Putting the constructive ambiguity of climate change loss and damage into practice: The early work of the UNFCCC WIM ExCom

Abstract

AbstractThe establishment within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (L&D) resulted from a loose consensus that emerged based on a constructively ambiguous understanding of what climate change loss and damage is and how to best address this policy problem. Different actors have understood and advocated for divergent conceptualizations of L&D: some frame it through the lens of risk and see comprehensive disaster risk management strategies, insurance schemes and post hoc humanitarian approaches as most appropriate. Others understand it through the lens of climate justice, emphasizing the harms that arise because of climate change losses and damages and advocate for compensation as an appropriate policy response. How does this ambiguity embedded within the climate regime translate into practice during the implementation stage? This research shows that ideational contestation over L&D has specific implications for institutional development, including: (i) the composition and expertise of the governing Executive Committee (ExCom); and (ii) the practices of agenda‐setting and the development of the ExCom's workplan. Drawing on multi‐sited ethnographic data and interviews with key stakeholders, this analysis identifies some of the ways in which constructive ambiguity can become embodied and institutionalized in L&D governance. It also points to a paradox in international climate governance—that the very ambiguity that allowed for the institutional embedding of L&D is also the driver of continued contestation, facilitates the re‐negotiating of issues already agreed and explains institutional delays in effectively grappling with the losses and damages that are already taking place.