Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in UNFCCC Negotiations

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.

Non‐state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post‐Paris era

“…Finally, we consider the just (or injust) allocation of climate‐related responsibilities and financial compensations, including the emerging norm of loss and damage . The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in particular historical responsibility, has perhaps been the most significant underlying principle of the international climate regime.…”

Bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature on climate change and human health with an emphasis on infectious diseases

“…Over the past century, industrial activities have led to long-term changes in the climate system that included global warming, flooding, and drought [2]. The Paris Agreement, an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed in 2016, represents an opportunity for all countries to implement measures to reduce, combat, and adapt to climate change [3][4][5][6]. Combating and reducing climate change is an important goal of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) which states "Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts" [7].…”

Loss and damage: A review of the literature and directions for future research

“…Boyd et al's () typology of L&D conceptualization, for example, is a valuable addition to the literature. Other critical studies looked to problematize L&D (Wrathall et al, ), explore the challenges involved with operationalizing a L&D mechanism (Schinko & Mechler, ), uncover the utility and relevance of L&D for disaster risk management and climate science communities (Fekete & Sakdapolrak, ; Surminski & Lopez, ), and examine different actors' framings of L&D (Boyd et al, ; Ciplet, ; Vanhala & Hestbaek, ), among others.…”

“…A major finding of this review was the relative dearth of critical studies which challenged underlying presuppositions of L&D, both conceptually and in analysis of the strategies put forth to address it. Where there was critical analysis it tended to be on points such as ensuring NELs were being considered (Tschakert et al, ; Wrathall et al, ), whether L&D was an accepted concept in different research communities (Fekete & Sakdapolrak, ), and arguments over liability and compensation (Allan & Hadden, ; Vanhala & Hestbaek, ). While there are many gaps in the literature in relation to critical analyses of L&D, one omission that deserves further research is captured by Johnson (, pp.…”