In the context of conflicting interests of the upstream and downstream user, discuss how theories and understandings of justice may inform distinct set of interventions and distinct outcomes for planners involved in watershed management.
To discuss the relevance of understanding justice for planning outcome sought you may choose two or three of the theoretical frameworks suggested below, or choose others as you see fit: Justice as freedom to achieve optimum capabilities (Amartya Sen); Justice as recognition of difference (Iris Young), justice as fairness (John Rawls).
Conflicts over natural resources can originate from different understandings about justice. Similarly, conflicts related to watershed management and water pollution are also grounded in different theories of justice since different water users or polluters make competing claims about their rights to use or abuse water resources. When these competing claims are brought forward to public officials, they often must decide how to weigh these competing claims. At this point it becomes critical for public official to understand the different conceptualizations of justice and their philosophical origins. More broadly, local users and researchers should also understand the competing definitions of justice in order to provide more clarity in their analysis.
Claims about justice are inseparable from the philosophical and moral code that guides decision-making. We all cling to various ethical frameworks whether we recognize them or not. Sometimes we even hold on to clashing ethical frameworks simultaneously. However it is the responsibility of the public official, planner, or watershed manager, to understand these competing ethical frameworks, each with its own conception of justice, in order to make reasoned decisions. Understanding these ethical frameworks will help us weigh competing arguments, accurately communicate different positions, and potentially uncover new positions that have failed to surface.
Since conceptions of justice emerge from various theoretical and philosophical frameworks, and since a theory of justice cannot be isolated from its philosophical origin, I will discuss three conceptions of justice offered by three major philosophical currents: utilitarianism, rights-based justice, and Rawlsian justice. First I describe the conception of justice held by each philosophical position and then proceed to describe the recommendations they would make in cases of watershed conflicts. I conclude with some final remarks.
Utilitarian conception of Justice
Under a utilitarian conception of justice, interventions are deemed permissible if they increase aggregate social value. By default, interventions that decrease social value are deemed morally impermissible. Economic analysis is largely grounded in the utilitarian philosophical framework. Pure utilitarian logic is difficult to defend and therefore a degree of flexibility has been incorporated. The well known decision rule of Pareto Optimality - whereby everyone must be made better off without making anyone worse off - encapsulates a modified yet mainstream utilitarian position. At times, economists have been accused of being insensitive to distributional issues, and therefore insensitive to issues of justice. However this interpretation is not entirely accurate since Pareto Optimality explicitly posits that no individual should be made worse off. Beyond not making anyone worse off, the Pareto Optimality decision rule provides no guidance as to how resources should be distributed, as long as resources are used efficiently.
However in practice, most interventions have winners and losers. This makes Pareto Optimality is difficult to obtain without additional intervention. In response, many utilitarians will accept potentially Pareto Optimal decisions as long as the losers are compensated, and the end result is that no one is made worse off.
Therefore a utilitarian conception of justice would seek to ensure that those damaged by resource use in the watershed were appropriately compensated. Compensation becomes the primary avenue for addressing injustice. In this framework, where injustice is defined as a breach in the rules of Pareto Optimality, justice is generated by accurately measuring the costs and benefits of economic activity or policy interventions.
A utilitarian conception of justice would lead watershed managers to engage in prolific measurement and quantification of welfare and utility. Utility in turn, can be monetized which permits precise compensation for lost welfare. In this conception of justice, there is a precise numeric solution to the distribution of resources that can lead to a just society, or that can determine when a policy becomes just or unjust. In short, issues of justice become technical questions that can be resolved by more precise measurement or more appropriate distribution (compensation).
However even those who ascribe to this position would recognize that there are limitations to this conception, such as our capacity for measurement, uncertainty about the precision of our measurements, and as well as problems of comparability and commensurability.
Rights based conception of Justice
A rights based approach considers decisions or actions to be just when essential rights are not violated. This conception breaks from the utilitarian framework and resolves some of the awkward decisions generated by pure utilitarianism. For example, if the production of a particular good in a watershed leads to tremendous income, wealth and prosperity for 100,000 but at the expense of intoxicating 2 downstream users to death, then this would clearly violate the essential rights of two individuals and be deemed unjust. Depending on the value ascribed to life, or the value of a statistical life (VSL), utilitarians could accept this outcome.
