No abstract

Despite growing consensus that Indigenous peoples, knowledge systems, rights and solutions should be meaningfully included in international climate change governance, substantive improvements in practice remain limited. An expanding body of scholarship examines the evolving discursive space in which issues facing Indigenous peoples are treated, with a predominant focus on decision outcomes of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). To understand the opportunities and constraints for meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples in international climate policy making, this article examines the experiences of Indigenous participants in the UNFCCC. We present findings from semistructured interviews with key informants, showing that material constraints and the designation of Indigenous peoples as nonstate observers continue to pose challenges for participants. Tokenism and a lack of meaningful recognition further constrain participation. Nevertheless, networks of resource sharing, coordination, and support organized among Indigenous delegates alleviate some of the impacts of constraints. Additionally, multistakeholder alliances and access to presidencies and high-level state delegates provide opportunities for international and national agenda-setting. The space available for Indigenous participation in the UNFCCC is larger than formal rules dictate but depends on personal relationships and political will. As the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform established by the Paris Agreement formalizes a distinct space for Indigenous participants in the UNFCCC, this article outlines existing opportunities and constraints and considers potential interactions between the evolving platform and existing mechanisms for participation.

This article provides a critical view on what the Paris Agreement means for the trajectory of adaptation policy at the international and state levels in light of the stated aim of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to make adaptation an equal priority with mitigation. Main TextOn 12 December 2015 at the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21), the Paris Agreement to combat climate change was adopted by the member states of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, or 'the Convention'). The Agreement will succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2020 and constitute a cornerstone of global climate governance for the coming decades. Adaptation emerged as a focus area under the Convention in 2001, but is still not equal to mitigation with regard to target-setting, financing, and institutional frameworks. The outcomes from COP 21 build on previous decisions and work streams to establish a stronger roadmap for deepening the emphasis on adaptation planning and implementation under the Convention. The Paris Agreement strengthens adaptation in four ways: (i) it broadens the normative framing around adaptation, (ii) it integrates stronger adaptation commitments from state actors, (iii) it is explicit about the multi-level nature of adaptation governance, and (iv) it strengthens mechanisms for enhanced transparency on asses-sing adaptation progress (UNFCCC, 2015). Paris broadens the normative framing around adaptationInternational agreements such as Paris are important barometers of the underlying norms that shape inter-national discourses on issues such as climate change (Haas, 2002;Simmons, 2010), and the COP meetings con-tribute to this process as sites of discursive struggles over issue framings and appropriate policy-making approaches. The Paris Agreement is reflective of the processes by which climate change discourses and agendas emerge, persist, and change. Under previous decisions, adaptation was largely approached as an issue of biophysical exposure affecting regions with low levels of economic development (Schipper, 2006). The Pre-amble of the Agreement, however, reflects a widening discourse within the UNFCCC beyond the framing

Climate change adaptation is increasingly considered an urgent priority for policy action. Billions of dollars have been pledged for adaptation finance, with many donor agencies requiring that adaptation is distinct from baseline development. However, practitioners and academics continue to question what adaptation looks like on the ground, especially in a developing country. This study examines the current framing of planned adaptation amidst low socioeconomic development and considers the practical implications of this framing for adaptation planning. Three overarching approaches to planned adaptation in a developing country context emerged in a systematic review of 30 peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2015, including: (1) technocratic risk management, which treats adaptation as additional to development, (2) pro-poor vulnerability reduction, which acknowledges the ability of conventional development to foster and act as adaptation, and (3) sustainable adaptation, which suggests that adaptation should only be integrated into a type of development that is socially and environmentally sustainable. Over half of 'sustainable adaptation' articles in this review took a critical adaptation approach, drawing primarily from political ecology and postdevelopment studies, and emphasizing the malleability of adaptation. The reviewed articles highlight how the different framings of the relationship between adaptation and development result in diverse and sometimes contradictory messages regarding adaptation design, implementation, funding, monitoring, and evaluation. This review illustrates the need to continually interrogate the multiple framings of adaptation and development and to foster a pragmatic and pluralistic dialogue regarding planned adaptation and transformative change in developing countries.