IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v23y2023i3p95-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tactical Opposition: Obstructing Loss and Damage Finance in the United Nations Climate Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Danielle Falzon
  • Fred Shaia
  • J. Timmons Roberts
  • Md. Fahad Hossain
  • Stacy-ann Robinson
  • Mizan R. Khan
  • David Ciplet

Abstract

In 1991, in meetings constructing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the small island state of Vanuatu introduced a proposal requiring wealthy countries to pay for damages related to sea level rise. More than thirty years later, countries finally agreed to establish a financing mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change. Scholars have observed the slow progress on loss and damage finance, but what tactics did countries use to obstruct negotiations? We answer this question using data from primary and secondary sources, observations at negotiations, and key informant interviews. Our analysis details four periods of obstruction and outlines a typology of fourteen tactics countries have used to delay progress. These tactics limited the issue’s scope, reduced transparency, manipulated language, and advanced nontransformative solutions. These findings contribute to the study of obstructionism in climate governance and can help loss and damage advocates better anticipate and respond to obstruction.

Suggested Citation

  • Danielle Falzon & Fred Shaia & J. Timmons Roberts & Md. Fahad Hossain & Stacy-ann Robinson & Mizan R. Khan & David Ciplet, 2023. "Tactical Opposition: Obstructing Loss and Damage Finance in the United Nations Climate Negotiations," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 23(3), pages 95-119, Summer.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:23:y:2023:i:3:p:95-119
    DOI: 10.1162/glep_a_00722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00722
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/glep_a_00722?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.

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:23:y:2023:i:3:p:95-119. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.