Advertisement

Institutions Building in the Contemporary World: The Case of Funding Mechanism and Policies in UNFCCC Negotiations

  • M. N. I. SorkarEmail author
Original Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

This paper focuses on policies with regard to climate finance and how the evolution of the Financial Mechanism occurred. It employs the framing theory to illustrate how the issues related to climate finance had been framed up at the negotiation table and why a new operating entity embodying distinct policies emerged. The theory is widely used in the field of communication research, but, to date, has been rarely applied to the multilateral negotiation process. Applying the theory, this paper conducts a content and frame analysis, develops a historic map, and traces the process of the evolution of the frames. It identifies a process of frame generation through the contested rhetoric framing of the actors in line with their primary logics. The primary logics are shaped by the mental schemata of the actors. The generated frames, termed here ‘action frames’, again went through the similar process until reaching the agreement and yielding new institutional norms. The work develops a distinct framework to conceive such complex processes structurally. It has the potential to serve as an example to explain, similar cases systematically with regard to the global collective commons.

Keywords

Framing Climate negotiations Funding mechanism Power 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest for this work.

Supplementary material

41111_2019_141_MOESM1_ESM.docx (6.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 6419 kb)

References

  1. Abbott, Kenneth W., Jessica F. Green, and Robert O. Keohane. 2016. Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization 70 (2): 247–277.Google Scholar
  2. Ansari, Shahzad, Frank Wijen, and Barbara Gray. 2013. Constructing a climate change logic: an institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”. Organization Science 24 (4): 1014–1040.Google Scholar
  3. Antimiani, Alessandro, et al. 2017. The Green Climate Fund as an effective compensatory mechanism in global climate negotiations. Environmental Science and Policy 77: 49–68.Google Scholar
  4. Asplund, Therese, Mattias Hjerpe, and Victoria Wibeck. 2013. Framings and coverage of climate change in Swedish specialized farming magazines. Climatic Change 117 (1–2): 197–209.Google Scholar
  5. Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2013. Process-tracing methods: foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bjurström, Andreas, and Merritt Polk. 2011. Physical and economic bias in climate change research: a scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Climatic Change 108 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  7. Bo, Yan, and Zhimin Chen. 2011. EU’s weakening leadership in climate change governance. China Int Stud 8: 74–81.Google Scholar
  8. Bodansky, Daniel, and Lavanya Rajamani. 2012. The evolution and governance architecture of the climate change regime. In International law and international relations, 2nd ed, ed. Detlef Sprinz and Urs Luterbacher. Cambridge: MIT Press. (2013 Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  9. Bouwer, Laurens M., and Jeroen C.J.H. Aerts. 2006. Financing climate change adaptation. Disasters 30 (1): 49–63.Google Scholar
  10. Boyd, Emily, Esteve Corbera, and Manuel Estrada. 2008. UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 8 (2): 95–112.Google Scholar
  11. Boykoff, Maxwell T. 2007. From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32 (4): 477–489.Google Scholar
  12. Burton, Ian, et al. 2002. From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy 2 (2-3): 145–159.Google Scholar
  13. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. Framing theory. Annuale Review Politics Science 10: 103–126.Google Scholar
  14. Ciplet, David, J. Timmons Roberts, and Mizan Khan. 2013. The politics of international climate adaptation funding: justice and divisions in the greenhouse. Global Environmental Politics 13 (1): 49–68.Google Scholar
  15. Cui, Lianbiao, and Yuran Huang. 2018. Exploring the schemes for green climate fund financing: international lessons. World Development 101: 173–187.Google Scholar
  16. Dimitrov, Radoslav S. 2016. The Paris agreement on climate change: behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics 16 (3): 1–11.Google Scholar
  17. Dimitrov, Radoslav S. 2010. Inside UN climate change negotiations: The Copenhagen conference. Review of policy research 27, no. 6.Google Scholar
  18. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.Google Scholar
  19. Fenton, Adrian. 2014. Green Climate Fund. Online at http://www.sean-cc.org/wp-content/themes/new_sean-cc/activities/Regional/RR2014.2g.pdf, Accessed 2 May 2018).
  20. Fridahl, Mathias, and Björn-Ola Linnér. 2016. Perspectives on the Green Climate Fund: possible compromises on capitalization and balanced allocation. Climate and Development 8 (2): 105–109.Google Scholar
  21. Glemarec, Yannick. 2019. Aligning national interests and global climate justice: the role of human rights in enhancing the ambition of nationally determined contributions to combat climate change. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 12 (2): 309–327.Google Scholar
  22. Grasso, Marco. 2011. The role of justice in the North–South conflict in climate change: the case of negotiations on the Adaptation Fund. International Environmental Agreement 11 (4): 361–377.Google Scholar
  23. Helgeson, J. and Jane. 2015. The role of the 2015 agreement in enhancing adaptation to climate change. OECD Climate Change Expert Group Paper No. 2015 (1). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.933.7795&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2019.
  24. Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After hegemony, vol. 54. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Keohane, Robert O. 2019. Institutions for a World of climate injustice. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 12 (2): 293–307.Google Scholar
  26. Klein, Richard JT, Asa Persson. 2008. Financing adaptation to climate change: Issues and priorities. Climate Policy Research Programme and the Centre for European Policy Studies, Svartsjö, Sweden, European Climate Platform (ECP).Google Scholar
  27. Mace, Mary Jane. 2005. Funding for Adaptation to Climate Change: uNFCCC and GEF Developments since COP-7. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 14 (3): 225–246.Google Scholar
  28. Markandya, Anil, et al. 2015. Analyzing trade-offs in international climate policy options: the case of the green climate fund. World Development 74: 93–107.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, Rein, and Donald Schön. 1993. Reframing policy discourse. The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and plan, 145–166. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moore, Frances C. 2012. Negotiating adaptation: norm selection and hybridization in international climate negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 12 (4): 30–48.Google Scholar
  31. Müller, Benito. 2006. Climate of distrust: the 2006 Bonn climate change adaptation fund negotiations. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.Google Scholar
  32. Olausson, Ulrika. 2009. Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action 41 and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science 18 (4): 421–436.Google Scholar
  33. O’Neill, Saffron J., et al. 2010. Disciplines, geography, and gender in the framing of climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 91 (8): 997–1002.Google Scholar
  34. Parry, Martin, et al. 1998. Adapting to the inevitable. Nature 395 (6704): 741.Google Scholar
  35. Rein, Martin, and Donald Schön. 1996. Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy 9 (1): 85–104.Google Scholar
  36. Schalatek, Liane, Smita Nakhooda, Neil Bird. 2015. The Green Climate Fund. Overseas Development Institute and Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America. Accessed at https://us.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/11/cff11_2015_gcf.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018.
  37. Schipper, E., and F. Lisa. 2006. Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 15 (1): 82–92.Google Scholar
  38. Tang, Shiping. 2005. Reputation, cult of reputation, and international conflict. Security Studies 14 (1): 34–62.Google Scholar
  39. Tang, Shiping. 2009. The security dilemma: a conceptual analysis. Security Studies 18 (3): 587–623.Google Scholar
  40. Tang, Shiping. 2011. Reconciliation and the remaking of anarchy. World Politics 63 (4): 711–749.Google Scholar
  41. Vanhala, Lisa, and Cecilie Hestbaek. 2016. Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 16 (4): 111–129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Fudan University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations