Seite - 168 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Bild der Seite - 168 -
Text der Seite - 168 -
168 E.Calliari et al.
the issueof reducing emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (REDD)
(Betzoldet al. 2012).
Yet, it is not just about resources. “Issue-specificpower” canbe increasedusing
“behaviouralpower”, i.e. tactics toalterperceivedor realpower structures (Habeeb
1988).TeamingupwithNGOswasoneof thestrategiesemployedbyAOSIStorec-
tifypowerasymmetriesonL&D.Theotherwas topull resourcesandgain influence
through coalition-buildingwith other non-Annex I groupings. The alignmentwith
LDCs, theAfricanGroupand theG77+Chinawasarguablya resultofaconceptual
“reshaping”of theL&Dconcept in the2000s.WhileoriginallyAOSIS’claimsonly
focusedonlossesresultingfromsealevelrise(asinits1991proposal),consideration
fortheresidualimpactsfromslowonseteventsasawholeandthefinancialriskasso-
ciatedwith extremes (e.g.AOSIS2008)made a stronger case for other developing
countries to support the cause. This is not to say that all these groupings had the
samepositiononL&Dand, even less, the same ideaaboutwhatL&Dis. IfAOSIS
stressedthe life-threateningdimensionofL&D,theLDCsfocusedmoreonthecon-
nectionwithdevelopmentandhowL&Dcouldaffect thequalityof life, livelihoods,
foodsecurity,andsocial fabricat thecommunity/household level.At thesametime,
Bolivia definedL&Das lost development opportunities andpointed at the deferral
ofpayments tointernational institutions,debtreliefandsimilarmeasuresasawayto
addressthem(UNFCCC2012a).However,commondenominatorslaidintherequest
forL&Dtobeastand-alonepillar inUNFCCCarchitectureand in theneedforsup-
porting developing countries’ limited capacity to address climate change impacts.
TheG77+Chinaisworthyofseparateconsideration.While itspositionwasdecisive
fortheestablishmentoftheWIMandthecreationofaseparatearticleonL&Dinthe
ParisAgreement(see,forinstance,theworkdonewithintheAdHocWorkingGroup
ontheDurbanPlatformforEnhancedAction—ADP),futurealignmentwithAOSIS’
positionscannotbetakenforgranted.This ismainlybecauseof theheterogeneityof
thegroupwhichmakessynthesisamongitsmembers’positionschallengingtoreach.
Recentexamplesofdifficulties infindingcommonground include the reviewof the
WIMatCOP22(Calliari2016b)and thequarrelsbetweenChinaandAOSISon the
need (supported by the former) to erase the reference to “particularly” vulnerable
developingcountries indefiningbeneficiariesofL&Dsupport.8
WhileAOSIShassurelybenefittedfromliaisingwithotherdevelopingcountries
inbringingL&DhighontheUNFCCCAgenda,thiscannotdeterministicallyexplain
whyoutcomesonL&Dwereobtained.Coalition-buildinginitselfisnotasuremeans
for anygrouping to impact substantively onnegotiations (Cooper andShaw2009)
and even less in a consensus-based setting such as the UNFCCC (Deitelhoff and
Wallbott 2012). As the institutional context does not level power asymmetries—-
for instance throughaone state-onevote system—weakerPartieswill beunable to
succeedbyrelyingon their resource-endowmentonly.Thus, trying toexplainL&D
negotiations through“realist eyes”doesnot allowforgoingbeyond the“structural-
ist paradox”. It is thereforeworth investigating other sources of power beyond the
neorealist perspective to getmore insight onhowAOSIS’ outcomesonL&Dwere
obtained.
8PersonalobservationsatCOP22.
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Titel
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Untertitel
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Autoren
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Verlag
- Springer Open
- Datum
- 2019
- Sprache
- englisch
- Lizenz
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Abmessungen
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Seiten
- 580
- Schlagwörter
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Kategorien
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima