Seite - 173 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

6 ThePoliticsof (andBehind) theUNFCCC’sLoss… 173 schools of thought, in order to explain how L&Dmilestones were reached. This allowed for overcoming the “structuralist paradox” in negotiations, i.e. the appar- entlysurprisingcapacityofweakparties to takehomeresultswhilenegotiatingwith strongerparties. Developingcountries’ achievementsonL&D(WIMandArticle8) areonly sur- prisingwhenconsideringpower in itspurelymaterialistic form. Ifdiscursivepower is added to thepicture, thenachievements canbeascribed todevelopingcountries’ capacity to shape their fate rather than to fortunate circumstances. This is not to say thatmaterialpowerdoesnotplayany role.Developingcountriesare facedwith resource and capacity constraintswhichmake it harder for their needs to be fully addressedwithin theUNFCCC.Consistently,NGOsupportwill continue toplay a crucial role in levelling current asymmetries in termsof capabilities, togetherwith other initiatives to funddevelopingcountries’participation in theprocess. Yet, other sources of power besides the realist and liberal ones can be decisive forobtainingdesiredinternationaloutcomes.Ouranalysishasshownthekeyimpor- tance that discursive power, by framingL&Din ethical and legal terms, had in the attainment of L&Dmilestones. First, it moved the debate to a playgroundwhere resourcesand interestsbecame irrelevant, thereforeputtingdevelopedanddevelop- ing countries on an equal foot. Second, it appealed to standards somehow shared or agreedbeyond theUNFCCCcontext, including thebasicmoral norms linked to islandstates’narrativesof survivaland the reference to internationalcustomary law (state responsibility-compensationprinciples).Thiswasuseful toprove theneedfor action on L&D recurring to standards in principle recognised by both contending parties inother internationalarenas.Although thiswasnotenough to imposedevel- oping countries’ viewonwhat L&D is and how it should be addressed, it at least moveddevelopedcountries’position towards thedirectionpavedby the former. At thesametime,however, thisstrategypreventedParties fromstartingaprocess towards the creation of sharedmeaning and understanding around L&D. Indeed, definitional issueshavebeencarefullyavoidedinordernot tostumble into the taboo reference of ‘compensation’. As a result, no official definition of L&D has been agreedat theUNFCCClevelyetandPartiesrelyonaworkingoneformulatedunder the SBI (UNFCCC 2012b). This is not just a matter of form, but a more impor- tantmatterofsubstance.WithoutclarityaroundL&Dconceptualboundaries, itwill ultimately be difficult to go beyond the explorativemandate theWIMwas given. In particular, concrete guidance is needed in order to implement theWIM’s third functiononenhancing“actionandsupport toaddress lossanddamage”,whichalso includes finance. For example, there is a need for establishing relevant criteria to identify L&D projects on the ground, as well as defining the level of adaptation beyondwhichL&Dmaterialises.DoesL&Darisewhensocial, technical andphys- ical limits are surpassed, or should also economic and institutional constraints be considered?Theanswerscannotbutbepolitical. Yet, we are not claiming that agreeing on a definition is the onlyway to have meaningful action onL&D.We are aware that the discussion still causes discom- fort andmay lead to political deadlock.We thus believe that amore fruitful way forward entails adopting a different perspective and agreeing on shared principles