IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v15y2015i6p751-766.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping the narrative positions of new political groups under the UNFCCC

Author

Listed:
  • Lau Øfjord Blaxekjær
  • Tobias Dan Nielsen

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 relevance As 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lau Øfjord Blaxekjær & Tobias Dan Nielsen, 2015. "Mapping the narrative positions of new political groups under the UNFCCC," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 751-766, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:15:y:2015:i:6:p:751-766
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.965656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2014.965656
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2014.965656?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joyeeta Gupta, 2000. "North-South aspects of the climate change issue: towards a negotiating theory and strategy for developing countries," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(2), pages 115-135.
    2. Sonja Klinsky & Hadi Dowlatabadi, 2009. "Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 88-108, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evan Gach, 2019. "Normative Shifts in the Global Conception of Climate Change: The Growth of Climate Justice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Paula Castro, 2020. "Past and future of burden sharing in the climate regime: positions and ambition from a top-down to a bottom-up governance system," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 41-60, March.
    3. Martin Kesternich & Andreas Löschel & Andreas Ziegler, 2021. "Negotiating weights for burden sharing rules in international climate negotiations: an empirical analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(2), pages 309-331, April.
    4. Deborah Barros Leal Farias, 2023. "Country differentiation in the global environmental context: Who is ‘developing’ and according to what?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 253-269, September.
    5. Peterson, Lauri & Skovgaard, Jakob, 2019. "Bureaucratic politics and the allocation of climate finance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 72-97.
    6. Lisette Beek & Manjana Milkoreit & Linda Prokopy & Jason B. Reed & Joost Vervoort & Arjan Wardekker & Roberta Weiner, 2022. "The effects of serious gaming on risk perceptions of climate tipping points," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag & Philippe Burny & Ioan Banatean-Dunea & Dacinia Crina Petrescu, 2022. "How Climate Change Science Is Reflected in People’s Minds. A Cross-Country Study on People’s Perceptions of Climate Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-25, April.
    8. Federica Genovese & Richard J. McAlexander & Johannes Urpelainen, 2023. "Institutional roots of international alliances: Party groupings and position similarity at global climate negotiations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 329-359, April.
    9. Scoville-Simonds, Morgan & Jamali, Hameed & Hufty, Marc, 2020. "The Hazards of Mainstreaming: Climate change adaptation politics in three dimensions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kempf, Hubert & Rossignol, Stéphane, 2013. "National politics and international agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-105.
    2. Nadine Gouzée & Alain Henry, 2009. "Working Paper 17-09 - Exploration de répartitions des objectifs et opportunités du paquet climat-énergie en Belgique [Working Paper 17-09 - Verkenning van verdelingen van de doelstellingen en de op," Working Papers 0917, Federal Planning Bureau, Belgium.
    3. Peter H. Kriss & George Loewenstein & Xianghong Wang & Roberto A. Weber, 2011. "Behind the veil of ignorance: Self-serving bias in climate change negotiations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 602-615, October.
    4. Agni Kalfagianni & Simon Meisch, 2020. "Epistemological and ethical understandings of access and allocation in Earth System Governance: a 10-year review of the literature," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 203-221, June.
    5. Shan Zhou & Douglas S. Noonan, 2019. "Justice Implications of Clean Energy Policies and Programs in the United States: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne, 2017. "Explaining citizens’ perceptions of international climate-policy relevance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 62-71.
    7. Max Meulemann, 2017. "An Empirical Assessment Of Components Of Climate Architectures," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 1-36, November.
    8. Schleich, Joachim & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Schwirplies, Claudia & Ziegler, Andreas, 2014. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: Empirical insights from China, Germany and the US," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    9. Dellink, Rob B. & den Elzen, Michel & Aiking, Harry & Bergsma, Emmy & Berkhout, Frans & Dekker, Thijs & Gupta, Joyeeta, 2009. "Sharing the Burden of Adaptation Financing: An Assessment of the Contributions of Countries," Sustainable Development Papers 52547, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Laura Aileen Sauls, 2020. "Becoming fundable? Converting climate justice claims into climate finance in Mesoamerica’s forests," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 307-325, July.
    11. Astrid Molenveld & Arwin Buuren & Gerald-Jan Ellen, 2020. "Governance of climate adaptation, which mode? An exploration of stakeholder viewpoints on how to organize adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 233-254, September.
    12. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.
    13. Clément, Valérie & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Rulleau, Bénédicte, 2015. "Perceptions on equity and responsibility in coastal zone policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 284-291.
    14. Mizan Khan & Stacy-ann Robinson & Romain Weikmans & David Ciplet & J. Timmons Roberts, 2020. "Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 251-269, July.
    15. Elizabeth Stanton, 2011. "Negishi welfare weights in integrated assessment models: the mathematics of global inequality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 417-432, August.
    16. Joachim Schleich & Elisabeth Dütschke & Claudia Schwirplies & Andreas Ziegler, 2016. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 50-67, January.
    17. Klaudijo Klaser & Lorenzo Sacconi & Marco Faillo, 2021. "John Rawls and compliance to climate change agreements: insights from a laboratory experiment," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 531-551, September.
    18. Narasimha Rao, 2014. "International and intranational equity in sharing climate change mitigation burdens," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 129-146, May.
    19. Qianting Zhu & Wenwu Tang, 2017. "Regional-Level Carbon Allocation in China Based on Sectoral Emission Patterns under the Peak Commitment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, April.
    20. Manish Kumar Shrivastava & Saradindu Bhaduri, 2019. "Market-based mechanism and ‘climate justice’: reframing the debate for a way forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 497-513, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:15:y:2015:i:6:p:751-766. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.