* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Michael E. Mann wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit email controversy wikipedia , lookup
Soon and Baliunas controversy wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Heaven and Earth (book) wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an effective (or appropriate) institution for supporting indigenous peoples’ adaptation to climate change? by Michelle L. Maillet Department of Geography McGill University Montréal (Québec) Canada A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of M.A. in Geography © Michelle L. Maillet 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My supervisor Dr. James Ford, the International Development Research Centre and the TriCouncils of Canada, the Indigenous Health Adaptation to Climate Change project, and McGill University Department of Geography for the awards and stipends that have funded my graduate studies; Kirstie Booth for your help in creating and designing figures; Kevin Landry for helping me translate my abstract; Ellie Stephenson for your moral support and patient advice; Joanna Petrasek MacDonald for the peer pressure to get things done during the last month of writing; all my friends at the Climate Change Adaptation Research Group and the Health Geography Lab at McGill for the regular pub nights, BBQs and potlucks that kept me sane; my supervisor Dr. James Ford and committee members Dr. Vincent Pouliot and Dr. Thom Meredith for your immense patience, thoughtful advice, and words of encouragement over the years; the PIs, coinvestigators, collaborators, students, partners and community members involved with the Indigenous Health Adaptation to Climate Change project for the countless opportunities and experiences; my parents Charles and Colette, parents-in-law Gaétane and Daniel, and close friends and family Denis, Kirstie, Julie, Maude L., Marilyse, Soultana, Nick, and Maude D. for always believing in me and inadvertently helping me build confidence in my work; and last, but definitely not least, my wonderful loving husband Kevin Landry, without whom none of this would be possible. ii ABSTRACT The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the core of today’s global climate change regime, is an intergovernmental institution that was established in the 1990s with the objective of bringing nations together to negotiate policies in a global effort to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. Today, with increasing scientific certainty regarding the current and future impacts of climate change, and the growing notion that some degree of change is unavoidable regardless of mitigation, the role of adaptation, and its scope, have expanded a great deal within the institution since it was first envisioned. It is unclear however what opportunities and barriers this discursive structure may create for adaptation support for vulnerable sub-national populations such as indigenous peoples. Accordingly, this study uses critical discourse analysis to examine the evolution of the embedded discourse on adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change in the institution based on the official decisions rendered by the Conference of the Parties, and seeks to expose the policy implications for indigenous peoples at different scales. Noteworthy trends identified in this study include an increasingly explicit recognition of the heightened vulnerability of indigenous peoples to climate change, and the gradual shift away from approaches that are purely scientific to approaches that value and include traditional and indigenous knowledge for adaptation where appropriate. Adaptation assistance provided by developed nations however, remains exclusively aimed at projects in developing country Parties. iii RÉSUMÉ Maintenant au cœur du régime mondial sur les changements climatiques, la Convention-Cadre des Nations Unies sur les Changements Climatiques est une institution intergouvernementale qui fut établie au début des années 1990 sous l’objectif de rassembler les pays du monde dans le but de stabiliser les concentrations de gaz à effet de serre dans l’atmosphère à un niveau qui empêcherait une interférence dangereuse avec le climat. Considérant la progression scientifique dans le domaine des impacts, présents et futures, des changements climatiques, ainsi que la notion grandissante qu’un certain degré de changement est inévitable peu importe les efforts en mitigation, le rôle qu’occupe aujourd’hui l’adaptation et sa portée s’est beaucoup élargis à l’intérieur de l’institution depuis sa naissance. En revanche, les opportunités et les obstacles que la structure du discours peut imposer à l’accès des populations vulnérables locales ne sont pas très claires, notamment le support d’adaptation apporté aux populations indigènes. À cet effet, cette thèse utilise l’analyse de discours critique afin d’examiner l’évolution du discours intégré sur l’adaptation aux impacts des changements climatiques dans l’institution, basé sur le contenu des décisions officielles rendues par les Parties à la Convention et cherche à exposer les implications politiques pour les peuples indigènes à différentes échelles. Parmi les tendances identifiées dans la présente étude, on note la reconnaissance grandissante et explicite de la vulnérabilité accrue des peuples indigènes aux changements climatiques, ainsi que l’éloignement des approches purement scientifiques dans un contexte d’adaptation, vers des approches qui valorisent et incluent les connaissances traditionnelles et indigènes. L’assistance financière fournie par les pays développés pour investir en adaptation demeure, par contre, axée sur les projets dans les pays en voie de développement seulement. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements …ii Abstract …iii Résumé …iv List of Tables …vii List of Figures …viii Chapter 1. Introduction …1 1.1. Background …1 1.2. Aim and objectives …3 1.3. Thesis format …4 Chapter 2. Literature review …5 2.1. A brief history of the origins of the global climate change regime …5 2.2. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change …13 2.3. Gaps in the peer-reviewed literature …17 Chapter 3. Methodology …21 3.1. Study design rationale: Why institutional discourses matter …21 3.2. Conceptual framework: Critical discourse analysis …23 3.3. Analytical framework: Discourse analysis, constructions of identity, and policy..25 3.4. Methodology …27 3.5. Methods …29 3.5.1. Data selection: The official discourse on adaptation in CP decisions …29 3.5.2. Data collection …30 3.5.3. Data analysis …34 3.5.4. Positionality …37 Chapter 4. Results …39 4.1. Game theory and the game analogy …39 4.2. The official adaptation discourse in UNFCCC CP decisions, 1992-2012 …40 4.2.1. Characteristics of the discourse …40 Guiding principles of the Convention …40 Convention objectives and the shifting role of adaptation …45 v Adaptation discourse, constructed identities, and their perceived ethical responsibilities …52 Adaptation work streams …58 4.2.2. Disclaimers …65 4.2.3. References to indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge …68 4.3. Summary Chapter 5. Discussion …78 …79 5.1. Discursive implications: Barriers, opportunities, and prognosis …79 5.2. Research limitations and further research needs …85 Chapter 6. Conclusion …87 References …90 Appendices …97 Appendix 1 – List of Abbreviations …97 Appendix 2 – List of Codes …99 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. KEY STEP decision texts Table.3.2. Adaptation work stream decision texts Table 3.3. Coding and journaling strategy Table 4.1. Adaptation work streams by scope and focus of activities Table 4.2. Adaptation-related funds under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol Table 4.3. References to traditional or indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge in the texts examined in this thesis vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. The regime complex for managing climate change Figure 2.2. Institutional structure of the UNFCCC Figure 3.1. Critical discourse analysis conceptual framework Figure 3.2. Framework for mapping identities constructed by policy discourses and their implications Figure 4.1. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions timeline, and Convention objectives Figure 4.2. Referent identities constituted by the discourse on adaptation in CP decisions Figure 4.3. Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Convention Figure 4.4. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions timeline, and adaptation work streams Figure 4.5. Decision 5, paragraph 8, CP.17/2001 Figure 4.6. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions timeline, and legal disclaimers Figure 4.7. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions timeline, and references to indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. BACKGROUND It is now widely accepted that anthropogenic climate change is one of the most significant challenges faced by humanity this century (IPCC 2013). The issue is scientifically complex and politically arduous due to its transboundary and multi-scaled nature, its potential for destabilizing natural, as well as socioeconomic and cultural systems, and the relative level of uncertainty relating to tipping points and future climate trajectories (IPCC 2014). One thing is certain though, human influence on the climate system is clear, and evidence that our climate is changing rapidly is overwhelming (Fussel 2009, Smith et al. 2009). The general consensus is that historic emissions commit the Earth to some degree of warming, even with mitigation action, and that given the current course of events, warming is likely to surpass the 2ºC threshold associated to ‘dangerous’ interference with the climate system (Parry et al. 2009, Smith et al. 2009, Stafford Smith et al. 2011, Peters et al. 2013). The potential impacts are manifold, and the effects will continue to be unevenly distributed, both geographically and societally, with some impacts already being felt by peoples and communities across the globe. These impacts include an increase in intensity, occurrence, and unpredictability of extreme weather events such as storms, floods, droughts, and extreme heat, among other things, increasing the potential for severe impacts on human systems. Northern communities are also generally faced with changing sea-ice and permafrost conditions, while low-lying and island communities are faced with sea level rise, coastal erosion and salt-water intrusion (IPCC 2013). Some of the commonly cited human impacts include weather-related injury, an increase in gastro-intestinal and/or vector-borne illness, infrastructure damage, and food and water insecurity (IPCC 2014). Adaptation has thus 1 emerged over the last decade as a central component of climate policy debates at all levels of governance (Khan & Timmons Roberts 2013). Given its global scale and transboundary nature, addressing climate change and its impacts will require some degree of cooperation and coordination at the international level, and the institutions created to that purpose will need to be critically assessed to ensure their effectiveness, yet his process has only just begun to emerge in the literature on global climate governance (Tompkins & Amundsen 2008, Turnheim & Tezcan 2010). Accordingly, the core of today’s international climate change regime, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is the intergovernmental institution that was established in the 1990s with the objective of bringing nations together to negotiate policies in a global effort to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. With recently increasing scientific certainty regarding the current and future impacts of climate change, and the growing notion that some degree of change is unavoidable regardless of mitigation, the role of adaptation, and its scope, have expanded a great deal within the institution since it was first envisioned. In its latest contribution to the Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizing the state of our knowledge about climate change since the publication of its last report in 2007, Working Group II points to the heightened vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change of marginalized and disadvantaged peoples and communities in countries at all levels of development, with a particular focus on people living in poverty, and indigenous peoples (IPCC 2014). Indeed there is a growing body of peer-reviewed literature on the vulnerability of marginalized populations to the impacts of climate change, stemming from a wide range of countries and contexts in both the developing and developed 2 worlds. One particular trend in this body of work that is relevant here relates to indigenous peoples; where over the last decade or so, community-based work in the areas of indigenous peoples vulnerabilities and the use of indigenous knowledge for adaptation have been expanding significantly (Nakashima et al. 2012), while few studies have been published on the implications of top-down structures for indigenous peoples’ access to adaptation support, and participation in international efforts to negotiate adaptation policies in a meaningful way. 1.2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this thesis is to examine how the structure of the UNFCCC creates discursive barriers and/or opportunities for indigenous peoples’ adaptation to climate change. To that purpose, this thesis asks first and foremost, is the UNFCCC an appropriate institution for supporting indigenous populations’ adaptation to climate change? This is assessed through the three following sub-questions: (a) what constitutes the discourse on climate change adaptation embedded in the official decisions rendered by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC; (b) what does the discourse imply for indigenous populations at the national, regional and international levels; and (c) is it possible for indigenous people to access adaptation support and/or exert influence onto the discourse, and if so, to what extent? The research objectives are fourfold. The first is to review peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify and characterize the history and context of the UNFCCC as a broad framework for addressing climate change. As detailed in the third chapter of this thesis, this component of the research project contextualizes the specific discourse under consideration. The second objective is to characterize what constitutes the discourse on adaptation in the UNFCCC and outline the discursive implications for indigenous peoples. The third objective is to identify 3 and characterize the discursive factors that facilitate and/or constrain meaningful consideration and participation of indigenous peoples in the discourse on climate change adaptation in the UNFCCC. And lastly, the fourth objective is to identify and characterize the discursive factors that facilitate and/or constrain access to adaptation funding through the UNFCCC by indigenous peoples. 1.3. THESIS FORMAT This thesis is made up of six chapters, including this introductory chapter, and a final concluding chapter. Chapter 2 is a literature review that addresses the first objective of the research project. Chapter 3 details the conceptual and analytical frameworks that guide the study, and outlines the methods used to address the second, third, and fourth objectives. Chapter 4 presents the results of the critical discourse analysis of official Conference of the Parties decisions. Chapter 5 considers the potential implications of the embedded discourse on adaptation, characterized in the previous chapter, for indigenous peoples at varying scales, including capacity to influence the discourse and access adaptation support. 4 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW There exists an array of peer-reviewed literature from a diversity of disciplines that examines the multiple facets of climate governance and related topics, ranging in perspectives from the local to the global. Those that are examined in this chapter contribute to the critical discourse analysis by characterizing the social, cultural and political context in which the discourse under consideration takes place, and help explain the rationale for this study. Accordingly, section 2.1 reviews the peer-reviewed literature on global climate policy and governance, and provides a brief history of the origins of the international climate change regime and the underlying principles that guide it. Section 2.2 describes the institution at the core of the global climate regime, and central to this study: the UNFCCC. And finally section 2.3 considers the apparent gaps between major findings and recommendations from the literature on the vulnerability and adaptation needs of indigenous peoples, and the literature on the global governance of climate change. 2.1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ORIGINS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME In the political sciences, the concept of ‘international or global regime’ is used to describe networks of rules, norms, institutions, programs and decision-making procedures governing a specific issue area of international relations, such as nuclear proliferation and international trade for example (Keohane 1984, Karns & Mingst 2004). These networks and their parts are established over time through elaborate crafting and compromise by international actors, in most cases nation-states, and serve the purpose of facilitating cooperative action on cross-boundary issues where problems of cooperation exist (Gehring & Faude 2013). The long 5 process of negotiation and consensus decision-making involved in the creation of these regimes helps legitimize the underlying norms that guide it in the eyes of the actors, both state and nonstate, and helps constrain their behaviour through various combinations of customary and binding forms of law. In some cases, regimes also serve the function of facilitating action and improving knowledge integration by fostering knowledge sharing, development and refinement (Keohane 1984, Bodansky 1995, Karns & Mingst 2004). In general, global governance regimes are established and realized through intergovernmental institutions and international treaties (Karns & Mingst 2004, Keohane & Victor 2011, Gehring & Faude 2013). In the case of environmental regimes, the institutions that guide them are generally built around conventions or frameworks that establish rules and decision-making procedures for the negotiation of (potentially binding) protocols and agreements (or treaties) to be accomplished at a later date. These conventions often impose procedural duties on Parties to monitor progress and needs, and create linkages between states, public and private institutions, multilateral or intergovernmental arrangements, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for instance. Environmental regimes also typically include some form of mechanisms for providing financial and technical assistance to developing countries (Bodansky 1995). However, it has become increasingly recognized that some areas of environmental governance, such as climate change, are best understood through a regime complex lens. A regime complex is defined as a system of functionally (or partially) overlapping international institutions (or regimes) that relate to a common subject matter, and are characterized by a loose network of linkages between them, generating substantive, normative, or operative interactions (Keohane & Victor 2011, Gehring & Faude 2013, Orsini et al. 2013). The global climate change regime then, should be seen here as a regime complex, rather than a single regulatory regime, loosely linking 6 a number of overlapping institutional efforts governing issue-areas related to climate, with the UNFCCC at its core (Keohane & Victor 2011). Figure 2.1 illustrates this loose assemblage of institutional arrangements that make up the regime complex for managing the cooperation problems that arise with climate change at the global level. Figure 2.1. The regime complex for managing climate change (Figure from Keohane & Victor, 2011) The elements displayed in Figure 2.1 are not comprehensive or integrated, nor are they arranged in any clear hierarchy (Keohane & Victor 2011), though some institutional linkages exist between them. Though parallel pathways to climate governance exist, through Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), bilateral and multilateral initiatives, and sub-national action for instance, and occur outside the scope of the UNFCCC (Michonski & Levi 2010), the focus of this study remains tied to the institution that is still commonly accepted as the central component 7 of global climate governance (Schipper 2006, Ayers et al. 2010, Gupta 2010, Khan & Timmons Roberts 2013). Although it is commonly agreed that the global climate change regime, with the UNFCCC at its core, emerged out of ongoing negotiations between states throughout the 1980s and early-1990s in response to growing concerns over climate change (Bodansky 1995, Schipper 2006, Ayers et al. 2010, Gupta 2010), it is necessary for the purpose of this thesis to go further back in time and consider the precursors of the regime and the circumstances in which it came to be. This contextual information will help clarify the origin of the underlying assumptions found to guide decision-making trajectories and policy avenues for adaptation in the UNFCCC, as discussed throughout this thesis. And as will be explained in Chapter 3, this contextual information also addresses the “social practice” component of the conceptual framework that guides this project (see Figure 3.1) by characterizing the broad social, cultural and political context in which the discourse under consideration takes place. Accordingly, the remainder of this section presents a brief history of the emergence of the international climate change regime and characterizes what constitutes it. At the end of the Second World War, nations came together in an effort to promote and maintain international peace and security, and replace the decaying League of Nations. As a result, they established the United Nations (UN), a new intergovernmental institution that was to provide a democratic forum for cooperative diplomacy and conflict resolution. The institution was created with the vision that it would contribute to deterring acts of aggression, and stimulate nations to cooperate on socio-economic, cultural and human rights issues. Like most international arrangements established under the current world order, the functioning of the UN was, and is still, deeply rooted in the principle of the sovereign equality of states (Kennedy 8 2006). The principle, which had been the basis of international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (Karns & Mingst 2004), is also deeply tied to the principle of nonintervention, which implies the domestic supremacy of the state’s political institutions and legal system; that all states have an equal right to self-determination. Together, these complementary principles frame the role of states at the international level as autonomous legal actors that must negotiate with each other in an effort to avoid conflict (Cohen 2006). Though the UN Charter makes no explicit reference to environmental protection or environmental issues in general (United Nations 1945), it has generally been recognized that moves to address this governance gap within the institution began as early as the late-1960s amid growing concerns over the negative effects of pollution and overexploitation of resources on economic and human development (Karns & Mingst 2004, Schipper 2006). In an effort to foster cooperation, and in an attempt to generate a shared vision for the preservation of the human environment, the UN hosted the first global conference on the environment in 1972; the landmark Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), also known as the Stockholm Conference (Haas 2002, Bunn 2009, Hjerpe & Linnér 2010). This event is significant in that this was the first time the global community formally came together in an attempt to address the interdependencies of development and the environment (Karns & Mingst 2004, Roch & Perrez 2006). Three major outputs were produced as a result of the conference: (1) the Stockholm Declaration, (2) the Stockholm Action Plan for the Human Environment, and (3) the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The first, the Stockholm Declaration, is the customary law statement of twenty-six principles of behaviour and responsibilities that paved the way for the development of global environmental accords in the following decades (Haas 2002, Roch & Perrez 2006). The principles it promoted include the no significant harm principle, the 9 good neighbor principle, and the principle of intergenerational equity (Karns & Mingst 2004). The second, the Stockholm Acton Plan, provided 109 recommendations to governments and international organizations relating to environmental assessment and management, and supporting institutional measures (Haas 2002). The third, the UNEP, is the UN agency that coordinates international efforts for the protection of the environment (Karns & Mingst 2004, Roch & Perrez 2006). The Stockholm Conference was also a milestone event in that it was the first such international conference to have a parallel forum for the participation of non-state actors, such as civil-society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the context of international policy. Decidedly, this set an important precedent for all future global environmental governance efforts (Karns & Mingst 2004, Hjerpe & Linnér 2010). Shortly thereafter, the global scientific and policy-making community gathered for the World Climate Conference in 1979, an event organized by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in collaboration with other UN bodies, with the objective of assessing the state of our knowledge on the climate, and the effects of climate variability and change on human society. Outputs from the conference, and subsequent meetings of the WMO eventually led the UNEP and the WMO to jointly establish the IPCC in 1988; the now well-known epistemic institution charged with the specific task of summarizing the state of our knowledge on the causes of climate change, the current and future impacts, and response measures, and provide recommendations to relevant decision-makers and international actors (Zillman 2009, Gupta 2010). In 1990, the WMO held its second World Climate Conference in the goal of assessing the progress made since the first World Climate Conference, and undertake an initial international review of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report (Zillman 2009). 10 Soon after in 1992, following the official release of the IPCC First Assessment Report, and amid growing public concerns over climate change and biodiversity loss and as a follow-up to the Stockholm Conference, UNEP organized the second global conference on the environment; the Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio Conference or Earth Summit (Haas 2002, Bunn 2009, Gupta 2010). The purpose of the event was to explore ways to address global environmental challenges in a comprehensive manner by attempting to balance environmental protection and economic development, and foster North-South cooperation (Roch & Perrez 2006). The conference was an unparalleled event in both the scope of its agenda, and the number of participants involved. Similar to the Stockholm Conference, an unprecedented number of NGOs participated in the process, with some 1400 of them accredited, though they were excluded from the final negotiations between states over the higher-level documents (Karns & Mingst 2004). Overall, the outputs that were produced as a result of the conference were ground breaking, and included (1) the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, (2) Agenda 21 and (3) the Commission on Sustainable Development, as well as (4) the Rio Conventions; better known as the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) (Haas 2002, Karns & Mingst 2004, Xiang & Meehan 2005, Roch & Perrez 2006). The first, the Rio Declaration, is the soft-law statement of 287 general principles and obligations that frames the consensus of values, approaches, and priorities for the global governance of environment and development. The content of the Declaration is largely the result of compromises between the competing interests of developed and developing nations (Porras 1992). These principles, forming the basis of contemporary environmental law as we know it today, include among many others the principle 11 of common but differentiated responsibilities, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle (Porras 1992, Karns & Mingst 2004). The Declaration also reiterates the sovereign rights of states, the good neighbour and intergenerational equity principles, and recognizes an open economic system and the eradication of poverty as indispensable requirements for sustainable development (Porras 1992). The second and third outputs of the conference are Agenda 21 and the Commission on Sustainable Development respectively. Agenda 21 is an action plan promoting sustainable development and providing over 2500 recommendations to states, IOs and NGOs to implement, while the Commission on Sustainable Development was created to follow up on post-Rio activities and to monitor subsequent implementation of Agenda 21 at multiple governance levels (Haas 2002, Roch & Perrez 2006). The fourth, the Rio Conventions, are the three binding legal treaties that were negotiated in the context of the conference; the UNFCCC, UNCDB, and UNCCD. The three Conventions address specific yet overlapping environmental problems, set the rules for the negotiation of legally binding protocols and agreements in the future, promote similar and synergetic approaches and measures in line with the principles of the Rio Declaration, and have established financial mechanisms operating through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) (Xiang & Meehan 2005). It is also noteworthy to mention here that the Rio Conventions, particularly the UNFCCC, were modelled in part on the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) and the subsequent Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), which sought to phase out ozone depleting CFCs through differing objectives for developed and developing nations. Indeed, the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol are mentioned throughout the literature on global climate governance as having served as somewhat 12 of a guideline for the approach developed in the UNFCCC (Bodansky 1995, Gupta 2010), and are explicitly referred to in a number of instances in the Convention text. 2.2. THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Since its ratification in 1994, the UNFCCC has been the primary institution for addressing climate change at the global level (Bodansky 1995, Schipper 2006, Ayers et al. 2010, Gupta 2010). The Framework Convention is first and foremost an international treaty, now signed by a total of 195 states, which sets out the principles, rules, procedures, and priorities for negotiating policy approaches between states to mitigate the causes of climate change and cope with the impacts. But the UNFCCC, like the other Rio Conventions, is also a physical institution with working bodies, groups, committees, programmes, funds, a bureau, and a permanent secretariat. The institutional structure of the UNFCCC, as set out by the Convention, is illustrated in Figure 2.2., and explained thereafter. Parties to the Convention are states, and are collectively known as the Conference of the Parties; the supreme body of the Convention, with which all decision-making powers lie. Indeed, all other bodies, groups and committees within the institution are accountable to, operate in the service of, and are mandated by the Conference of the Parties. The Secretariat is the institutional body established to provide administrative, reporting and logistical support for all activities within the context of the Convention. The Financial Mechanism, under the trusteeship of the GEF, was created to manage the provision of financial resources from developed country Parties to developing country Parties on a concessional basis, including technology transfers. To that purpose then, as will be examined in Chapter 4, the Financial Mechanism operates a number of funds established under different programmes within the institution. 13 Figure 2.2. Institutional structure of the UNFCCC (United Nations 1992) The permanent subsidiary bodies of the Convention are the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SB-STA), and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI). The two were established to provide the Conference of the Parties with information and guidance on relevant scientific and technological matters, and to assist the Conference of the Parties in the review and assessment of effective implementation respectively (United Nations 1992). The groups, committees and work programs established through subsequent decisions rendered under the Convention in turn, operate under one of the two subsidiary bodies, as will be seen in Chapter 4. 14 Since 1995, Parties have sent national delegations to annual meetings, also known as Conference of the Parties (CP) for high-level negotiations, and to multiple lower-level negotiating rounds and workshops thought the year. Since 2005, the CP has also served as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), the legal agreement setting binding greenhouse gas emissions for developed nations and channels funds for mitigation and adaptation to developing countries (Hjerpe & Linnér 2010). Throughout the two weeks duration of annual CPs and CMPs, usually hosted in a different nation every year, multiple concurrent formal negotiation, plenary sessions, and closed Party meetings take place, alongside more informal side events, exhibits, press conferences, and workshops (Hjerpe & Linnér 2010, Schroeder et al. 2012). The decisions reached between the Parties at each CP and CMP are cumulative; they continue to be built upon, and referred to, at subsequent meetings, and create the boundaries in which future action can take place. Like most contemporary UN institutions, decisions in the UNFCCC are made by consensus, where one state equals one vote. Though this type of arrangement is democratic in theory by putting all states on an equal footing, in practice the balance of power between member states remains inextricably tied to the distribution of resources and capacity (Dombrowski 2010, Schroeder et al. 2012). Critics of the UN system argue that this inevitably ends up leaving developing countries on the losing end in the balance of power; where larger, richer delegations have been shown to have (Schroeder et al. 2012). The democratic legitimacy of state-centric institutions of the sort is also largely based on the assumption that citizens and stakeholders are represented effectively through their national delegations. However, this assumption has been criticised by a number of scholars on the grounds that marginalized groups that are consistently underrepresented in domestic politics, 15 such as indigenous peoples for instance, are likely to be underrepresented in national delegations (Dombrowski 2010, Schroeder 2010, Schroeder et al. 2012). In an attempt to create a more inclusive and equitable governance approach for constituencies from all levels, and in the same tradition as the Stockholm and Rio Conferences and the other two Rio Conventions, the CP and CMP events under the UNFCCC bring together an ever-growing number of non-state actors in addition to national delegates, including support staff, civil society, researchers, industry and the media (Cabré 2011). Most non-state actors that participate in the process are accredited as observers, though in some cases they may be part of national delegations. Although observers have no formal decision-making power within the institution, and are barred from closed negotiation sessions, they can attend a large number of negotiation and plenary sessions, and lead countless side events and exhibits. They are also often invited to participate in and contribute to other processes that occur through the year in the institution, such as workshops and meetings on special topics held under the guidance of the SBSTA or the SBI (see UNFCCC 2014 for instance). The reports issued from these events are then given as recommendations to the Conference of the Parties for consideration. Though this does not guarantee the implementation of all recommendations, it does contribute to some extent to put issues on the agenda that the Parties might not otherwise have considered (Dombrowski 2010, Cabré 2011). Finally, like the other Rio Conventions, the UNFCCC imposes a number of procedural duties on its Parties to hold them accountable to each other and monitor implementation of the Convention at the national scale (Bodansky 1995, Xiang & Meehan 2005). For instance, all Parties are required to periodically submit National Communications (NCs) to the Conference of the Parties, summarizing the planning and implementation of national and regional measures to 16 mitigate the causes of climate change and facilitate adaptation to the effects. It is also expected that developed country Parties will report on their contributions to the funds operated by the institution in NCs (United Nations 1992, Bodansky 1995, Biagini et al. 2014, Sherman & Ford 2014). Developing country Parties, particularly Least Developed Countries (LDCs), were also required to produce National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), in an attempt to help build adaptive capacity and catalyse adaptation planning (Tanzler et al. 2010). The NAPAs process being largely completed since 2010, LDCs and interested developing country Parties are now working to produce National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) (Decision 5, CP.16/2010). 2.3. GAPS IN THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE Over the last decade, a growing body of peer-reviewed work on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change has emerged in response to the recognition that current and historic emissions commit the Earth to some degree of climate change regardless of mitigation, with the potential for both winners and losers (Pielke et al. 2007, Parry et al. 2009). Given the magnitude and complexity of climate change, these works consider a range of issues, assessed at differing scales through an array of disciplinary lenses. In many cases, research aims focus on identifying those groups that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and characterizing ways to reduce the negative effects and take advantage of the opportunities (IPCC 2014, Wang et al. In Press). At the international level though, studies considering adaptation needs, policy and best-practices at the country-level are only beginning to emerge, with most of the work at this scale focusing on assessing developing country vulnerability, adaptation needs, and piloting adaptation projects (Lesnikowski et al. 2013, Berrang-Ford et al. 2014). At this level, the most vulnerable countries are often defined by concerned intergovernmental 17 organizations and researchers alike, as developing countries, and more commonly cited as the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Their heightened vulnerability is said to stem from existing socio-economic disadvantage and a high burden of ill-health, high levels of poverty, political inequality, and weak institutions, which contribute to exacerbate the negative effects of climate change in these countries and compromise development efforts (World Bank 2010, IPCC 2014). Accordingly, most of the academic work in this area calls for increased support for adaptation measures in developing countries (Biagini et al. 2014). Parallel to this body of work, is an emerging literature on community-based research on climate change vulnerability and adaptation at the local scales, in countries at all levels of development (Forsyth 2013). Though research assessing best practices for adaptation at this level is still in its infancy (Pearce et al. 2009), a significant amount of work has been done with regards to characterizing the sources of peoples’ vulnerabilities to climate change. A growing number of these studies are finding that indigenous peoples, particularly those that inhabit remote areas that are undergoing rapid change, and practice livelihoods that are closely linked to the environment, are highly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change (Ford 2009, Berrang-Ford et al. 2012, Ford 2012, Nakashima et al. 2012, Hofmeijer et al. 2013, Ford et al. 2014, Green & Minchin 2014, Maru et al. In Press). This heightened vulnerability is deeply tied to, and exacerbated by existing socio-economic and health disparities, and by political inequality and marginalization brought on by colonial legacies. Negative impacts have already been documented in indigenous communities in the Arctic (Ford & Pearce 2010, Furberg et al. 2011, Harper et al. 2011, Cunsolo Willox et al. 2013), in Australia (Green et al. 2010, Zander et al. 2013, Green & Minchin 2014), in New Zealand (Jones et al. 2014), Latin America (Hofmeijer et 18 al. 2013), and in sub-Saharan Africa (Berrang-Ford et al. 2012), among others. Effectively, these studies also call for increased support to assist indigenous peoples in adapting to climate change. In the third body of scholarship relevant to this study, the literature on the global governance of climate change, adaptation has also been gradually emerging as a central component of the general policy debate (Moss et al. 2013). However, the amount of work that has been done on adaptation policy is still relatively small in comparison to the existing body of work available on mitigation (Berrang-Ford et al. 2011). In fact, in the literature focusing on UNFCCC mechanisms for addressing climate change at the global level, there is a limited focus on adaptation in general, and indigenous peoples in particular (Ford 2009, 2012). The majority of the work that does focus on adaptation, in many cases, puts the emphasis on funding for adaptation actions in developing countries, and seeks to consider new pathways for effective and binding action on adaptation for those nations (Fankhauser & Burton 2011). On the other hand, most of the work focusing on indigenous peoples’ effective participation in the UNFCCC process is related to mitigation, particularly practices related to REDD, and focuses mostly indigenous peoples originating from developing countries, and on NGO advocacy (see for instance Schroeder 2010, Cabré 2011) rather than meaningful representation of indigenous peoples in national delegations, and in UNFCCC institutional bodies and groups. And though some work has been done on the history of the adaptation discourse in the global climate change regime (Schipper 2006, Khan & Timmons Roberts 2013), this work is limited in scope and for the most part does not discuss the analytical methods used to make the conclusions being brought forth. In general, these works bring limited attention to the inconsistencies and silencing effects of the discourses they consider, and do not challenge the underlying assumptions that guide them; though this is increasingly being done in discourse analyses of media representations 19 of climate change (Boykoff 2008a, b, Boykoff et al. 2010, Boykoff & Yulsman 2013). The focus of the majority of these papers remains largely tied to improving access to adaptation funding for vulnerable developing countries (Biagini et al. 2014). Given the recognized heightened vulnerability and sensitivity of indigenous peoples in all countries to the adverse effects of climate change, and the absence of a comprehensive assessment of how international structures such as the UNFCCC can create barriers and/or opportunities for supporting indigenous peoples’ adaptation without geographic prejudice, this study seeks to initiate efforts to address the gaps by critically assessing how the discursive structure of UNFCCC CP decisions influences the possibilities for meaningful participation of indigenous peoples, and their ability to access adaptation funding. 20 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY This chapter first describes the rationale that guided the study design, and explains the conceptual and theoretical frameworks that have guided the execution of this research project. The chapter then reviews the methodological approach used in this study, including data selection, collection and analysis. 3.1. STUDY DESIGN RATIONALE: WHY INSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSE MATTERS The concept of discourse, widely used throughout the social sciences, generally refers to knowledge systems that give meaning to the world and reinforce specific norms, values, power structures and rules of knowledge validity. More broadly, discourses can be defined as collections of meaningful statements, representations and texts about the world (or aspects of the world), the themes that unify them, and the underlying structures that govern how they are produced (Fairclough 2003, Waitt 2010). This abstraction is deeply rooted in post-structuralist, constructivist, and critical theory; three cross-cutting schools of thought that all hold that language has ontological significance. In other words, these theories hold that it is through language that we constitute reality, give some realities meaning while silencing others, and influences how people perceive and understand specific problems and define appropriate solutions to address them accordingly (Hansen 2006). How we consider discourse and its effects today is largely based on the work of poststructuralist philosopher Michel Foucault (Hansen 2006, Waitt 2010), whose work dealt with social power dynamics and the construction of knowledge. He argued that discourses are not only shaped by the broader social context in which they occur, but also contribute to shaping the 21 behaviours and norms that help constitute the social context itself (Foucault & Gordon 1980, Foucault 1982). Foucault saw discourse as a layered concept, made up of linguistic and/or visual representations that have meaning and effect, inter-related systems or groups of representations, and regulated practice within the structures that govern them (Waitt 2010). Building on Foucault’s work, Norman Fairclough refined the study of discourses by focusing in greater depth on methods for the linguistic analysis of discourses. A major contributor to the scholarship on critical discourse analysis, Fairclough affirms that it is through the language of discourse that particular social realities and relations of power become naturalized (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2013). According to constructivist international relations scholars such as Barnett and Finnemore (2004) for instance, international organizations, and the discourses and cultures that they perpetuate, help constitute the world by defining the problems to be governed (constitutive effects), and help regulate new norms, interests, actors, and shared social tasks (regulative effects). Organizational discourses are understood to contribute to shaping the perceptions and behaviours of actors, and tend to favour some outcomes over others. Given this potential normative power of international organizations in influencing behaviour and outcomes, the growing complexity of the global climate change regime, and the increasing understanding that climate change is unavoidable, critically assessing the effects of institutional adaptation discourses in global climate governance is becoming increasingly necessary. Though some research assessing media discourses on climate change and their effects on public perception exist and continue to grow in numbers over the years (see for instance Boykoff 2008a, b, Boykoff et al. 2010, Boykoff & Yulsman 2013, Moser 2014), there are still few scientific contributions using a critical discourse analysis methodology to examine how various 22 institutional discourses on climate change contribute to favouring some policy options over others. Given the constitutive and regulative effects of institutional discourses in international organizations (Barnett & Finnemore 2004), the naturalizing effect of discourses in general (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2013), and their intricate link to power relations and knowledge (Foucault & Gordon 1980, Foucault 1982), this study seeks to analyse the adaptation discourse in the UNFCCC through the lense of critical discourse analysis by challenging the apparent biases in the way it frames the problem, defines the actors, assigns their roles, and contributes to limiting or facilitating different types of outcomes for indigenous peoples. 3.2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS The conceptual framework that guides this study is largely based on the work of both Foucault and Fairclough, who as mentioned above, sought to expose the mechanisms that maintain structures and rules of validity through discursive analysis. To that purpose, Fairclough developed a conceptual framework for critical discourse analysis, which is the basis for most analytical work on discourse today (Fairclough 1992, 2003, Alvesson & Kärreman 2011, Fairclough 2013). The framework, illustrated in Figure 3.1., conceptualizes critical discourse analysis as a three-layered approach, characterized by a textual analysis and supported by two levels of contextualization. The textual analysis should give particular attention to the constitutive effects of discursive and linguistic elements such as narratives, wording, tone, framing, and themes (Fairclough 1992, 2003, Waitt 2010, Fairclough 2013), and be receptive to inconsistencies and discursive frames that privilege some approaches, groups, or forms of knowledge over others (Boykoff 2008a, b). The contextual information that makes up the outer 23 two layers of the conceptual framework provides a basis for interpretation of the outputs of the textual analysis, and seeks to help reduce research bias. Effective context should be provided relative to the production, distribution, and consumption of the texts under consideration, as well as to the broader social, cultural and political systems in which it occurs or to which it is related (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2013). Figure 3.1. Critical Discourse Analysis conceptual framework (based on Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2013; Waitt, 2010) In this study then, the social practice sphere of Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis framework is addressed in the first and second sections of the literature review; consisting in a brief history of the origins of the global climate change regime until the establishment of the UNFCCC, and a description of the general purpose, structure and operation of the institution. 24 Discursive practice is reviewed later in this chapter; outlining the circumstances in which the texts analyzed in this study are produced, distributed, and consumed. The methodology used for the textual analysis is then detailed, followed by the description of the results in Chapter 4. 3.3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK: DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, CONSTRUCTIONS OF IDENTITY, AND POLICY The analytical framework that has guided the textual analysis in this thesis is adapted from the work of post-structuralist international relations scholar Lene Hansen, who developed an approach using discourse analysis to study how identities are negotiated, implemented, and realized through international institutions, governments, and the media, among others in foreign policy discourse. In line with the traditions set forth by Foucault and Fairclough, Hansen’s work is based on the assumption that it is through language that meaning and particular identities are attached to peoples and groups. Those identities and how they are constructed then contribute to Identity is thus understood as relational; stemming from discursive juxtapositions, through processes of linking and differentiation of the self to others. Accordingly, identities are (re)constructed and prioritized in policy discourses, characterizing what constitutes legitimate actions or responses to address the problems as they are formulated. This construction of identities in policy discourses and their implications can be analysed according to Hansen, by extracting the spatial, temporal and ethical elements that constitute them, displaying them, and mapping their inter-connectedness (Hansen 2006). This framework is detailed in Figure 3.2. 25 Spatial construction Temporal construction The Other (1) Spatial construction Temporal construction The Other (2) Ethical responsibility Process of differentiation Process of linking Figure 3.2. Framework for mapping identities constructed by policy discourses, and their implications (based on Hansen, 2006) Though the analytical framework shown in Figure 3.2 displays only two identities (or ‘others’) for demonstration purposes here, in reality there can be multiple layers of contrasting identities, as well as identities in relations of sameness in any given discourse. Accordingly, the framework is designed to allow for the careful consideration of the signs articulated in specific discourse or texts, to review how they are coupled to provide meaning, to reveal their effects of truth, and to expose where instabilities or inconsistencies might occur (Hansen 2006). 26 3.4. METHODOLOGY This section reviews the methodological approach used in this study, which was devised in an attempt to respond to common critiques of critical discourse analysis, and in the goal of designing and conducting a project that is both rigorous and replicable. All too often, discourse analysis studies have been criticised for failing to provide a description or explanation of the methods used to select the texts, code them, and analyse them (Fuhrman & Oehler 1986, Rydin 2005), and for lacking in reflexivity by omitting to acknowledge the researcher’s positionality and potential biases (Blommaert & Bulcaen 2000, Bucholtz 2001). In many cases, the absence of these elements in discourse analysis studies can lead to difficulties in the replication of those studies, and create a greater potential for researcher bias in the framing of the context and misinterpretation of the findings (Blommaert & Bulcan 2000, Bucholtz 2001). The methodological approach used to conduct the discourse analysis in this study then, is largely based on a combination of Waitt (2010) and Hansen (2006), seeks to be attentive to both Foucault and Fairclough’s work, while also actively seeking to control for . Accordingly this section seeks to justify the use of these methods, while the remainder of this Chapter explains how these methods were applied to the current study. Waitt (2010) affirms that effective critical discourse analysis should be explicit in its rationale for the choice of source materials to be examined, and for the choice in focus of the study, while being attentive to researcher positionality. Given that critical discourse analysis assumes that language and discursive frames shape our understanding of reality, it is reasonable to expect that researchers using the method openly control for subjectivity as much as possible and actively seek to suspend pre-existing assumptions about the discourse, its context, and expected findings. Waitt suggests that this can be facilitated by research journaling throughout 27 the study in an effort to remain reflexive and keep track of the evolving thought process of the researcher, helping him/her to remain critical of the discourse and context in which the discourse(s) occurs. On the other hand, it has also been suggested by a number of discourse analysis that including an acknowledgment of the researcher’s positionality in these types of studies can help reduce the potential misinterpretation of the study findings by the readers (Blommaert & Bulcaen 2000, Bucholtz 2001). According to Waitt (2010), the formal execution of a critical discourse analysis includes three major steps: (1) familiarization exercises, (2) iterated rounds of coding, and (3) investigation for effects of truth, inconsistencies, and silencing effects. In line with the two outer layers of Fairclough’s conceptual framework detailed in Figure 3.1, Waitt recommends that researchers using discourse analysis first start by immersing themselves in, and thinking critically about, the social and historical context of the considered texts, while being alert to the authorship, intended audience, and process. And as mentioned above, it is important to give an effective account of this context to increase the rigour of such studies. Second, both Hansen (2006) and Waitt (2010) suggest multiple rounds of reading and coding, first starting with descriptive coding to organize the data, then reviewing multiple times for analysis seeking to expose the nested themes. Third, the investigation for effects of truth, inconsistencies and silencing effects in policy discourses can, as discussed in Chapter 3, can effectively be mapped out by deconstructing discursive identities into spatial, temporal and ethical components, exposing processes of identity linking and differentiation within a web of signs, characterizing the varying degrees of otherness, and identifying basic discourses (Hansen 2006). In this study then, the social and historical context (social practice sphere) is reviewed in Chapter 2. The reasons for selecting the texts examined in this study and the discursive practices 28 of their creation, consumption and distribution (discursive practice sphere) are overviewed in section 3.5.1, while section 3.5.2 lists the texts considered and states how they were collected. Section 3.5.3 details the methods used to conduct the textual analysis, and discusses strategies used to reduce researcher bias in the execution of the project and interpretation of the findings. Finally, section 3.5.4 states my positionality in the context of this project. 3.5. METHODS 3.5.1. DATA SELECTION: THE OFFICIAL DISCOURSE ON ADAPTATION IN CP DECISIONS The case study under examination in this thesis concerns the official discourse on adaptation to climate change formulated over time in the decisions, agreements and protocols issued by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. The body of decision texts considered here as forming the official discourse on adaptation to climate change in CP and CMP decisions was selected from institutionally self-identified key steps in the UNFCCC (from both CPs and CMPs), and specific adaptation-relevant decisions (from CPs only) pulled from the organization’s website. These institutionally self-identified adaptation-relevant decisions are qualified as such in this study given that the content of the website is managed by institution’s Secretariat and thus reflect internal perceptions about what content is adaptation-relevant. In selecting these texts as the objects of the discourse analysis, I purposefully sought to remove potential bias by attempting not to influence the characterization of what decisions should constitute the official adaptation discourse in CP decisions. Though there are multiple competing discourses within institutions like the UNFCCC at any given time, ranging from civil society-led discourse, to negotiation positions, and discourses within its distinct programmes and bodies, this project only focus on the discourse as constituted 29 by selected CP and CMP decisions. Therefore, this work should not be understood as an end point in and of itself, but should rather be seen as the first step of a larger research programme critically assessing the effects of adaptation discourses at multiple levels in the UNFCCC, and other institutions in the context of global climate governance. All of the decision texts examined in this study are outputs from the annual CP meetings, rendered by consensus of the Parties to the Convention (Dombrowski 2010, Schroeder et al. 2012). These decisions take the form of customary law, with very few binding agreements other than the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol (Karns & Mingst 2004). The content of the decisions primarily addresses commitments, obligations, norms, and rules for the Parties to the Convention, but also provides instructions for the operation of the bodies, work programmes, committees, groups, funds and mechanisms internal to the Convention, and creates linkages to external multilateral, intergovernmental, epistemic, and civil society organizations. Though drafts of the decisions rendered at CPs and CMPs are negotiated in part in advance of the annual meetings by negotiating teams built up of a variety of actors, their final contents largely depend on the bargaining dynamics between nations and national delegations at CPs and CMPs (Dombrowski 2010). CP and CMP negotiation sessions can be long, difficult and even upsetting for national delegations that have to reach a consensus on the explicit content of the decisions within the short time frame allotted to these conferences, while also serving their national interests, often leading to disagreement over wording and leading to decisions based on the lowest common denominator (Dombrowski 2010, Keohane & Victor 2011, Smead et al. 2014). 3.5.2. DATA COLLECTION 30 The texts examined in this thesis are all publicly available on the UNFCCC’s website in electronic format (pdf). The data examined here is made up of two streams of texts. The first consists of all the decisions, from both the CPs and the CMPs, listed under the KEY STEPS tab on the UNFCCC website’s main page on October 22nd 2013. The second consists of all the specific adaptation-related decisions listed under the PROCESS / Adaptation / Decisions & Conclusions tabs on the UNFCCC website’s main page on the 22nd of October 2013. The list of these documents is provided in Table 3.1 and 3.2. Table 3.1. KEY STEP decision texts (583 pages in total) KEY STEP The Convention Year 1992 Kyoto Protocol 1998 Bali Road Map 2007 2007 Cancun Agreements 2010 2010 2010 Durban Outcomes 2011 2011 2011 2011 Document Title United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting to the Kyoto Protocol at its third session (CMP.3) Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth session (CP.13) Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting to the Kyoto Protocol at its sixth session (CMP.6) Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session (CP.16) – Add.1 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session (CP.16) – Add.2 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session (CP.17) – Add.1 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session (CP.17) – Add.2 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting to the Kyoto Protocol at its seventh session (CMP.7) – Add.1 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting to the Kyoto Protocol at its seventh session (CMP.7) – Add.2 Pages 1-24 1-20 1-35 1-60 1-32 1-31 1-25 1-86 1-63 1-27 1-49 31 Doha Climate Gateway 2012 2012 2012 2012 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its eighteenth session (CP.18) – Add.1 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its eighteenth session (CP.18) – Add.2 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session (CMP.8) – Add.1 Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session (CMP.8) – Add.2 1-37 1-44 1-21 1-29 Table 3.2. Adaptation work stream decision texts (172 pages in total) Work Stream National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) Year 2001 CP CP.7 2001 CP.7 2001 CP.7 2001 CP.7 2001 CP.7 2003 CP.9 2003 CP.9 2003 CP.9 2004 CP.10 2005 CP.11 2005 CP.11 2007 CP.13 Decision Decision 2 (+ Annex) Capacity building in developing countries (nonAnnex I Parties) Decision 5 Implementation of Article 4, paragraph 8 and 9 of the Convention Decision 7 Funding under the Convention Decision 27 Guidance […] for the operation of the LDCF Decision 28 (+ Annex) Guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs Decision 5 Further guidance […] for the operation of the SCCF Decision 6 Further guidance for the operation of the LDCF Decision 8 Review of the guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs Decision 4 Work of the LDC Expert Group Decision 3 Further guidance for the operation of the LDCF Decision 4 Extension of the mandate of the LDC Expert Group Decision 8 Extension of the mandate of the LDC Expert Pages 5-14 32-39 43-45 6 7-13 11-12 13-14 16 13 10-11 12 36 32 LDC Expert Group Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change Adaptation Committee 2008 CP.14 2010 CP.16 2010 CP.16 2012 CP.18 2001 CP.7 2003 CP.9 2005 CP.11 2007 CP.13 2010 CP.16 2003 CP.9 2004 CP.10 2005 CP.11 2011 CP.17 2007 CP.13 2010 CP.16 2011 CP.17 Group Decision 5 Further guidance for the operation of the LDCF Decision 5 Further guidance for the operation of the LDCF Decision 6 Extension of the mandate of the LDC Expert Group Decision 10 Further guidance to the LDCF Decision 29 (+ Annex) Establishment of a LDC Expert Group Decision 7 Extension of the mandate of the LDC Expert Group Decision 4 Extension of the mandate of the LDC Expert Group Decision 8 Extension of the mandate of the LDC Expert Group Decision 6 Extension of the mandate of the LDC Expert Group Decision 10 Scientific, technical & socio-economic aspects of impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to climate change […] Decision 1 Buenos Aires programme of work on adaptation and response measures Decision 2 (+ Annex) Five year programme of work of the SB-STA on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change Decision 6 Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change Decision 1 Bali Action Plan Decision 1 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the WGLTCA under the Convention Decision 2 (+ Annex V) Outcome of the AH-WG-LTCA under the Convention 8-9 9-10 11-12 35-37 14-16 15 12 36 11-12 19 2-6 5-9 3-4 3-7 2-31 4-54 33 2012 National Adaptation Plans 2010 2011 2012 Work Programme on loss and damage 2010 2011 2012 CP.18 Decision 11 Work of the Adaptation Committee CP.16 Decision 1 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the WGLTCA under the Convention CP.17 Decision 5 (+ Annex) National Adaptation Plans CP.18 Decision 12 National Adaptation Plans CP.16 Decision 1 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the WGLTCA under the Convention CP.17 Decision 7 (+ Annex) Work programme on loss and damage CP.18 Decision 3 Approaches to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable […] to enhance adaptive capacity 2 2-31 80-86 3-5 2-31 5-8 21-24 3.5.3. DATA ANALYSIS The decision texts were coded using Atlas.ti, a qualitative analysis software. The specific codes used in this study were not established prior to the start of the coding process; the content of the texts themselves helped determined the necessary codes, in an attempt to reduce risk of influence from researcher assumptions about expected findings. This was done with the purpose of explicitly addressing the recommendation often made by critics of discourse analysis; to suspend all pre-existing assumptions and expectations about the discourse, and the context in which it occurs and to let the text ‘speak for itself’(Fairclough 2003, Hansen 2006, Waitt 2010). No key-word searches were done prior to having fully read through all of the texts under consideration in this study for that same reason. While establishing the codes throughout the iterative rounds of reading, I sought to be sensitive to context, practices, attitudes and themes in line with Fairclough (2003), while also flagging the elements that frame the identities entrenched 34 in the discourse in line with Hansen (2006). All codes were numbered as they were created to keep track of the chronology in which they were established. The detailed list of codes devised during the execution of this study is provided in the Appendix section. My impressions and thoughts were also logged in a personal journal throughout the entire process. The rationale for these steps, in line with critical, constructivist and post-structuralist thought, was to try to reduce the potential biases that could occur by being reflexive throughout (Blommaert & Bulcaen 2000, Bucholtz 2001, Waitt 2010) The review and coding of the texts was carried out through iterative rounds of reading to try to avoid omitting any relevant information, or misinterpretations. This lengthy process took place over a period of several months, from October 2013 to March 2014. The coding strategy used sought to help organize the textual data for thematic analysis of the discourse on climate change adaptation and its referent identities, while also extracting specific quotes that have meaning and effects for the participation of indigenous peoples, and their access to adaptation funding. The detailed steps of the coding and journaling strategy used are described in Table 3.3. After having completed the review and coding process described above, the coded texts and the second research journal were then reviewed for two analogous purposes. The first was to extract the elements that make up the identities established by the discourse on adaptation in CP decisions, and map out the relationships between them using Hansen’s analytical framework. The second was to organize the data in order to present a visual depiction of the major trends and shifts apparent in the adaptation discourse over time in the form of a story-board timeline. Finally, additional elements relevant to the thesis aim and objectives, including references to indigenous and/or traditional peoples, practices and knowledge for instance were also extracted, 35 chronologically organized, examined for themes and trends and integrated into the timeline. In all cases, review sought to identify the potential effects of truth, silencing effects and inconsistencies that the discourse could impose based on these representations of the discursive elements that constitute the text, the relationships between them, and the context in which they occur. Table 3.3. Coding and Journaling Strategy Steps KEY STEPS: Familiarization Text Stream All KEY STEP decision texts (both CP and CMP) KEY STEPS: Second readthrough KEY STEP decisions (CP only) WORK STREAMS: In depth readthrough KEY STEPS (the Convention and Kyoto Protocol only) & All adaptation work stream decision texts Coding Skim through all decisions. Only code those paragraphs that directly reference adaptation and/or indigenous peoples. Look for elements that constitute identities, and consider the themes and topics addressed. Perfect the coding strategy by eliminating repetitive codes and incorporating new codes as needed. Only code those paragraphs that directly reference adaptation and/or indigenous peoples. Review of coding in the Convention and Kyoto Protocol texts, and code through all adaptation work stream decisions. Give particular attention to language, identities, themes, trends, and topics. Journaling Keep track of general impressions and thoughts on the texts (reflexive exercise), and keep notes on coding strategy development. Keep track of general impressions and thoughts on the texts (reflexive exercise), and keep notes on coding strategy development. In a second research journal, take detailed notes on the relevant elements in decision texts with regards to the thesis aims and objectives. 36 3.5.4. POSITIONALITY I am a French Canadian female researcher interested in indigenous issues, particularly in terms of rights and social justice, and sensitive to indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge in general. I am based in a research team that works closely with indigenous peoples and communities in the Canadian Arctic, the Peruvian Amazon, and remote areas of Uganda. In the context of this work with the Climate Change Adaptation Research Group at McGill, I have also had the opportunity to attend three CP meetings as a non-governmental research-based observer; CP.16, CP.17, and CP.18. At these CP events, I have attended a number of negotiation and plenary sessions, side-events, exhibits and press-release events, and met and discussed with members of indigenous peoples’ organizations and observers from developing countries about their experiences and thoughts on the process. I have also had the opportunity to visit one of the Indigenous Health Adaptation to Climate Change project communities in Mukongoro, Uganda, a Batwa settlement during the summer of 2013. I am empathetic towards indigenous peoples from all countries, at all levels of development, and I am sensitive to the effects of colonial legacies. My desire to focus on the adaptation discourse in the UNFCCC and its implications for indigenous peoples at all levels stems for the most part from my personal values, interests, and experiences as a researcher, as well as my disciplinary background as a geographer. Though I am conscious that climate change adaptation is rigidly framed as a developing country issue in the UNFCCC based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, as will be explained in Chapter 4 and 5; I am also critical of the silencing effects of the discourse for indigenous peoples inhabiting developed nations, who in some cases are just as marginalized, impoverished, and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change as some of the least developed countries (Ford et al. 2010). I do not want to diminish the experience and 37 justifications for adaptation support for developing countries and seem insensitive towards the established structure of the discourse, given that it was negotiated through over 40 years of international diplomatic efforts. However, I do seek to bring attention to the inconsistencies in the discourse with the goal of creating a space for the formal consideration of the adaptation needs of indigenous peoples who are highly vulnerable to climate change in tandem to those from the most vulnerable countries from the developing world. I understand that attempting to redefine what it means to be ‘particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change’, assigning responsibility, and deciding on the appropriate response at all levels of governance is, in and of itself, a political challenge that involves value judgements (Klein 2009). 38 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the textual analysis of the CP and CMP decisions listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, ties them back to the context of the literature review, and addresses the first sub-question that this study seeks to answer by characterizing what constitutes the discourse on climate change adaptation, as embedded in the official decisions rendered by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. The first section of this chapter then provides some context with regards to the kind of language used here to review the results of this study, while the remainder of the chapter considers those results. 4.1. GAME THEORY AND THE GAME ANALOGY Before exploring the results of this study however, it is necessary to provide some context with regards to the kind of language used here to discuss state behaviour within the bounds of the UNFCCC CP. In the study of state behaviour in the international system in the political sciences, game analogies are often used to explain (or predict) how and why states interact the way they do, given often competing sovereign interests and the absence of a centralized world authority. Game theorists understand states as rational actors that make calculated decisions based on a variety of interests both domestic and international, where different perceived payoff structures are assumed to foster different behaviours. In iterated games (interactions), as opposed to single-play games for instance, players (states) with similar and competing interest alike are more likely to cooperate in the present if they believe it might increase the odds for pay-offs in the future. In theory, international regimes and institutions are said to help make this possible, particularly in games that have a significant number of players, 39 by establishing rules, procedures, and mechanisms facilitating cooperative iterative interaction (Oye 1985). Although the consideration of perceived pay-off structures created by state interactions in UNFCCC negotiations and their effects lie outside of the scope of this thesis (for an example of game theory applied to UNFCCC CP negotiations, see Smead et al. 2014), some of the terminology used by game theorists is used here to help frame the results in a way that reflects the reality that national delegations face when participating in these intergovernmental endeavours. Hence-forth the term players will refer to the Parties to the Convention, and the game will refer to the institutionalised cooperative process to address climate change adaptation established through UNFCCC CP and CMP decisions. 4.2. THE OFFICIAL ADAPTATION DISCOURSE IN UNFCCC CP DECISIONS, 1992-2012 4.2.1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISCOURSE Guiding principles of the Convention The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and all subsequent decisions, protocols and agreements rendered by the CP are built around, and operate according to both implicit and explicit guiding principles that set the rules of the playing field in which state representatives can then interact in an attempt to respond to, and address the causes and impacts of climate change. Some of these principles are explicitly identified as such in Article 3 of the Convention, while others are referred to either directly and/or indirectly throughout the text without being explicitly identified as such. These principles are the result of the long process of intergovernmental negotiation that lead to the emergence of the international climate change regime and the birth of the UNFCCC, as detailed in Chapter 2. Accordingly, this section 40 identifies these principles, examines how they contribute to shaping the rules of the game, and ties them back to the emergence of global environmental regimes. Article 3 of the Convention identifies five overarching principles that are the basis of all action to address climate change through the Convention. These five principles are consistently cited and reiterated throughout all decisions, agreements and protocols considered in this study, framing the boundaries of the game. In the first principle, Parties are encouraged to “protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (p.4). In the second principle, Parties are urged to give full consideration to the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties […] that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and […] that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the Convention” (p.4). Both these principles speak to the commonly shared notion that developed countries are responsible for the majority for historic and current emissions, while also having the financial and institutional capacity to address climate change and its adverse effects given their level of socio-economic development. Correspondingly, developing nations are seen as having little to no responsibility for historic and current emissions and lack the capacity to address climate change or adapt to its negative effects given their lower levels of development and higher rates of poverty. This particular framing tends to portray developing countries as victims, and places blame on developed country Parties. In this case then, based on the principle of equity, developed nations are expected to take the lead in halting greenhouse gas emissions and give particular attention to the needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, or that would experience an unfair burden under the Convention. Developed 41 country Parties are expected to assist these Parties, whether financially or in kind through mechanisms of the Convention, in implementing their commitments under the Convention, in responding to the negative socio-economic impact of response measures, adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and take advantage of the opportunities. Principles 1 and 2 of the Convention then, can be seen as a variation of three principles that are at the basis of contemporary global environmental governance; the principle of intergenerational equity, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities between developed and developing countries, and the polluter pays principle, as discussed in Chapter 2. In the third principle listed in Article 3 of the Convention, Parties are urged to use the precautionary principle and not let the potential lack of scientific certainty be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent, anticipate or minimize the adverse effects of climate change and address the causes, particularly “[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage” (p.4). It is then proposed that these efforts should follow a comprehensive process and may involve cooperative efforts by interested Parties. The fourth principle states that all Parties have a right to, and should promote sustainable economic development, as this is assumed to be “essential for adopting measures to address climate change” (p.5) by increasing the financial and institutional capacity of nations, enabling them to better implement their commitments under the Convention. In such a context, also recalling the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities, it is implied that developing country Parties’ share of global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow in order to allow them to meet their socio-economic development needs. This idea is consistently reiterated throughout subsequent decisions by the Conference of the Parties, where, for instance, “economic and social 42 development and poverty eradication are [understood as being] the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties” (Decision 5, CP.7, 2001, preamble). The fifth principle continues to build on these assumptions, and encourages Parties to “cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties” (p.5) allowing them to build or improve their capacity to address climate change. Parties are also reminded here, that all measures taken to address climate change, whether multilateral or unilateral in nature, should not unfairly or arbitrarily penalize states’ participation in, or create restrictions on international trade. Though the purpose of the Convention is to foster effective action between states with the goal of preventing dangerous interference with the climate system, the wording in the third, fourth and fifth principles of the Convention has effects of truth. These principles markedly prioritize sustained economic growth and development, and the eradication of poverty as having precedence over climate actions. The prioritizing of economic development and poverty eradication has been documented as stemming from the strong negotiating stance that developing countries took at the 1992 Rio Conference, in an attempt to protect their right to development from what they perceived as a new wave of colonialism (Porras 1992, Xiang & Meehan 2005). Although not explicitly listed in Article 3, but crucial to the operation of the UNFCCC nonetheless, is the principle of sovereign equality of states, embodied here though consensus decision-making, and also implying the right to self-determination, and the no significant harm principle. As is mentioned in the preamble to the Convention, in accordance with the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, states have the sovereign right to selfdetermination. This not only implies that nations have the right to exploit their resources 43 pursuant to self-determined national policies, but that they also have the responsibility to “ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of [their] national jurisdiction” (p.2). Consensus decision-making in the Conference of the Parties firmly establishes the principle of sovereign equality of states, and the suggestive rather than prescriptive language used in Article 3 (see words that are italicized in the previous paragraphs of this section) reinforces the effects of truth relating to states’ right to self-determination. These overarching yet implicit norms about state sovereignty and international treaties are also expressed indirectly throughout the Convention text, as well as in the subsequent decisions, agreements and protocols from CPs and CMPs considered in this study, through the persistent use of the terms country-driven and nationally appropriate to characterize Parties’ commitments and contributions. It is noteworthy here to mention that the code TC7 – country-driven / state-centric was the code most used, of all the codes established in the textual analysis; a total of 61 times (for a list of the main codes developed in this study and the frequency at which they were used, see Appendix 2). In short, the language used to establish both the implicit and explicit principles that guide the Convention reviewed in this section reaffirms overarching principles related to sovereignty that prevail in today’s international world order. Furthermore, the explicit content of Article 3 entrenches differentiated roles, priorities and pathways for addressing climate change between developing and developed Parties, and sets the rules of the game within which countries must operate. Together, these principles frame what Parties to the Convention have collectively accepted should constitute appropriate responses to climate change at the global scale through this institution. 44 Convention objectives and the shifting role of adaptation The role of adaptation in the Convention has greatly evolved since the UNFCCC was first envisioned and ratified in the early 1990s. Indeed, the content of Article 2 indicates that adaptation was not initially conceptualised by the Conference of the Parties as a key component to a balanced approach to addressing climate change as it is today. At the time, the ultimate objective of the Convention, as stated in Article 2, was solely to stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system” (p.4). The idea was to achieve this in a sufficient time frame to enable environments to adapt naturally. Climate policy analysts have documented this tendency to marginalize the focus on adaptation policies in favour of mitigation in the early years of the global climate regime (Schipper 2006, Pielke et al. 2007, Gupta 2010, Khan & Timmons Roberts 2013). Given the available knowledge on climate change at the time, and in the context of global efforts to prevent climate change, adaptation was viewed as a ‘defeatist’ approach that insinuated that mitigation would fail, or that only served the interests of countries that were unwilling to cut emissions. Discussion of adaptation was also said to be avoided by developed country Parties, who saw it as an implicit acceptance of their responsibility for causing climate change. Discussion of adaptation policies were thus avoided during these early years (Schipper 2006, Khan & Timmons Roberts 2013). Overall, the idea was that if mitigation measures were properly implemented, in an efficient and timely manner so as to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system, there would be little to no adverse effects for ecosystems, and so there was little to no incentive, or interest in establishing formal adaptation measures through the Convention (Schipper 2006). Accordingly, references to adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change in the Convention text are minimal, general in scope, are quite sparse in the text in general. For 45 instance, the word adaptation and variation (adapt*) only come up 6 times in the 25 pages of the Convention text, whereas references to mitigation through reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are implied throughout. In the few paragraphs that do touch upon adaptation, in Article 4 for instance, which lists the commitments of the Parties under the Convention, two important themes arise: (1) capacitybuilding to facilitate adaptation through assessments, strategies and planning, and knowledge creation and dissemination, and (2) finance to assist developing countries that are particularly vulnerable meet the costs of adaptation. As will be shown later in this Chapter, these themes become the basis of all future action on, and funding for adaptation in the Convention. The first theme is referred to in Article 4, paragraphs 1(b), and 1(e). Paragraph 1(b) invites all Parties to regularly update and disseminate national and regional programs detailing mitigation efforts, as well as “measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change” (p.5), while paragraph 1(e) invites Parties to “[c]ooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change” (p.5), by developing integrated plans for natural resource and ecosystems management, and protection and rehabilitation of areas sensitive to drought, desertification, and floods. This first theme of facilitation, or capacity-building would begin to be realized almost a decade later, through the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LDC EG), the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (Nairobi WP), and NAPAs. The second theme originates in paragraph 4 of the same Article, which calls upon developed nations to assist “developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting the costs of adaptation to those adverse effects” (p.8). Though this commitment is accepted into the Convention 1992, funds for adaptation were only first established in 1997 and 46 ratified in 1998 through the Kyoto Protocol, at CP7 in 2001 in Marrakesh, and CP16 in Cancun in 2010. Continuing on the themes of facilitation and finance of potential adaptations to the adverse effects of climate change, and in correspondence with principles 1 and 2 of the Convention, Article 4, paragraph 8 and 9 then identifies those developing countries that are seen as most deserving of having their specific needs and concerns about the adverse effects of climate change, and/or of mitigation measures addressed through funding, insurance and technology transfers, and singles out least developed countries (LDCs) as the most likely benefactors of funding and technology transfers regarding all aspects of the Convention. Together, these elements have an effect of truth, and frame adaptation as a developing country or development issue. And, as will be argued throughout this chapter, Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 becomes one of the key components to guide focus of the adaptation discourse at subsequent CPs and CMPs, and makes some actions possible but not others. In line with the principle of no significant harm, and principles 1 and 2 of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol (KP) continued to characterise Parties’ commitments and embed norms about in assigning responsibility and identifying those who should be seen as being vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and deserving of special consideration. The Kyoto Protocol explicitly requests developed country Parties to implement policies, measures, and commitments under the Protocol in such a way as to minimize the adverse effects of climate change and response measures on other Parties, especially developing countries and in particular those identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Convention (see KP Article 2, paragraph 3; and KP Article 3, paragraph 14). This framing has effect of truth; it assigns blame and 47 responsibility to developed country Parties, and victimized developing country Parties, particularly those listed in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Convention. As noted earlier in this section, the first hint of a formal mechanism that would eventually lead to funding for adaptation through the Convention was established through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). As Article 12, paragraph 8 points out, a portion of the proceeds from certified project activities would eventually be made available to assist “developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation” (p.12). The Adaptation Fund, created at the conference in Marrakesh in 2001 to funnel funds from certified projects from the CDM so as to finance concrete adaptation programmes and projects in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, would only become operational nearly a decade later (Biagini et al. 2014, Sherman & Ford 2014). It is noteworthy here that it has been argued by climate policy analysts this slow pace of the establishment and operationalization of funds in the UNFCCC reflects the small sense of urgency that was felt towards adaptation measures in comparison to mitigation in general at that time (Schipper 2006, Gupta 2010). In the years following the 1998 ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the Conference of the Parties continued to build bodies and financial mechanisms that would allow for developed country Parties that were in a position to do so to commit to assisting developing countries identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Convention adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. Although mitigation remained as the ultimate objective of the Convention, the discursive space given to adaptation seemed to be growing slowly, but surely. As will be examined in greater detail in the following section of this chapter, formal funding and capacitybuilding arrangement for adaptation began to appear in decisions made under the Convention 48 from 2001 onwards. Of course, all of these decisions focus on establishing the rules, processes and priorities to facilitate the provision of financial and technical assistance by developed country Parties to developing country Parties, and more particularly LDC Parties. Some climate policy analysts have tied this framing of adaptation as a developing country issue in the UNFCCC to the framing of adaptation in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (AR3), that views vulnerability to climate change and the need for adaptation as stemming primarily from low levels of development and poverty (Huq & Toulmin 2006, Ayers & Huq 2009, Ayers et al. 2010). Accordingly, most decisions relating to adaptation from the Marrakesh CP onwards focus on developed country obligations to assist in assessing the urgent and immediate adaptation needs and priorities of developing country Parties, while also seeking to increase the general understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in all Parties. At CP.11 in 2005 in Montreal, the understanding of the role of adaptation in the Convention began to change once more. First there was a growing understanding among the Parties that significant changes were going to happen to the global climate system, and that “adaptation to climate change and its adverse effects [should be] of high priority for all countries” (Decision 2, CP.11, 2005, preamble), reiterating the heightened vulnerability of LDCs and Small Island Developing States (SIDSs). In 2007, at CP.13 in Bali, the patterns in choice of wording began to change in the text of the decisions made under the Convention, in line with new scientific developments. Indeed, throughout the decision texts from Bali, the words mitigation and adaptation begin being used together and are inserted more generically throughout the text in nearly all decision. This general shift in discursive structure, moving from referring to adaptation only sporadically in comparison to mitigation, to tagging the term mitigation and adaptation at the end of nearly every paragraph in Decision 1, CP.13/2007, 49 known as the Bali Action Plan, can be linked to the then recent publication the Fourth Assessment report of the IPCC (AR4). For instance, climate policy analysts have noted parallels between the content and structure of IPCC Assessment reports, and discursive frames in the UNFCCC (Huq & Toulmin 2006, Ayers et al. 2010, Gupta 2010). The IPCC’s AR4 affirmed increasing scientific certainty about the current and potential future impacts of climate change and the growing understanding that some degree of future change was now becoming unavoidable (Pielke et al. 2007, Dovers 2009, Parry et al. 2009). Adaptation was increasingly being framed in the IPCC and the UNFCCC as a necessity for all nations, and particularly for developing countries (Huq & Toulmin 2006, Ayers et al. 2010). CP.13 was also the point in time that marked the beginning of a gradual shifting away from solely focusing on short term adaptation priorities in the UNFCCC, to embracing an approach that also included medium- to long-term needs and goals. This shift is formalized and exemplified through the “shared vision for long-term cooperative action under the Convention”, a term first coined in the Bali Road Map, and later reiterated throughout the Cancun Agreements, and Durban Outcomes. The next important shift in wording occurred in 2010 at CP.16, which was a pivotal moment in the growing role of adaptation in the Convention. Indeed, it was the first time in UNFCCC history that it was explicitly stated in the context of Convention objectives for all Parties, that “[a]daptation must be addressed with the same priority as mitigation” (Paragraph 2(b), Decision 1, CP.16, 2010). In comparison to the wording used at CP.11 in Montreal, or CP.13 in Bali discussed in the previous paragraphs for instance, the wording used in the Cancun decisions is significant in that this was the first time that adaptation was explicitly and formally placed on an equal footing with mitigation, reflecting the formally growing importance of adaptation as a general objective of the Convention. A number of additional developments from 50 CP.16 also exemplify this trend. For example, the Adaptation Committee (AC) was created at Cancun with the goal of providing technical support and guidance to all Parties to the Convention, with a view of facilitating implementation of nationally appropriate adaptation measures, and formalizing the increased role of adaptation in the Conventions. The establishment of the AC embodies this shift in understanding in the role that adaptation should take in the global governance of climate change, as it is the first body of its kind to not focus specifically on the plight of developing county Parties in particular, but to focus on providing technical support for capacity-building for all Parties of the Convention. As noteworthy as this discursive development is, however, principles 1 & 2 of the Convention remain strongly entrenched in the UNFCCC. And though the creation of the Adaptation Committee is a step in the right direction, the focus of all other work streams related to adaptation remains tied to developing country needs and interests, and the wording used in decisions relating to adaptation funding imply that the only possible benefactors of will always be developing country Parties. In other words, though the scope of responses for the facilitation of adaptation had expanded from focusing primarily on developing countries to include all countries, adaptation assistance remained firmly geared towards developing countries. Indeed, at this point in time, the shift to include mediumand long-term priorities for adaptation was, further concretized through the establishment of the Work Programme on Loss and Damage (see Decision 1, paragraphs 25 and 26/CP.16, and Decision 7/CP.17) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) (see Decision 5/CP.17), two programs effectively constituted with the goal of assisting developing country Parties. Figure 4.1 illustrates some of these key shifts on adaptation framing in the CP and CMP decisions examined in this study over time. 51 Figure 4.1. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions timeline, and Convention objectives Adaptation discourse, constructed identities, and their perceived ethical responsibilities Though the role of adaptation has significantly changed over the last 20 years of UNFCCC history, the principles that guide action in all aspects of the Convention have largely remained intact. Indeed, though the focus of the game may be changing, the rules that dictate how the game is played are strongly entrenched in the UN bureaucratic cultures that brought about the current international climate change regime, as the data of the textual analysis and the literature review in this study indicate. The UNFCCC, like all international treaties, creates groups to classify its signatory Parties according to responsibilities and obligations, in this case primarily opposing developing and developed nations, where the latter is expected to provide assistance to the former. These groups, or identities, are for the most part formalized in Article 4 of the Convention. Specific responsibilities, obligations, and commitments for respective groups, and expected transactions between the two can then be negotiated within the bounds of what these identities, and what the principles that guide them allow for. 52 The figure below then, displays these identities as constituted by the UNFCCC in the context of adaptation. This figure displays the spatial, temporal and ethical elements that constitute these identities, as per the identity-policy analytical model based on Hansen (2006), and discussed in the study design chapter of this thesis. It is important to reiterate here that there is no institutionalized hierarchy between the Parties to the Convention in the UNFCCC, given that the institution abides by the principle of sovereign equality of all its member state. However, it does impose differing obligations to the distinct groups based on principles 1 & 2 of the Convention (Article 3). It should also be noted here that this figure illustrates only those identities that the embedded discourse in CP and CMP decisions constitutes as its referent subjects: the Parties to the Convention, or nation-states. This means that even though non-state actors such as indigenous peoples and organizations do participate in CP and CMP events, given that they are not are not categorized by the discourse as referents, non-state constituents are not considered here. Their absence from the discourse should be seen here has silencing effect, which will be discussed later in this chapter. 53 Figure 4.2. Referent identities constituted by the discourse on adaptation in CP decisions 54 As the top level of Figure 4.2 above demonstrates, there is a clear dichotomy between the Parties to the UNFCCC, as is the case with most institutions in international environmental regimes, splitting Parties into two distinct groups, namely developed and developing nations, formally identified in this case as Annex I and non-Annex I Parties respectively, though no hierarchy exists between them. As mentioned in the literature review of this study, such differentiated roles and responsibilities dichotomized between developed and developing counties is common practice in the Rio Conventions, and typical of contemporary global environmental governance agreements. As specified above, developed country Parties are known to be largely responsible for anthropogenically induced climate change given their major contribution greenhouse gas emissions, owing to the timing of their industrial revolutions, the kinds of technologies developed and used over centuries, and the high intensity of their emissions today (high per/capita emissions). The discursive structure also assumes here that Annex I Parties, who are socio-economically well-off because of their long history of industrial development, have both the financial and institutional capacities to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change on their own. Developing countries on the other hand, have contributed to a much lesser extent to historical emissions, and still contribute relatively little to current emissions (relatively low per/capita emissions in comparison to Annex I Parties). Because of their lower levels of socio-economic development it is also assumed that non-Annex I Parties have lower adaptive capacities, where they are understood to lack the appropriate financial resources, institutional infrastructure, and scientific knowledge to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change on their own. In this context, the discourse holds Annex I Parties are responsible and are thus expected to provide financial and technical support for adaptation to non-Annex I Parties. The discourse also tends to victimize Non-Annex I Parties, and frames them as deserving 55 of, or necessitating outside intervention to obtain the financial and technical support that they need in order to be able to help themselves. As can be seen in the lower level of identities of Figure 4.2., both Annex I and nonAnnex I Parties are further divided into subgroups, and organized by the varying degrees of responsibilities and obligations ascribed to them. First, Annex I Parties are subdivided into two groups: Annex II Parties, and Economies in Transition. The former is composed of all the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), while the latter consists of former Soviet nations. OECD countries are assumed to have stronger economies and so seen as being in a better position to assist non-Annex one parties in meeting the costs of adaptation. For that matter, Annex II Parties are generally urged to contribute to UNFCCC funds created to assist non-Annex I Parties adapt to climate change (among other things), whereas EITs are usually invited to contribute if capable. Non-Annex I Parties on the other hand, are subdivided into three distinct groups: least developed country Parties, developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and the remaining developing country Parties not included in the first two groups. As a key component of the adaptation discourse, Article 4, paragraph 8 and 9 is central to the classification of non-Annex I Parties and assignment of their respective duties under the Convention. First, LDC Parties, referred to in Article 4, paragraph 9 (those 49 countries with the lowest Human Development Indexes), are seen as having the lowest adaptive capacity given their low levels of socio-economic development and so are viewed as being the most deserving of assistance from Annex I Parties. LDCs are also required to submit to capacitybuilding exercises and processes developed throughout the years by the Conference of the Parties, and are offered additional financial support to help them commit to these capacity- 56 building processes. Second, the group of developing country Parties that are coined particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change is somewhat permeable in comparison to the LDC group. Although the title usually refers to those countries that correspond with Article 4, paragraph 8 and 9 of the Convention (detailed in Figure 4.3 below), the term refers more explicitly to LDCs, SIDSs and Africa in a number of specific instances (see for instance Decisions 1, paragraph 1(c), CP.13/2007). As Klein (2009) suggests, the abstract concept of ‘countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change’ is a highly politicized concept that leaves open to interpretation the identification of which countries this explicitly refers to. 8. In the implementation of the commitments in this Article, the Parties shall give full consideration to what actions are necessary under the Convention, including actions related to funding, insurance and the transfer of technology, to meet the specific needs and concerns of developing country Parties arising from the adverse effects of climate change and/or the impact of implementation of response measures, especially on: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Small island countries; Countries with low-lying coastal areas; Countries with arid and semi-arid areas, forested areas and areas liable to forest decay; Countries with areas prone to natural disasters; Countries with areas liable to drought and desertification; Countries with areas of high urban atmospheric pollution; Countries with areas with fragile ecosystems, including mountainous ecosystems; Countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or consumption of fossil fuels and associated energy-intensive products; and (i) Landlocked and transit countries Further, the Conference of the Parties may take actions, as appropriate, with respect to this paragraph. 9. The Parties shall take full account of the specific needs and special situations of the least developed countries in their actions with regard to funding and transfer of technology. Figure 4.3. Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Convention 57 It is interesting to note here that among those countries that are included in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, there is a high degree of variation in levels of socio-economic development, and ensuing varying degrees of adaptation needs and adaptive capacity. The common thread between these countries lies in their heightened sensitivity to climate change, though no ranking between them exists. Finally, the last Party group identity formulated in the decisions considered in this study are the remaining developing country Parties not included in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Convention. This smaller group of ‘other developing country Parties’ are seen as less vulnerable that the other two groups of developing country Parties (although they are still defined as vulnerable in comparison to Annex-I Parties), and so are often invited to participate in the facilitation process that is required for LDC Parties and non-Annex I Parties that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and can qualify for some but not all adaptation funding. Adaptation work streams Having now reviewed the principles that guide action through the Convention, it’s slowly shifting objectives and the identities and respective responsibilities it constitutes for its signatory Parties, it becomes possible to discuss the discursive trends found in the adaptation work stream decisions. The list of these decisions is provided in Table 3.2. These 31 decisions, some relevant to multiple work streams, are seen here as forming basis of the official discourse on climate change adaptation in CP decisions. This affirmation is made here based on the following logic; these decisions are specifically named by the UNFCCC Secretariat on its website as being the 58 relevant decisions for each of these work streams. They will be examined here chronologically and thematically to demonstrate the apparent trends found in the adaptation discourse. The adaptation discourse timeline displayed in Figure 4.4 will be used throughout the remaining sections of this chapter to help visually demonstrate how the findings of the textual analysis overlap. The figure uses the Convention objectives timeline from Figure 4.1 and expands it to include specific details on the Adaptation work streams and the adaptation discourse that they perpetuate. In its simplified version here, relevant discursive elements will be laid over top it to help reveal how the discourse evolved over time, uncover what trends are apparent, and help explain what it might means for indigenous peoples. As mentioned in the section on Convention objectives and the shifting role of adaptation in addressing climate change, there have been two major trends in terms of the scope of adaptation priorities in CP decisions over time. Initially, the focus of adaptation activities through the Convention was oriented towards identifying and addressing urgent and immediate priorities, especially in developing country Parties. But in the mid-2000s, as the components of this short-term strategy had made considerable progress, a parallel focus on medium- to longterm adaptation priorities began to take shape, building upon the institutional capacities developed for the former. Table 4.1 below organized the six adaptation work streams according to these two themes and summarizes their respective mandates. 59 LDCF SCCF AF GCF Figure 4.4. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions, and adaptation work streams 60 Table 4.1. Adaptation work streams by scope and focus of activities Focuses primarily on urgent and immediate adaptation needs and priorities NAPAs National reports communicating priority activities addressing urgent and immediate needs and concerns of the LDCs relating to the adverse effects of climate change. (Annex to Decision 28, CP.7, paragraph 1) Shifting focus to include medium- and longterm adaptation needs and priorities Adaptation Committee Advisory body established to provide technical support, guidance, information and recommendations to the Conference of the Parties so as to promote the implementation of enhanced action on adaptation in a coherent manner. (Decision2, CP.17, Paragraphs 92 and 93) LDC Expert Group* NAPs Advisory body for LDCs on the preparation National reports, building on the NAPAs and implementation strategy for NAPAs. experience, identifying medium- and long-term (Annex to Decision 29, CP.7, paragraph 1) adaptation needs of LDCs (and interested developing country Parties) and developing strategies and programmes to address those needs. (Annex to Decision 5, CP.17) Nairobi Work Programme Work Programme on loss and damage Advisory body for developing country Parties Advisory body to the Conference of the Parties in particular, including LDCs and SIDSs, established to consider potential approaches to aiming to improve understanding and loss and damage associated with climate assessment of impacts, vulnerability and change in developing countries that are adaptation, in the goal of assisting Parties to particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects, make informed decision on practical adaptation including impacts related to extreme weather actions and measures in response to climate events and slow onset events. change. (Decision 7, CP.17) (Annex to Decision 2, CP.11, paragraph 1) *The mandate of the LDC Expert Group was extended in Decision 6, CP.16, paragraph 2(b) to also assist LDCs in identifying medium- to long-term adaptation needs and concerns, but was initially created with its sole focus being urgent and immediate needs of LDCs The work streams developed in this first era of the adaptation discourse, understood here are those work streams established though CP decisions that take place before CP.13 in Bali focusing solely on urgent and immediate adaptation priorities, include the LDC Work Programme (NAPAs and LDC EG) and the Nairobi Work Programme. The LDC WP facilitates adaptation planning and capacity-building through the NAPAs exercise supported by the LDC 61 EG, but also provides financial assistance through the LDC Fund (LDCF), established to support the implementation work programme. Three funds were created at CP.7 in Marrakesh in the context of urgent and immediate adaptation priorities. The LDCF mentioned in the previous paragraph, the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the Adaptation Fund (AF), and at CP.16 in Cancun the Green Climate Fund (GCF). Although the GCF was created much later than the other three fund, its focus for the allocation of funds towards adaptation is primarily targeted towards the “urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including LDCs, SIDS and African States” (paragraph 52, Annex to Decision 3, CP.17/2011, p.64), and so should be included here. All four funds, their mandates and the source of their funds are detailed in Table 5.4 below. It is also noteworthy to mention here that in the SCCF adaptation activities to address the adverse impacts of climate change have top priority for funding, as do technology transfers and its associated capacity-building activities (paragraph 1(c) and (d), Decision 5, CP.9/2003, p.11). This prioritizing of adaptation funding in the SCCF, a fund that also contributed to funding for mitigation-related actions, has effects of truth; where the approach contributed to reinforcing assumptions about vulnerabilities and ‘helplessness’ of developing country Parties. Table 4.2. Adaptation-related funds under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol Inception Decision 5, CP.7/ 2001 Fund Name Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) Mandate Focus To support the LDC work Adaptation programme. This includes the preparation and implementation of NAPAs, and the operation of the LDC Expert Group, among other things. Funding Source Voluntary contributions from Annex II Parties, and other Parties included in Annex I that are in a position to do so 62 Decision 7, CP.7/2001 Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) Decision 10, CP.7/2001 Adaptation Fund (AF) Decision 1, CP.16/2010 Green Climate Fund (GCF) To finance activities, programmes and measures relating to climate change in non-Annex I Parties in the following areas: (a) Adaptation, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Decision 5, CP.7* (b) Transfer of technologies (c) Energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management (d) Activities to assist Parties referred to in Article 4, paragraph 8(h)**, in diversifying their economies To finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes (including the activities listed in paragraph 8 of Decision 5, CP.7*) in developing country Parties that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol Mitigation AND Adaptation Voluntary contributions from Annex II Parties, and other Parties included in Annex I that are in a position to do so Adaptation Proceeds from the Clean Development Mechanism, and voluntary donations from Annex I Parties that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol Voluntary contributions from Annex II Parties, and other Parties included in Annex I that are in a position to do so To provide scaled-up, new Mitigation and additional, predictable AND and adequate funding to Adaptation developing country Parties, with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including LDCs, SIDSs, and Africa. * See Figure 4.5. for decision text / ** See Figure 4.3. for decision text 63 8. Decides that the implementation of the following activities shall be supported through the special climate change fund (in accordance with Decision 7, CP.7) and/or the adaptation fund (in accordance with Decision 10, CP.7), and other bilateral and multilateral sources: (a) Starting to implement adaptation activities promptly where sufficient information is available to warrant such activities, inter alia, in the areas of water resources management, land management, agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems, including mountainous ecosystems, and integrated coastal zone management; (b) Improving the monitoring of diseases and vectors affected by climate change, and related forecasting and early-warning systems, and in this context improving disease control and prevention; (c) Supporting capacity building, including institutional capacity, for preventive measures, planning, preparedness and management of disasters relating to climate change, including contingency planning, in particular, for droughts and floods in areas prone to extreme weather events; (d) Strengthening existing and, where needed, establishing national and regional centres and information networks for rapid response to extreme weather events, utilizing information technology as much as possible; Figure 4.5. Decision 5,paragraph 8, CP.7/2001 As mentioned in the previous sections of this chapter, a shift occurred in the framing of the adaptation discourse at CP.13; the shift of focus to include medium- to long-term adaptation priorities along-side urgent and immediate priorities, explicitly typified in the Bali Action Plan in the shared vision for long-term cooperative action. Three work streams were added to the UNFCCC’s adaptation work stream inventory: the AC, NAPs, and the Work Programme on Loss and Damage (L&D). The AC, the first UNFCCC body to explicitly focus on providing support for the facilitation of adaptation in all Parties, was established in Bali, under the Ad Hoc 64 Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AH-WG-LTCA) also created in Bali. NAPs and L&D were later established at CP.16 in Cancun. 4.2.2. DISCLAIMERS Before discussing the implications of the official discourse for indigenous peoples at various scales in the next chapter of this thesis, it is noteworthy to mention that there exist a small number of “legal disclaimers” have been identified in three decisions that are of relevance to the adaptation discourse. Two of these disclaimers are related to specific LDC-focused entities/endeavours, while the third is related to an agreement in its entirety. All three disclaimers will be examined here and situated within the specifics of the discourse. These disclaimers are explained below, and superimposed over the adaptation discourse timeline in Figure 4.6. The first two disclaimers are found in Decisions 29, CP.7 and Decision 3, CP.11 respectively, and are both directly tied to the LDC Work Programme. The first disclaimer appears in the decisions that established the LDC Expert Group, rendered at the 7th Conference of the Parties in Marrakesh in 2001, and states that “taking into account the unique circumstances of the least developed countries, the establishment of the group does not set a precedent for the establishment of similar groups for other categories of countries” (Decision 29/CP.7, paragraph 2, p.14). A similar disclaimer surfaces not in the decision that established the LDC Fund, but some years later in a decision providing further guidance on the operation of the Fund. Indeed, the disclaimer in Decision 3, adopted at the 11th Conference of the Parties in Montreal in 2005, states that “given the unique circumstances of the Least Developed Countries Fund, the operation of the fund shall not set a precedent for other funding arrangements under the Convention” (paragraph 7, p.10). 65 Figure 4.6. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions, and legal disclaimers 66 Both these disclaimers are inadvertently tied to the underlying assumptions of the Convention, particularly with regards to Article 3, principles 1 and 2. These disclaimers reinforce and further embed the roles and responsibilities of the Parties to the Convention, and limits the possibilities for use of the argument being made for the support provided to LDCs as a precedent for other vulnerable groups in similar contexts as LDCs, and insures the concentrated focus of adaptation support to remain as the status quo. It can be assumed here that the insertion of these disclaimers in Convention decisions stems from the strong positions taken by LDCs and SIDS in CP negotiations in early 2000s with regards to adaptation funding that has been cited in the literature as being a driving force in Convention negotiations on adaptation (Ayers & Huq 2009) that have their roots in developing country negotiation stances at the 1992 Rio Conference (Porras 1992). The third disclaimer is a little less focused on specific bodies that operate within the bounds of the Convention, and relates to the Cancun Agreements adopted in 2010. This particular declaimer can be found in the preamble to the Cancun Agreement, and applies to the agreement in its entirety. The disclaimer states that “[s]eeking to secure progress in a balanced manner, with the understanding that, through this decision, not all aspects of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention are concluded, and that nothing in this decision shall prejudge prospects for, or the content of, a legally binding outcome in the future” (Decision 1/CP.16, preamble, p. 2). This last disclaimer may be somewhat less significant than the first two examined in this section given that it does not explicitly limit the use of the content of the decision in question as a precedent for other similar arrangements under the Convention, but rather reiterates the soft law status of the decision. 67 4.2.3. REFERENCES TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, PRACTICES AND KNOWLEDGE Now that the main components of the official discourse on adaptation have been examined, it is possible to take a closer look at the evolving conceptualization of, and reference to traditional and/or indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge in the texts examined in this study, in order to examine the potential implications for indigenous peoples at different scales in the next chapter. Accordingly, this section examines these references in detail, and situates them within the larger themes and trends of the discourse on adaptation detailed in the previous section. These references, listed in Table 4.3, were identified and extracted from the text as they occurred through iterative rounds of reading and coding. They were not identified using key word searches so as to catch any variation in wording that could relate to indigenous peoples in one way or another that might otherwise be missed. For that matter, references to traditional peoples, practices and knowledge are considered as relevant, and so were also included here. Figure 4.7 below then, superimposes those references from Table 4.3 that are explicitly relevant to one of the six work streams considered in this study over the adaptation discourse timeline. A number of general trends can be observed here. First, prior to CP.11 in Montreal in 2005, there were no explicit references to indigenous knowledge in the decisions considered in this study, only the more general term of traditional knowledge was used occasionally. It is interesting to note here as well that at CP.11, decision 2 relevant to the mandate of the Nairobi WP, makes explicit reference to the significant changes occurring in the Arctic, identifies adaptation as a high priority for all countries and states the importance of local and indigenous knowledge for adaptation for the first time. 68 Table 4.3. References to traditional or indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge in the texts examined in this thesis Decision Work stream* Decision title Quote Focus Theme Annex, Decision 2, CP.7/2001 Framework for capacity building in developing countries All aspects of the Convention Facilitation Annex, Decision 28, CP.7/2001 Guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs Adaptation NAPAs Facilitation Decision 2, CP.11/2005 Five-year programme of work of the SB-STA on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change Adaptation Nairobi WP Facilitation Decision 2, CP.13/2007 Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action "11. Existing national institutions have an important role to play in supporting capacitybuilding activities in developing countries. Such centres can incorporate traditional skills, knowledge and practices, to provide appropriate services in developing countries and facilitate information sharing[...]" (p.9) "10. This section will also provide an overview of climate variability and observed and projected climate change and associated actual and potential adverse effects of cc. This overview will be based on existing and ongoing studies and research, and/or empirical and historical information as well as traditional knowledge" (p.11) "Recognizing and encouraging the activities relating to impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change undertaken by Parties and relevant international and regional organizations and institutions, and the importance of local and indigenous knowledge" (p.5) "Recognizing also that the needs of local and indigenous communities should be addressed when action is taken to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries" (p.8) Mitigation - Facilitation Decision 1, CP.16/2010 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome "Noting resolution 10/4 of the UNHRC on human rights and climate change, which All aspects of the - Facilitation 69 of the work of the AHWG-LTCA under the Convention recognizes that the adverse effects of climate change have a range of direct and indirect implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights and that the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely by those segments of the population that are already vulnerable owing to geography, gender, age, indigenous or minority status, or disability" (p.2) "7. Recognizes the need to engage a broad range of stakeholders at the global, regional, national and local levels, be they government, including subnational and local government, private business or civil society, including youth and persons with disability, and that gender equality and the effective participation of women and indigenous peoples are important for effective action on all aspects of climate change" (p.3-4) "12. Affirms that enhanced action on adaptation should be undertaken in accordance with the Convention, should follow a country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional and indigenous knowledge, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate" (p.4) "20. Decides to hereby establish an Adaptation Committee to promote the implementation of enhanced action on adaptation in a coherent Convention All aspects of the Convention Facilitation Adaptation Adaptation Committee, NAPs, Loss & Damage Facilitation Adaptation Adaptation Committee Facilitation 70 Appendix I, Decision 1, CP.16/2010 Guidance and safeguards for policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, manner under the Convention, inter alia, through the following functions: […] (b) Strengthening, consolidating and enhancing the sharing of relevant information, knowledge, experience and good practices, at the local, national, regional and international levels, taking into account, as appropriate, traditional knowledge and practices" (p.5-6) "72. Also requests developing country Parties, when developing and implementing their national strategies or action plans, to address, inter alia, the driver of deforestation and forest degradation, land tenure issues, forest governance issues, gender considerations and the safeguards identified in paragraph 2 of appendix I to this decision, ensuring the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, inter alia indigenous peoples and local communities" (p.13) "Taking note of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" (p.15) "2. (c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the UN GA has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples" (p.26) "2. (d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities, in the actions referred to in paragraphs 70 and 72 of this Mitigation (REDD) - Facilitation Mitigation (REDD) - Facilitation Mitigation (REDD) - Facilitation Mitigation (REDD) - Facilitation 71 Decision 2, CP.17/2011 sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries Outcome of the work of the AH-WG-LTCA under the Convention Annex, Decision 3, CP.17/2011 Launching of the Green Climate Fund Decision 5, CP.17/2011 National adaptation plans decision" (p.26) "93. Also affirms that the Adaptation Committee was established to promote the implementation of enhanced action on adaptation in a coherent manner under the Convention, as provided by the Cancun Adaptation Framework, inter alia through the following functions: [...] (b) Strengthening, consolidating and enhancing the sharing of relevant information, knowledge, experience and good practices, at the local, national, regional and international levels, taking into account, as appropriate, traditional knowledge and practices" (p.19) "71. The Board will develop mechanisms to promote the input and participation of stakeholders, including private-sector actors, civil society organizations, vulnerable groups, women and indigenous peoples, in the design, development and implementation of the strategies and activities to be financed by the Fund" (p.66) "3. Further agrees that enhanced action on adaptation should be undertaken in accordance with the Convention, should follow a countrydriven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional Adaptation Adaptation Committee Facilitation Mitigation AND Adaptation (GCF) - Assistance Adaptation NAPs Facilitation 72 Decision 6, CP.17/2011 Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change Decision 3, CP.18/2012 Approaches to address loss and damage associated with cc impacts in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of cc to enhance adaptive capacity Decision 15, Doha work programme and indigenous knowledge, and by gendersensitive approaches, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate" (p.80) "4. Also requests the secretariat to organize, in collaboration with Nairobi work programme partner organizations and other relevant organizations, the following workshops, informed by the information contained in annex I to the report of the SB-STA on its thirty-fourth session and subsequent views of Parties, and to include indigenous and traditional knowledge and practices for adaptation and gendersensitive tools and approaches as cross-cutting issues: (a) A technical workshop [...] on water and climate change impacts and adaptation strategies; (b) A technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change [...]" (p.3) "7. Acknowledges the further work to advance the understanding of and expertise pm loss and damage, which includes, inter alia, the following: (a) Enhancing the understanding of: […] (iii) How loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of cc affects those segments of the population that are already vulnerable owing to geography, gender, age, indigenous or minority status, or disability, and how the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage can benefit those segments of the population" (p.22-23) "Also reaffirming the importance of taking into Adaptation Nairobi WP Facilitation Adaptation Loss & Damage Facilitation Mitigation - Facilitation 73 CP.18/2012 on Article 6 of the Convention Annex, Decision 15, CP.18/2012 Doha work programme on Article 6 of the Convention account gender aspects and the need to promote the effective engagement of children, youth, the elderly, women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, local communities and nongovernmental organizations in activities related to Article 6 of the Convention" (p.17) "9. Implementation of Article 6 of the Convention has a broad range of stakeholders, including, governments, the private sector, IGOs, NGOs and other international organizations, decision makers, scientists, the media, teachers, the general public, youth, women, people with disabilities and indigenous peoples among others" (p.20) AND Adaptation (Education, training and public awareness) Mitigation AND Adaptation (Education, training and public awareness) - Facilitation *relevant adaptation work streams are only specified here if two conditions are met: (1) the quote is pulled from one (or more) of the adaptation work stream decisions listed in Table 4.2, and (2) the quote refers explicitly to one (or more) of the adaptation work streams Decisions that strictly focus on “urgent and immediate adaptation priorities” Decisions that were rendered after the UNFCCC began to gradually expand its scope by increasingly focusing on “medium- to long-term adaptation priorities” 74 Second, starting at CP.16 in Cancun, the frequency with which references to indigenous peoples, knowledge and practices are made increases significantly. For instance, prior to CP.16, only two explicit references to indigenous peoples or knowledge are made and only one in the context of adaptation. From CP.16 onward, a total of thirteen explicit references are made; four in the context of adaptation specifically and an additional three in the context of all aspects of the Convention. When compared to the frequency of reference of other groups however, the frequency in reference to indigenous peoples still seems relatively small overall. For instance, 13 explicit references to women and gender were found in the texts examined in this study in the context of UNHRC Resolution 10/4, whereas only four explicit references to indigenous peoples were found in the same context. A third interesting trend that can be seen in Table 4.3 relates to human rights. Those references to indigenous peoples that explicitly refer to international developments in human rights (including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Resolution 10/4 of the United Nations Human Rights Council on human rights and climate change) are done only in a context of mitigation, particularly REDD, or in the context of all aspects of the Convention in general. Given the logic of human rights, it seems somewhat inconsistent that the discourse would not extend reference to human rights, indigenous peoples, and climate change to also include the context of adaptation specifically. This inconsistency has a silencing effect over the human rights argument for formal adaptation support for indigenous peoples through the Convention. It is hypothesised here that the absence of an explicit reference of the sort can be linked to its incompatibility with the guiding principles of the Convention, as will be considered in the following chapter. 75 Finally, the last trend that is noteworthy here related a shift in the kinds of knowledge that are deemed as appropriate sources of information to guide actions through the Convention; the shift from a purely scientific approach to adaptation, to one that also values traditional and indigenous knowledge and practices. This trend is apparent in the changing language used to refer to the kinds of best available knowledge that action and decisions in the Convention should be based on. Though this trend has already been noted by researchers (see for instance Huq & Toulmin 2006, Ayers et al. 2010) 76 Figure 4.7. Adaptation discourse in CP decisions, and references to indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge 77 4.3. SUMMARY In conclusion, the results detailed in this chapter mark three key discursive trends that are apparent in the discourse that have meaning and effect relevant to indigenous peoples adaptation support. These three shifts include, (1) the gradual shift in the ultimate objective of the Convention, and the understanding of the role of adaptation; (2) discursive expansions based on progress in terms of human rights that allow for a growing role of non-state actors in the Convention’s processes, while also respecting the state-centricity of decision-making power within the institution; and (3) the shift from a purely scientific (technocratic) approach to adaptation, to one where local and practical knowledge are also valued. The implications of these shifts, and the discursive trends that have been detailed here, are considered in the next chapter. 78 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION This chapter seeks to interpret the potential barriers and opportunities that the discursive characteristics detailed in the previous chapter might entail for indigenous peoples at differing scales. Accordingly, this chapter revisits sub questions (b) & (c); respectively: what does the discourse (characterized in chapter 4) imply for indigenous populations at the national, regional and international levels; and is it possible for indigenous people to access adaptation support and/or exert influence onto the discourse, and if so, to what extent? In this context, brief prognosis of indigenous peoples’ participation in the adaptation discourse, and access to adaptation funding through the UNFCCC is considered, followed by a short discussion of the research limitations and further research needs. 5.1. DISCURSIVE IMPLICATIONS: BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND PROGNOSIS Some of the discursive trends that have been identified in this study, particularly those that relate to framings of acceptable or appropriate forms of knowledge to guide action through the Convention, may have positive implications for indigenous peoples globally. For instance, the gradual shift in approaches promoted through the Convention, from one relying exclusively on scientific and technocratic processes, to being increasingly sensitive and open to traditional and indigenous knowledge and practices for adaptation has had normative effects. This expansion in the types of knowledge that are deemed appropriate to guide adaptation action through the institution, as reflected in the decision texts examined in this study, is now being carried out by its relevant bodies. For example, in April of 2014 the Adaptation Committee and the Nairobi Work Programme held a workshop with relevant experts and stakeholders to explore, 79 among other things, the available tools for the use of traditional and indigenous knowledge and practices for adaptation, and the needs of local and indigenous communities. The workshop produced a report providing recommendations identified by the participants for consideration and implementation by the Parties (UNFCCC 2014). These recommendations serve to guide the decision making-process and actions taken through the Convention, as stipulated in the mandates of the groups that operate under the SB-STA and SBI, and discussed in the previous chapter. Institutional processes of the sort that engage constituents whose needs and interests may otherwise be silenced in national negotiation discourses (Cabré 2011), and that produce recommendations endorsing new norms and best practices are believed to influence state behaviour through their constitutive and regulative effects (Barnett & Finnemore 2004), in this case by setting international expectations about future decision pathways for adaptation, and by encouraging countries to report on these issues in NCs, NAPAs, and NAPs. Noting that the outputs of such processes are increasingly directed at all Parties to the Convention, and not just developing country Parties, the extent to which these institutional exercises translate into meaningful action and implementation at the national and local level however, remains dependent on external factors to the institution, such pressures from domestic politics (Dombrowski 2010, Gupta 2010). Additionally, if the past trends are any indication of the future, it should be expected that the explicit consideration of the needs of indigenous peoples, their practices, and knowledge will likely to continue to increase in adaptation-related CP decisions. Based on past trends of parallelism between UNFCCC discourses, the release of IPCCC assessment reports that were identified in this study, as well as by others (Huq & Toulmin 2006, Ayers et al. 2010, Gupta 2010), it can be hypothesized here that the recent release of the IPCC AR5 has the potential to 80 facilitate this trend with its enhanced recognition of indigenous issues. For instance, the release of AR3 that framed adaptation as a development issue was analogous to the inception of approaches to adaptation through the Convention at CP.7 (Huq & Toulmin 2006, Ayers et al. 2010), while the publication of AR4 that found that climate change was unavoidable was parallel to the establishment of the shared vision for long term cooperative action, and the growing role of adaptation in the Convention at CP.13 (Ayers et al. 2010). Accordingly, in AR5 and related bodies of literature, it is becoming increasingly apparent that marginalized and poor populations at all scales are showing a heightened vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, while recognition that traditional and indigenous knowledge may have important lessons and applications for approaches to adaptation are also increasing (Nakashima et al. 2012, IPCC 2014, UNFCCC 2014). It is therefore suggested here that this trend may continue to develop in the future and contribute to further advancing indigenous issues in the Convention. The discourse analysis conducted in this study also revealed discursive elements and trends that have imposed barriers for the participation of indigenous peoples, and for their access to adaptation funding, at multiple levels. In the case of the former for instance, the combined effect of the structure of the discourse, the underlying principles that guide it, the scale at which it functions, is the greatest discursive barrier to the participation of indigenous peoples in the UNFCCC negotiation process found in this study. Indeed, the state-centric structure of the discourse and the allocation of decision-making power in the institution, bound by the principles of contemporary international relations, frame the responsibility for adaptation of sub-national populations as being in the legal jurisdiction of national governments, and not the international community. It would therefore be in conflict with the territorial integrity of states and their 81 absolute right to sovereignty to suggest that what are considered sub-national populations be given equal voting rights to those of nation-states in an intergovernmental institution of the sort. A recent study examining the differences and similarities in the types of influences that affect indigenous peoples’ participation in the UNFCCC negotiation process in comparison to that of the UNCBD supports this assertion. The study found that the greatest obstacle to the participation of indigenous peoples in either case is the intergovernmental nature of the negotiations process involved in these institutions, whereby, as stated throughout this thesis, unless they are included in official delegations by their respective national governments, indigenous peoples can only participate in the process as non-state observers. The significant differences in the participation of indigenous peoples in these two Rio Conventions is said to stem from other factors, including an earlier recognition by the scientific community of the relevance of traditional and indigenous knowledge to biodiversity conservation, and of indigenous peoples as stakeholders in the process (formally recognized in 1992 in the UNCBD vs. in 2005 in the UNFCCC), effectively leading to the establishment of a more open structure to the participation of indigenous peoples in the UNCBD (Betzold & Flesken 2014). Discursive frames in the adaptation discourse have also limited adaptation funding options for indigenous peoples through the institution. Firstly, all funding flows through the Convention are unidirectional; the flow from Annex I to non-Annex I parties only. This means that only projects from developing nations that are Parties to the Convention can access funding through the UNFCCC including those relating to indigenous peoples. Indigenous groups living in developed nations on the other hand, can in no way access adaptation funding through the institution, and this is very unlikely to change given the guiding principles of the Convention, particularly the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 82 that established responsibilities between states, and not within them (in line with the principles of sovereignty). These discursive frames, along with the legal disclaimer to the LDCF discussed in the previous chapter, make the future creation of a distinct fund through the Convention to finance indigenous peoples’ adaptation to climate change in all countries extremely unlikely. Second, in order to access funding, proposed projects from non-Annex I parties must meet the specific requirements of the funds, have institutional support, and compete with other nations for the little funding that is available. Groups that are often politically and socio-economically marginalized then, such as indigenous peoples, may experience greater difficulties in accessing this funding (Fankhauser & Burton 2011). Though the discourse analysis preformed in this study uncovered a number of barriers for the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples in the UNFCCC and their ability to access adaptation funding through the institution, it also revealed a few potential opportunities to formally enhance the process to make it more inclusive of, and liable to indigenous peoples, though it is difficult to say whether the Parties to the Convention would be willing to endorse it. Indeed, the rules of fund boards composition and membership, and Convention committees and work programmes (see for instance Decision 2, paragraph 101, CP.17/2011), could be amended to include two additional seats; one for an indigenous representative from an Annex-I Party, and another from a non-Annex I Party. This more formal approach could help make UNFCCC processes seem more accountable to indigenous peoples and their realities, by contributing to advance indigenous issues as seen by indigenous peoples throughout the institution’s bodies through recommendations to the CP, while keeping with the guiding principles of the Convention. Given that there is no disclaimer of precedent in the decisions examined that would 83 explicitly restrict this kind of amendment, it can be assumed here that this could be done, should the Parties to the Convention agree to do so. Another potential pathway to increase accountability to indigenous peoples and indigenous participation in the UNFCCC that would be less intrusive and more likely to be acceptable to Parties than the suggestion above, is pulled from the experience of indigenous peoples’ participation in the UNCBD, as discussed by Betzold and Flesken (2014). Indeed, although indigenous peoples do not have voting rights outside their respective national delegations, IPOs are often invited by working groups to co-chair meetings and intervene in debates that cover topics relating to traditional and indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation, and hence contribute to making formal recommendations to the Parties to that Convention. In effect, as discussed earlier in this chapter, the UNFCCC adaptation related working groups have only just begun to follow this path, as demonstrated through it recent Bonn meeting on indigenous knowledge for adaptation chaired by the Adaptation Committee and Nairobi Work Programme (UNFCCC 2014). Finally, it should be reiterated here that the though indigenous peoples are apparently more active in the UNCBD in comparison to the UNFCCC, the reasons for this are not exclusively dependent on institutional structure and official institutional discourse, and so it may be difficult to streamline lessons from one institution to the other in this context. Indeed, the same study by Betzold & Flesken (2014), mentioned a few times in this section, found that the significant difference in the number of participating indigenous peoples organizations (IPOs) in delegations in both institutions (6 IPOs in the UNFCCC vs. over 50 in the UNCBD) may stem from a number of factors, including IPO perceptions, interests and priorities, where they may find issues of biodiversity to be more relevant and important to them. Accordingly, indigenous 84 peoples, though they are found to be highly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in the scientific literature, may not necessarily perceive their role in global climate change adaptation governance, or access to its outputs, as a priority. This could explain in part the apparent preferred focus of IPOs in the UNFCCC on mitigation efforts in the context of REDD rather than adaptation efforts in general. 5.2. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH NEEDS Given the nature of this project, the discourse considered in this study was limited to the official adaptation discourse in CP decisions so that the project could be manageable in the context of a Master’s degree. Because this study examines only one of the multiple competing discourses taking place within the institution itself, the conclusions made in this thesis should be seen as a starting point for a larger research programme rather than an end point in and of itself. A great deal of research is still needed in the area to expose the numerous concurrent and opposing discourses that are taking place within the bounds of the institution, assess their effects, and evaluate how and if these discourses translate into effective action, in order to clearly understand the true implications for indigenous peoples at multiple scales. This could include for instance, national negotiation positions and group-based negotiation discourses, discourses in the permanent bodies, work programs, expert groups and committees, civil society observers and media discourses, and discourses within NCs, NAPAs and NAPs. The embedded discourses from other relevant institutions in the international climate change regime such as the IPCC, the World Bank, the UNCBD and UNCCD, and multilateral arrangements such as the Hyogo Framework, among many others, could also be analysed for their effects. Furthermore, this type of study design could also be applied to discourses at lower levels of governance, ranging from 85 the municipal and community levels to the regional levels. Comparative analyses between these discourses could then be attempted. In addition, the discourse analysis method used in this study could also be strengthened by complementing the analysis with ethnographic interviews of the various participants involved in the discourse, and/or of the various groups that are targeted by it. The data from these interviews could help reveal the ways in which participants navigate specific discourses, help clarify when, how and why they challenge them, and to what degree of success. Collectively, studies of the sort could help provide a new and different lens through which to evaluate policy approaches to climate change, assess their effects, and evaluate their effectiveness. 86 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the UNFCCC is, in all likelihood, probably not the most effective or appropriate institution to address indigenous peoples’ adaptation to climate change given its rigid country-driven, intergovernmental decision-making structure, and the kinds of policy discourses that can be negotiated and produced in this context. Indeed, the critical discourse analysis of official CP and CMP decision performed in this study revealed a number of elements in the embedded discourse on climate change adaptation that have limited the potential opportunities for indigenous peoples to participate in the UNFCCC process in a meaningful way, as well as their capacity to access adaptation funding. These limiting factors include, along with the institution’s state-centric decision-making arrangement, the unidirectional flow of funds within the institution from developed to developing countries, the level of institutional capacity required to access adaptation funding, the initial absence of the explicit recognition of indigenous peoples as stakeholders in the discourse on climate change adaptation in the institution, and the sole consideration of technocratic approaches to adaptation in the first decade of the Convention’s existence. In such a context, the discourse has had silencing effects on the realities of indigenous peoples, as well as other sub-national constituents. As suggested by Betzold and Flesken (2014), the absence of references to indigenous peoples in the earlier years of the UNFCCC may be the result of mutually reinforcing trends involving an institutional discourse that silences, and general lack of interest in, or prioritization of, adaptation efforts by indigenous peoples and IPOs, in comparison to REDD and biodiversity conservation for instance. This study has also shown however, that the UNFCCC has been improving over time and is becoming more accountable to, and inclusive of, indigenous peoples with regards to climate 87 change adaptation, although much more could still be done. The discursive trends that have been found to contribute to an increase in the visibility of indigenous peoples and indigenous issues in the discourse on adaptation stem from a combination of factors. These include the gradual expansion of the objectives of the Convention to encompass adaptation measures as well as mitigation, the explicit reiteration since 2005 and increasingly since 2010 that indigenous peoples are relevant stakeholders in the Convention that are both vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and holders of traditional knowledge that may hold key insights for adaptation, and the gradual shift of approaches promoted through the Convention from being purely scientific to approaches where local and practical knowledge is also valued. Given the documented trends of parallelisms between the content of such international environmental policy discourses and trends in the scientific literature on the matter (see for instance Huq & Toulmin 2006, Ayers et al. 2010, Betzold & Flesken 2014), it can be assumed here that the role of indigenous knowledge for adaptation, and the participation of indigenous peoples in adaptation-related matters in the Convention is likely to continue to increase in the future. The extent to which this occurs however, and the path that inevitably ends up being taken, ultimately rests in the hands of state governments. This study has also identified potential measures that could be taken to further enhance accountability to, and participation of indigenous peoples in the discourse on adaptation in the UNFCCC. For instance, although a disclaimer to the establishment of the LDCF(see Decision 3/CP.11) was found to limit opportunities to develop a fund for the purpose of facilitating indigenous peoples’ participation similar to the Voluntary Fund for Indigenous and Local Communities in the UNCBD, no disclaimers were found to restrict the potential to create seats for indigenous representatives from both Annex I and non-Annex I nations in the Conventions 88 work programmes, committees, groups, and/or fund boards. In addition, as Betzold and Flesken (2014) advance, the UNFCCC could also take example and pull from measures implemented in the UNCBD and seek to establish its own mechanisms to promote indigenous participation through opportunities to co-chair meetings, intervene in debates, and participate in expert panels for instance. As the core component of the global climate change regime, the normative influences that the UNFCCC emanates have the potential to help constitute what nations perceive as appropriate responses to climate change. Though the consideration of indigenous peoples in the discourse on adaptation in the Convention has been growing gradually over the last decade, and even more so since 2010, a relatively significant amount of work still needs to be done in this regard to help make the institution more engaging for indigenous peoples as it has been criticised for lagging behind other Rio Conventions on this matter. However, the political weight of the UNFCCC and KP has been qualified as being much greater than that of its sister Conventions, the UNCBD and UNCCD; where small steps in the UNFCCC may be considerably more valuable than big steps in the UNCBD for instance (Betzold & Flesken 2014), and so should not be belittled for its recent achievements in creating a discursive space for the consideration of indigenous knowledge and peoples in the institution. However, there are limits to the geographical extent of possible adaptation funding for indigenous peoples; those originating from developed nations are extremely unlikely to ever have access to these funds through the institution. Adaptation funding for indigenous peoples from developed countries will need to come from alternate sources. 89 REFERENCES Alvesson M, Kärreman D (2011) Decolonializing discourse: Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis. Human Relations 64:1121-1146 Ayers J, Alam M, Huq S (2010) Global adaptation governance beyond 2012: Developing country perspectives. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P, Zelli F (eds) Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Ayers JM, Huq S (2009) Supporting Adaptation to Climate Change: What Role for Official Development Assistance? Development Policy Reveiw 27:675-662 Barnett M, Finnemore M (2004) Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics, Vol. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY Berrang-Ford L, Dingle K, Ford JD, Lee C, Lwasa S, Namanya DB, Henderson J, Llanos EA, Carcamo C, Edge VL (2012) Vulnerability of indigenous health to climate change: A case study of Uganda's Batwa Pygmies. Social Science & Medicine 75:1067-1077 Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Lesnikowski A, Poutiainen C, Barrera M, Heymann JS (2014) What drives national adaptation? A global assessment. Climatic Change 124:441-450 Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Paterson J (2011) Are we adapting to climate change? Global Environmental Change 21:25-33 Betzold C, Flesken A (2014) Indigenous peoples in international environmental negotiations: Evidence from biodiversity and climate change. In: Kaime T (ed) International Climate Change Law and Policy: Cultural Legitimacy in Adaptation and Mitigation. Routledge, New York, NY Biagini B, Bierbaum R, Stults M, Dobardzic S, McNeeley SM (2014) A typology of adaptation actions: A global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Global Environmental Change 25:97-108 Blommaert J, Bulcaen C (2000) Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthrophology 29:447-466 Blommaert J, Bulcan C (2000) Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29:447-466 Bodansky DM (1995) The Emerging Climate Change Regime. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 20:425-461 Boykoff MT (2008a) Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995-2004. Climatic Change 86:1-11 90 Boykoff MT (2008b) The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. Political Geography 27:549-569 Boykoff MT, Goodman MK, Curtis I (2010) Cultural Politics of Climate Change: Interactions in Everyday Spaces. In: Boykoff MT (ed) The Politics of Climate Change: A Survey. Routledge, London, UK Boykoff MT, Yulsman T (2013) Political economy, media and climate change: sinews of modern life. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4:359-371 Bucholtz M (2001) Reflexivity and Critique in Discourse Analysis. Critique of Anthropology 21:165-183 Bunn ID (2009) The United Nations and Climate Change: Legal and Policy Developments. In: Nelson GI, Hronszky I (eds) Sustainability 2009: The Next Horizon Cabré MM (2011) Issue-linkages to Climate Change Measured through NGO Participation in the UNFCCC. Global Environmental Politics 11:10-22 Cohen JL (2006) Sovereign Equality vs. Imperial Right: The Battle over the "New World Order". Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory 13:485-505 Cunsolo Willox A, Harper SL, Edge VL, Landman K, Houle K, Ford JD, Rigolet Inuit Community Government (2013) The land enriches the soul: On climatic and environmental change, affect, and emotional health and well-being in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada. Emotion, Space and Society 6:14-24 Dombrowski K (2010) Filling the gap? An analysis of non-governmental organizations responses to participation and representation deficits in global climate governance. International Environmental Agreements 10:397-416 Dovers S (2009) Normalizing adaptation. Global Environmental Change 19:4-6 Fairclough N (1992) Intertextuality in Critical Discourse Analysis. Linguistics and Education 4:269-293 Fairclough N (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, Vol. Routledge, New York, NY Fairclough N (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Vol. Routledge Fankhauser S, Burton I (2011) Spending adaptation money wisely. Climate Policy 11:1037-1049 Ford JD (2009) Dangerous climate change and the importance of adaptation for the Arctic's Inuit population. Environmental Research Letters 4:1-9 91 Ford JD (2012) Indigenous Health and Climate Change. American Journal of Public Health 102:1260-1266 Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, King M, Furgal C (2010) Vulnerability of Aboriginal health systems in Canada to climate change. Global Environmental Change - Human and Policy Dimensions 20:668-680 Ford JD, Cunsolo Willox A, Chatwood S, Furgal C, Haper S, Mauro I, Pearce T (2014) Adapting to the Effects of Climate Change on Inuit Health. American Journal of Public Health 104:e9-e17 Ford JD, Pearce T (2010) What we know, do not know, and need to know about climate change vulnerability in the western Canadian Arctic: a systematic literature review. Environmental Research Letters 5:1-9 Forsyth T (2013) Community-based adaptation: a review of past and future challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4:439-446 Foucault M (1982) The Subject of Power. Critical Inquiry 8:777-795 Foucault M, Gordon C (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writtings 19711977, Vol. Pantheon Books, New York, NY Fuhrman ER, Oehler K (1986) Discourse Analysis and Reflexivity. Social Studies of Science 16:293-307 Furberg M, Evengard B, Nilsson M (2011) Facing the limit of resilience: perceptions of climate change among reindeer herding Sami in Sweden. Global Health Action 4 Fussel HM (2009) An updated assessment of the risks from climate change based on research published since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Climatic Change 97:469-482 Gehring T, Faude B (2013) The Dynamics of Regime Complexes: Microfoundations and Systemic Effects. Global Governance 19:119-130 Green D, Alexander L, McInnes K, Church J, Nicholls N, White N (2010) An assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation for the Torres Strait Islands, Australia. Climatic Change 102:405-433 Green D, Minchin L (2014) Living on Climate-Changed Country: Indigenous Health, WellBeing and Climate Change in Remote Australian Communites. EcoHealth Gupta J (2010) A history of international climate change policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1:636-653 Haas PM (2002) UN Conferences and Constructivist Governance of the Environment. Global Governace 8:73-91 92 Hansen L (2006) Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, Vol. Routledge, New York, NY Harper SL, Edge VL, Schuster-Wallace CJ, Berke O, McEwen SA (2011) Weather, Water Quality and Infectious Gastrointestinal Illness in Two Inuit Communities in Nunatsiavut, Canada: Potential Implications for Climate Change. EcoHealth 8:93-108 Hjerpe M, Linnér B-O (2010) Functions of COP side-events in climate change governance. Climate Policy 10:167-180 Hofmeijer I, Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Zavaleta C, Carcamo C, Llanos E, Carhuaz C, Edge V, Lwasa S, Namanya D (2013) Community vulnerability to the health effects of climate change among indigenous populations in the Peruvian Amazon: a case study from Panailllo and Nuevo Progreso. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 957-978 Huq S, Toulmin C (2006) Three eras of climate change. In: Sustainable Development Opinion. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Vol. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Final Draft). In: Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Yokohama, Japan Jones R, Bennett H, Keating G, Blaiklock A (2014) Climate Change and the Right to Health for Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Health and Human Rights Journal 16:54-68 Karns MP, Mingst KA (2004) International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, Vol. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO Kennedy P (2006) The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations, Vol. Harper Perennial, Toronto, ON Keohane RO (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Vol. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Keohane RO, Victor DG (2011) The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics 9:7-23 Khan MR, Timmons Roberts J (2013) Adaptation and international climate policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4:171-189 Klein RJT (2009) Identifying Countries that are Particularly Vulnerable to the Adverse Effects of Climate Change: An Academic or a Political Challenge? Carbon & Climate Law Review 3:284-291 93 Lesnikowski AC, Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Barrera M, Heymann J (2013) How are we adapting to climate change? A global assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Maru YT, Stafford Smith M, Sparrow A, Pinho PF, Dube OP (In Press) A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for adaptation pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Global Environmental Change:1-14 Michonski KE, Levi MA (2010) Harnessing International Institutions to Adress Climate Change. In. Council on Foreign Relations, New York Moser SC (2014) Communicating adaptation to climate change: the art and science of public engagement when climate change comes home. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5:337-358 Moss RH, Meehl GA, Lemos MC, Smith JB, Arnold JR, Arnott JC, Behar D, Brasseur GP, Broomell SB, Busalacchi AJ, Dessai S, Ebi KL, Edmonds JA, Furlow J, Goddard L, Hartmann HC, Hurrell JW, Katzenberger JW, Liverman DM, Mote PW, Moser SC, Kumar A, Pulwarty RS, Seyller EA, Turner BL, Washington WM, Wilbanks TJ (2013) Hell and High Water: Practice-Relevant Adaptation Science. Science 342:696-698 Nakashima DJ, Galloway McLean K, Thulstrup HD, Ramos Castillo A, Rubis JT (2012) Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation, Vol. UNESCO, Paris, FR Orsini A, Morin J-F, Young O (2013) Regime Complexes: A Buzz, a Boom, or a Boost for Global Governance? Global Governance 19:27-39 Oye KA (1985) Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies. World Politics 38:1-24 Parry M, Lowe J, Hanson C (2009) Overshoot, adapt and recover. Nature 458:1102-1103 Pearce TD, Ford JD, Laidler GJ, Smit B, Duerden F, Allrut M, Andrachuk M, Baryluk S, Dialla A, Elee P, Goose A, Ikummaq T, Joamie E, Kataoyak F, Loring E, Meakin S, Nickels S, Shappa K, Shirley J, Wandel J (2009) Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Research 28:10-27 Peters GP, Andrew RM, Boden T, Canadell JG, Ciais P, Le Quéré C, Marland G, Raupach MR, Wilson C (2013) The challenge to keep global warming below 2°C. Nature Climate Change 3:4-6 Pielke RA, Prins G, Rayner S, Sarewitz D (2007) Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation. Nature 445:597-598 Porras IM (1992) The Rio Declaration: A New Basis for International Cooperation. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 1:245-253 94 Roch P, Perrez FX (2006) International Environmental Governance: The Strive Towards a Comprehensive, Coherent, Effective and Efficient International Environmental Regime. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 16:1-26 Rydin Y (2005) Geographical Knowledge and Policy: The Positive Contributions of Discourse Studies. Area 37:73-78 Schipper ELF (2006) Conceptual History of Adaptation in the UNFCCC Process. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 15:82-92 Schroeder H (2010) Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics 10:317-332 Schroeder H, Boykoff MT, Spiers L (2012) Equity and state representations in climate negotiations. Nature Climate Change 2:834-836 Sherman MH, Ford JD (2014) Stakeholder engagement in adaptation interventions: an evaluation of projects in developing nations. Climate Policy 14:417-441 Smead R, Sandler RL, Forber P, Basl J (2014) A bargaining game analysis of international climate negotiations. Nature Climate Change 4:442-445 Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M, Yohe GW, Hare W, Mastrandrea MD, van Ypersele JP (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "reasons for concern''. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:4133-4137 Stafford Smith M, Horrocks L, Harvey A, Hamilton C (2011) Rethinking adaptation for a 4◦C world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369:196-216 Tanzler D, Maas A, Carius A (2010) Climate change adaptation and peace. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1:741-750 Tompkins EL, Amundsen H (2008) Perceptions of the effectiveness of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in advancing national action on climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 11:1-13 Turnheim B, Tezcan MY (2010) Complex Governance to Cope with Global Environmental Risk: An Assessment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Science and Engineering Ethics 16:517-533 UNFCCC (2014) Report on the meeting on available tools for the use of indigenous and traditional knowledge and practices for adaptation, needs of local and indigenous communities and the application of gender-sensitive approaches and tools for adaptation. In: Advice SBfSaT (ed). UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany 95 United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. In, San Francisco United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In. United Nations Waitt G (2010) Doing Foucauldian Discourse Analysis: Revealing Social Realities. In: Hay I (ed) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geograhy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Wang B, Pan S-Y, Ke Y-R, Wang K, Wei Y-M (In Press) An overview of climate change vulnerability: a bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science database. Natural Hazards:1-18 World Bank (2010) World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. In. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / World Bank, Washington, DC Xiang Y, Meehan S (2005) Financial Cooperation, Rio Conventions and Common Concerns. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 14:212-224 Zander KK, Petheram L, Garnett ST (2013) Stay or leave? Potential climate change adaptation strategies among Aboriginal people in coastal communities in northern Australia. Natural Hazards 67 Zillman J (2009) A history of climate activities. WMO Bulletin 58:141-150 96 APPENDIX 1- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AC Adaptation Committee AF Adaptation Fund AH-WG-LTCA Ad Hoc Working Group for Long-Term Cooperative Action AR3 Third Assessment Report AR4 Fourth Assessment Report CDM Clean Development Mechanism CMP Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol CP Conference of the Parties EIT Economies in Transition GCF Green Climate Fund GEF Global Environment Facility IGO Intergovernmental organization IO International organization IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPO Indigenous peoples’ organization IR International relations KP Kyoto Protocol L&D Work Programme on Loss and Damage LDC Least Developed Countries LEC EG Least Developed Countries Expert Group LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund MDB Multilateral Development Bank 97 Nairobi WP Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation NAP National Adaptation Plan NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NC National Communication NGO Non-governmental organization OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SB-STA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice SBI Subsidiary Body for Implementation SCCF Special Climate Change Fund SIDS Small Island Developing States UN United Nations UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCHE United Nations Conference on the Human Environment UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UN GA United Nations General Assembly UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Council WMO World Meteorological Organization 98 APPENDIX 2 – LIST OF CODES Adaptation approaches Code ID A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 Referent Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change (general) Adaptation of natural systems Adaptation of human systems Adaptation funding Technology transfers and development Enhancing resilience NAPAs NAPs Disaster preparedness and management Adaptation actions and/or strategies Mainstreaming adaptation into development Frequency 32 4 7 21 13 7 23 25 7 5 1 Convention funds Code ID F1 F2 F3 F4 Referent Adaptation Fund LDC Fund Special Climate Change Fund Green Climate Fund Frequency 5 21 8 18 Official Identities: Referent objects and Convention bodies Code ID I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10 I11 I12 I13 Referent Developed country parties Developing country parties Annex I parties Annex II parties non-Annex I parties LDCs SIDSs Developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change Adaptation Fund Board Economies in transition IPCC GEF LDC Expert Group Frequency 15 47 7 17 4 30 9 17 13 3 7 5 22 99 I14 I15 I16 I17 I18 I19 I20 I21 I22 I23 I24 I25 I26 Nairobi Work Programme Stakeholders Secretariat World Bank (IBRD) Adaptation Committee Green Climate Fund Board Technology Executive Committee Climate Technology Centre and Network Work Programme on loss and damage Conference of the Parties SB-STA SBI AH-WG-LTCA 15 9 3 2 28 9 4 3 12 7 6 1 2 Intertextuality Code ID Referent IL Intertextual link: explicit reference to external texts relevant to the discourse under consideration Frequency 29 References to indigenous peoples (and nuances) not made in the context of UNHRC Resolution 10/4 Code ID IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4 Referent Indigenous communities Indigenous status Indigenous peoples Traditional knowledge and/or Indigenous knowledge Frequency 1 2 5 5 References to vulnerable sub-populations owing to X made in the context of UNHRC Resolution 10/4 Code ID IV1 IV2 IV3 IV4 IV5 IV6 Referent Geography Gender Age Indigenous status Minority status Disability Frequency 2 13 4 3 2 2 Topics, discursive characteristics, and principles 100 Code ID TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8 TC9 TC10 TC11 TC12 TC13 TC14 TC15 TC16 TC17 TC18 TC19 TC20 TC21 TC22 TC23 TC24 TC25 TC26 TC27 TC28 TC29 TC30 TC31 TC32 TC33 TC34 TC35 Referent Accountability Financial support Impartiality Implementation Operational functions / mandate Representation / composition State-centric / country-driven Technical support / advice Incentives Mitigation Reporting Capacity-building Transparency Voluntary Access Needs assessment Participation Accreditation Beneficiaries Familiarization / workshops Institutional reviews Effectiveness / adequacy Recognition Finance Technology development and transfers Enhancing action and support Sensitive to Participatory approaches Prioritization Sensitization and knowledge dissemination Scientific research Coordination and cooperation Administration / management Objectives Methods Frequency 11 45 1 28 18 25 61 19 1 17 16 34 3 2 4 12 13 4 3 4 11 1 1 3 21 19 9 10 8 4 6 14 4 10 5 101