & Navroz K. Dubash & Yacob Mulugetta, 2021. "Climate change research and the search for solutions: rethinking interdisciplinarity," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-11, October.
    4. Karin M. Gustafsson, 2019. "Learning from the Experiences of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Balancing Science and Policy to Enable Trustworthy Knowledge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Matthias Menter & Pierre Mohnen, 2023. "Global knowledge flows: characteristics, determinants, and impacts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(5), pages 1063-1076.
    6. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Bardsley, Annette M., 2014. "Organising for socio-ecological resilience: The roles of the mountain farmer cooperative Genossenschaft Gran Alpin in Graubünden, Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 11-21.
    7. A. Ogden & J. Innes, 2008. "Climate change adaptation and regional forest planning in southern Yukon, Canada," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 13(8), pages 833-861, October.
    8. Duncan Weaver, 2018. "The Aarhus convention and process cosmopolitanism," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 199-213, April.
    9. Nasiritousi, Naghmeh & Hjerpe, Mattias & Buhr, Katarina, 2014. "Pluralising climate change solutions? Views held and voiced by participants at the international climate change negotiations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-184.
    10. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    11. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    12. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    13. Cathrin Zengerling, 2019. "Governing the City of Flows: How Urban Metabolism Approaches May Strengthen Accountability in Strategic Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 187-199.
    14. Marcellus Forh Mbah & Chidi Ezegwu, 2024. "The Decolonisation of Climate Change and Environmental Education in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, April.
    15. Joseph Earsom, 2024. "Fit for purpose? Just Energy Transition Partnerships and accountability in international climate governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 135-141, February.
    16. John Cole, 2012. "Genesis of the CDM: the original policymaking goals of the 1997 Brazilian proposal and their evolution in the Kyoto protocol negotiations into the CDM," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 41-61, March.
    17. Paola A. Torres-Slimming & Carlee Wright & Cesar P. Carcamo & Patricia J. Garcia & IHACC Research Team & Sherilee L. Harper, 2019. "Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A Mixed Methods Study of Health-Related Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) for Indigenous Shawi in the Peruvian Amazon," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Klusáček, Petr & Alexandrescu, Filip & Osman, Robert & Malý, Jiří & Kunc, Josef & Dvořák, Petr & Frantál, Bohumil & Havlíček, Marek & Krejčí, Tomáš & Martinát, Stanislav & Skokanová, Hana & Trojan, Ja, 2018. "Good governance as a strategic choice in brownfield regeneration: Regional dynamics from the Czech Republic," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-39.
    19. Adelaide Glover & Heike Schroeder, 2017. "Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 695-708, October.
    20. Simon Robertson, 2021. "Transparency, trust, and integrated assessment models: An ethical consideration for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:145:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-017-2106-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.