David Ciplet

The Politics of International Climate Adaptation Funding: Justice and Divisions in the Greenhouse

Finance for developing countries to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change now tops the international climate negotiation agenda. In this article, we first assess how adaptation finance came to the top of the agenda. Second, drawing upon Amartya Sens (2010) “realization-focused comparison” theory of justice, we develop a definition of adaptation finance justice based upon the texts of the 1992 UNFCCC and its subsidiary bodies. From this perspective, we assess three main points of contention between countries on both sides of the North-South divide: The Gap in raising the funds, The Wedge in their distribution, and The Dodge in how they are governed. Overall, we argue that while some ambiguity exists, the decisions of the UNFCCC provide a strong basis for a justice-oriented approach to adaptation finance. However, in practice, adaptation finance has reflected developed country interests far more than the principles of justice adopted by Parties.

Contesting Climate Injustice: Transnational Advocacy Network Struggles for Rights in UN Climate Politics

Scholarship on transnational advocacy networks has not articulated the diversity and range of rights struggles that take place in international regimes, particularly those of networks representing marginal or vulnerable groups. In this article I explore the engagements of three networks in the UN climate change regime: gender equality advocates, indigenous peoples, and waste pickers. These networks have all sought to gain rights to counter what they refer to as forms of “climate injustice.” Drawing upon relevant scholarship, I develop a framework for “regime rights” analysis, and identify four types of related network interventions. These include struggles for recognition, representation, capabilities, and extended rights. I find that most network gains have been in the form of recognition, which have provided legitimacy to the regime without challenging core relations of power and inequality. The networks have realized comparatively fewer gains for representation, capabilities, and extended rights.

Subverting the status quo? Climate debt, vulnerability and counter-hegemonic frame integration in United Nations climate politics – a framework for analysis

ABSTRACT This article analyzes distinct articulations and forms of political integration of the frame ‘climate debt’ in United Nations climate politics from 2000 to 2015. In analysis of this case study, the framework of ‘counter-hegemonic frame integration’ is developed by which political incorporation of disruptive frames into multilateral regimes can be assessed. This enables analysis of frame integration across two dimensions: strength of recognition and strength of distributive justice. Five outcomes are differentiated: non-integration, disruptive integration, covert integration, impotent integration, and dominant integration. In doing so, it provides a foundation to more precisely assess counter-hegemonic gains, and with it, theorize counter-hegemonic network influence in multilateralism. Despite various discursive and strategic innovations by advocacy networks, the frame of climate debt as it relates to climate vulnerability has been integrated to be largely compatible with structures of hegemony and stripped of subversive meaning and impact. However, this has not been a linear process: at each stage, there have been areas of progress and setbacks in terms of frame recognition and distributive justice. The analysis contributes to a broader research program to uncover the mechanisms and conditions of transformation of unequal power relations within the world system and identifies critical areas of future research.

The Transformative Capability of Transparency in Global Environmental Governance

We develop and apply a new theoretical framework for assessing the transformative capability of transparency in environmental governance. Our framework suggests that as norms related to transparency are recognized and translated into accountability mechanisms, and as these mechanisms are complied with, effects cascade and substantially influence the ability of transparency to transform relationships of inequality. Utilizing the case of climate finance in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we find that while a variety of norms underpinning transparency are recognized within the governance architecture, their translation into accountability mechanisms has been weak, and information disclosed by countries is often opaque. This suggests that a focus on enhanced transparency is unlikely to be sufficient for realizing a climate regime that is adequate and equitable. Moreover, transparency should be seen as a terrain of political conflict over the conditions of inequality, employed differently by various coalitions to benefit their respective interests.