Two types of equity (Banuri et al., 1996) underlie the multilateral frameworks that have been discussed so far - procedural and consequential. Procedural equity refers to the "impartiality and fairness'' in the process of delivering and administering justice. Principles like inclusive participation of affected parties in justice proceedings or equal treatment of all before the law reflect the notion of procedural equity. In multilateral processes, procedural equity concerns on the part of developing countries often arise not from their formal exclusion from multilateral negotiations but, rather, from their inability to influence the process due to a poor information base and weak bargaining power.
In contrast, consequential equity relates to assessing and remedying the consequences arising from climate change and mitigation actions; it addresses the sharing of the climate change burden. Despite the existence of various approaches to consequential equity, such as parity, proportionality, priority, utilitarianism, and distributive justice (see Banuri et al., 1996), there is no consensus on the superiority of a single approach. Concerns relating to consequential equity from the developing country perspective arise from countries that can be categorized as follows:
1. Low historical contribution to the existing stock of GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. Very low per capita emissions that are only a fraction of those in the developed countries (see Banuri et al., 1996).
3. Risk from climate change impacts (e.g., on small island nations) in proportion to the size of their economy.
4. Lack of resources, technologies, and capabilities to mitigate the impacts.
In short, agreements that draw on consequential equity involve determining the share of the burden for each party; procedural equity ensures that the decisions were arrived at in a free and fair manner. Both types of equity are essential to creating a robust multilateral regime.
Was this article helpful?