Abstract
Since 2009, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) regime has seen the emergence of several new political groups. This article analyses how the new political groups are positioning themselves in relation to the key UNFCCC principles (the North–South divide and ‘common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities’, CBDR/RC). Drawing on original data, including official statements and submissions, observations at COP 17, COP 18, COP 19, and interviews with delegates, the article analyses the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), the Cartagena Dialogue for Progressive Action (CD), the Durban Alliance (DA), the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), and the Association of Independent Latin American and Caribbean States (AILAC). Modelled after Hendrik Wagenaar's approach to narrative policy analysis, the article draws a map of narrative positions based on the North–South and new CBDR/RC divisions. This framework reveals the embeddedness of narratives in practice as they unfold in the formation of new political groups. CVF, CD, DA and AILAC align on a narrative of ‘shared responsibility across the North–South divide’. This meta-narrative challenges the hitherto dominant notion of CBDR/RC, which BASIC and LMDC defend through a meta-narrative of ‘differentiated responsibility upholding the North–South divide’.Policy relevanceAs we approach the UNFCCC 2015 deadline, this article presents a study of the new political landscape for negotiations, specifically of six new political groups in relation to the core principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ (CBDR/RC). Prior to COP 15, groups primarily organized based on the categorization of their members as either an Annex I (developed country) or non-Annex I (developing country) Party. This created two opposing understandings of CBDR/RC, especially regarding who has the responsibility to act on climate change. This article finds that some of the new political groups are challenging this North–South divide, contributing to a more complex relationship between Annex I and non-Annex I Parties on the CBDR/RC issue. This article provides practitioners and analysts with up-to-date knowledge on the developments of new political groups, which will necessarily form the basis of any policy analysis of the UNFCCC leading up to the 2015 deadline.
Highlights
The particular division of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in a North– South divide, referred to as ‘the firewall’, can be seen as representing a narrative division of the world into those with a greater historical responsibility for and capability to combat global climate change (Annex I) and those with relatively less such# 2014 Taylor & Francis1.1
Political groups and the UNFCCC negotiations The failure at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) in 2009 to reach agreement on a comprehensive global climate change deal represents a significant setback in climate negotiations and has led parties to think of new ways to overcome the deadlock (Skovgaard & Blaxekjær, 2013)
The role of these new groups has not been comprehensively addressed in the negotiations literature. They call for a revised understanding of the political landscape in the run-up to the new deadline for a global climate deal at COP 21 in 2015 (see Herold, Cames, & Cook, 2011; Herold, Cames, Cook, & Emele, 2012; Herold, Cames, Siemons, Emele, & Cook, 2013; reports that reflect the increase in political groups, they only include the Cartagena Dialogue for Progressive Action (CD), the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), and the Association of Independent Latin American and Caribbean States (AILAC))
Summary
The particular division of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in a North– South divide, referred to as ‘the firewall’, can be seen as representing a narrative division of the world into those with a greater historical responsibility for and capability to combat global climate change (Annex I) and those with relatively less (or no) such. At COP 18, Nicholas Stern referred to ‘the brutal arithmetic of climate change’, meaning that even if the developed countries stopped all emissions, it would not be enough to keep the global temperature increase below 2 8C (Harvey, 2012) This message, echoed by several intergovernmental reports, emphasizes a sense of urgency by identifying the widening gap between national and international commitments and what must be done to reduce the risk of significant climate change (IPCC, 2014; UNEP, 2013). We apply a narrative policy analysis framework to analyse each new political group, with which we demonstrate how the groups adhere to either a bridge-building narrative on CBDR/RC focused on shared responsibility across the North – South divide or a narrative on CBDR/RC as differentiated responsibility upholding the North –South divide.8
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
