Abstract
How does an idea emerge and gain traction in the international arena when its underpinning principles are contested by powerful players? The adoption in 2013 of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) puzzled observers, because key state parties, such as the United States, had historically opposed the policy. This article examines the roles of frame contestation and ambiguity in accounting for the evolution and institutionalization of the “loss and damage” norm within the UNFCCC. The article applies frame analysis to the data from coverage of the negotiations and elite interviews. It reveals that two competing framings, one focused on liability and compensation and the other on risk and insurance, evolved into a single, overarching master frame. This more ambiguous framing allowed parties to attach different meanings to the policy that led to the resolution of differences among the parties and the embedding of the idea of loss and damage in international climate policy.
Highlights
How does an idea emerge and gain traction in the international arena when its underpinning principles are contested by powerful players? The adoption in 2013 of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) puzzled observers, because key state parties, such as the United States, had historically opposed the policy
The establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) in 2013 created an institutionalized policy space to address the adverse consequences of climate change (UNFCCC 2013)
Germanwatch arranged a joint workshop with Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII), an interest group launched by the large, multinational private insurance group Munich Re, for UNFCCC actors on insurance solutions to climate change (MCII et al 2008)
Summary
The research here relies on frame theory to explain the institutionalization of the idea of “loss and damage” in the international climate change regime. Germanwatch arranged a joint workshop with Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII), an interest group launched by the large, multinational private insurance group Munich Re, for UNFCCC actors on insurance solutions to climate change (MCII et al 2008) At this point some developed countries, uncomfortable with the direction of discussions on this issue, attempted to move the section on risk management into other policy streams, and eventually sought to cut off discussions about loss and damage to avoid debate of proposals related to compensation (Warner and Zakieldeen 2011). In the lead-up to COP 18 in Doha, a number of parties from the LDC group participated in an extensive set of expert group meetings and regional workshops in conjunction with the work program on loss and damage, as well as in a series of MCII workshops.5 They moved from a position of limited interest and engagement with the idea of loss and damage to pushing actively for an international mechanism beyond the adaptation and mitigation tracks. Loss and damage is included in article 8 of the Paris Agreement (in a stand-alone article separate from adaptation), but the text of an accompanying decision states that this recognition “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