Environmentalists often rely on a rights based theory of justice when they argue that the right to life, health, beauty, or ecological integrity should take precedence over economic activity. When an economic or scientific analysis does not sway the opinion of an environmentalist, it is likely that they are holding on to a rights based conception of justice. In some cases, the rights based position extends rights to the non-human world, and therefore they take a non-anthropocentric ethical framework that includes rights to animals, plants and even the physical world. This conception of justice has been advanced by philosophers such as Peter Singer and planners such as Timothy Beatly. Their conception of justice would include the aquatic species living in the river, as well as the terrestrial ecosystems.
Using a rights based approach to watershed conflict would first establish everyone’s basic rights and ensure that those were met. However a challenge arises when these rights themselves come into conflict. How do we balance the right to clean drinking water with the right to the preservation of a beautiful valley? The controversy surrounding the construction of Hetch Hetchy Dam in California confronted this precise question.
Legislation tries to protect basic rights pertaining to public health and safety. Often, these rights are enforced by creating minimum public health standards for drinking water supplies. For example, in the Llobregat watershed, the disinfection process for treating drinking water generates disinfection by-products which are known carcinogens. These carcinogens are distributed in the drinking supply. Since utilities knowingly intoxicate drinking water users, one could claim that the right to clean water has been violated. But what does “clean water” really mean? Everywhere we are surrounded by contaminants, and by default we live with certain levels of pollution. At which level of contamination do the rights of drinking water users become violated? Should one permit carcinogenic byproducts at 1 part per million (ppm)? 10 ppm? 100 ppm? There are no clear guidelines, and ultimately a decision must be made at some threshold. It is at this point where the economic analysis/framework provides some guidance, if nothing less, for an approximation. A world that holds to all rights, simultaneously, seems difficult to defend, and much more difficult to implement in practice.
In the Llobregat watershed, the rights based conceptualization would also need to balance the rights of workers who benefit from the polluting industry, with the rights of downstream users. While the rights based conception of justice is attractive and useful, philosophers have been struggling to organize these rights into a consistent framework for decision making. Perhaps the philosopher that made the most progress in this regard has been John Rawls.
Rawlsian conception of Justice
John Rawls rejected a utilitarian conception of justice, and fits himself squarely under a rights based conceptualization of justice. One of his central contributions was finding an innovative method for reconciling the conflicting needs of various rights, especially between liberty and equality. In his seminal work, A Theory of Justice, Rawls outlines the features of his philosophical framework, and makes suggestions about how to prioritize and balance competing rights.
According to Rawlsian justice, decisions or actions are just if they improve the welfare of the worst off. Rawls arrives to this conclusion through his “veil of ignorance” metaphor. He argues that if, a priori, we did not know our material conditions in the real world, we would chose to make an equitable and just distribution of resources. The decisions we would make under the ‘veil of ignorance’ would lead us to a just world. In these circumstances, liberty would be highly prized since behind the veil of ignorance, no one would wish to be a slave. Rawls prizes liberty, and asserts that liberty should not be violated except in few circumstances. The central exception to our right to liberty is under circumstances where it benefits the least favored. As a result, Rawlsian justice focuses on improving the welfare of the worst off.
An application of Rawlsian justice in watershed management would entail identifying and improving the welfare of the least well off. One can assume that the least well off is measured in economic terms, although there are probably other metrics upon which we can determine well-being. The stakeholders in the Llobregat include the mining company, the water treatment utilities, the mining communities, river communities along the Llobregat and water consumers. This approach would entail qualitative methods and historical analysis since determining the “worst off” is historically and culturally contextual. In economic terms, one might find that communities in the mining town to be the worst off, and their economic condition would deteriorate further if the mine company were to shut down (and pollution stopped). But the process of defining stakeholders, it becomes clear that there is some level discretion.
In sum, different conceptualizations of justice lead to different approaches to watershed management. Being able to understand these differences, their origins and implications, will prepare watershed managers to balance competing claims about what is deemed to be the ethically appropriate decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment