42 research outputs found

    Re-Encountering Climate Change: Indigenous Peoples and the Quest for Epistemic Diversity in Global Climate Change Governance

    Get PDF
    Climate change assessment reports and intergovernmental agreements are increasingly recognizing the importance of other “knowledge systems” (traditional, local, or indigenous) for climate change adaptation and mitigation. The empirical point of departure of this dissertation is the recognition of other culturally specific ways of knowing, or what I call epistemic diversity, in the field of global climate change governance. I conceive this as a process of diversification of the knowledge basis of global climate policy. This dissertation accounts for this large process by addressing the questions of why and how epistemic diversity gains visibility and recognition in a field of governance, as well as how these translate into changes in the configuration of science-policy relations. By advancing an analytical approach to epistemic diversity, the research extends and challenges prevalent theories of epistemic authority in global or transnational spheres of politics. Based on a multi-site process tracing, the dissertation traces this large process by following three trajectories of change. The global trajectory, on the one hand, looks into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change against the backdrop of the historical recognition of epistemic diversity in the wider field of environmental governance. The Arctic and Amazon trajectories, on the other hand, follow these developments in the mobilization of indigenous peoples and the deployment of climate science and policy in specific socio-cultural regions. Specifically, the analysis zooms in on local sites of governance, namely, community-based adaptation in the Swedish side of Sápmi and forest-based mitigation in the indigenous territories of the Ecuadorian Amazon. The study finds that the recognition of indigenous knowledge (holders) is reconfiguring epistemic authority – albeit partially – by introducing criteria of epistemic diversity to guide social and political judgements about what counts as valuable knowledge to address the climate crisis.1 Introduction: Knowledge, governance and diversity 1.1 Epistemic diversity as a research problem 1.2 The diversity gap: reviewing the literature 1.2.1 Science matters 1.2.2 Science, expertise and contestation 1.2.3 Dismantling the “great divide” 1.3 Toward the study of epistemic diversity in global governance 1.4 Ordering epistemic diversity: boundary work and categorization struggles 1.5 Reconfiguring knowledge-policy relations through heterarchies 1.6 Trajectories of change and polycentric sites of governance 1.7 A word on terminology 2 Research design, methods and data 2.1 Research design 2.2 Multi-site process tracing 2.3 Case selection 2.4 Data collection and analysis 2.4.1 Analyzing documents 2.4.2 Analyzing interviews 2.4.3 Analyzing observations 3 The coming of age of epistemic diversity 3.1 The “ethno” and the science 3.2 Oscillations between visibility and invisibility 3.2.1 Postwar precursors: on “backward people” and the facts of nature 3.2.2 The Stockholm conference or the conspicuous absence of indigenous knowledge 3.3 Global recognition and the advent of the knowledge holders 3.3.1 Paving the way for Rio: sustainable development encounters traditional knowledge 3.3.2 The Earth Summit and the global recognition of epistemic diversity 3.4 Ordering epistemic diversity 4 Diversifying global climate science and policy 4.1 Climate exceptionalism 4.2 The IPCC: diversifying global climate science 4.2.1 An overview of diverse knowledges in IPCC assessment reports 4.2.2 Climate adaptation as purposeful adjustment 4.2.3 Re-thinking adaptation: from adaptive capacity to traditional knowledge 4.2.4 The rediscovery of community in adaptation research 4.2.5 Co-production or the “best available knowledge” 4.2.6 The knowers and the known 4.3 The UNFCCC: diversifying global climate policy 4.3.1 The UNFCCC as a forum for indigenous peoples (and local communities) 4.3.2 Adaptation and diverse ways of knowing 4.3.3 Mitigation and diverse ways of knowing 4.3.4 The Paris Agreement: back to Rio and beyond 4.4 Re-ordering epistemic diversity 5 Arctic knowledge 5.1 Diversifying Arctic science through Sami knowledge 5.1.1 The Sami voice: Saami Council and Sami Parliaments 5.1.2 Becoming Arctic peoples and knowledge holders 5.1.3 The Arctic Council and the invention of Arctic knowledge 5.1.4 Sami knowledge: adaptation, co-production and resistance 5.2 Arctic knowledge in the Swedish side of Sápmi 5.2.1 Sweden in the Arctic: re-encountering the Sami 5.2.2 The Swedish side of Sápmi 5.2.3 The adaptive knowledge of Sami reindeer herders 5.2.4 Co-producing adaptive knowledge 5.3 Reconfiguring Arctic knowledge 6 Amazon knowledge 6.1 The diversification of Amazon knowledge 6.1.1 Amazonia: biocultural diversity and epistemic diversity 6.1.2 COICA and Amazon knowledge 6.1.3 Amazon Indigenous REDD+ 6.2 The genesis and development of “indigenous carbon” 6.2.1 A generative question 6.2.2 Indigenous carbon as a hard fact 6.2.3 Scientific indigenous knowledge 6.3 Downscaling indigenous carbon: REDD+ and RIA in Ecuador 6.3.1 Ecuador in Amazonia: petroleum, native forests and indigenous territories 6.3.2 REDD+ in Ecuador 6.3.3 RIA in Ecuador 6.3.4 Money for nothing 6.3.5 Life Plans 6.3.6 The defense of life 6.4 Reconfiguring Amazon knowledge 7 A global platform for indigenous and local knowledge 7.1 Imagining a global platform for indigenous knowledge 7.1.1 Indigenous peoples’ organizational templates 7.1.2 Bolivia, Mother Earth and the “diplomacy of the peoples” 7.1.3 A platform: translating through ambiguity 7.1.4 Setting the pace of the negotiations 7.2 Operationalizing the Platform 7.2.1 The Platform after Paris: an array of alternatives in disarray 7.2.2 Design by bricolage: the Facilitative Working Group 7.2.3 Lost in translation: the local communities affair 7.3 The LCIPP as a knowledge-policy interface 7.3.1 The onion 7.3.2 Knowledge holders 7.3.3 Capacity for engagement 7.3.4 Climate policies and actions 7.4 Global institutional change towards epistemic diversity 8 Conclusion 8.1 Ordering and re-ordering epistemic diversity 8.2 Undone or incipient hierarchies: reconfiguring knowledge-policy relations 8.3 Entangled trajectories 8.4 Theoretical and methodological contributions 8.5 Avenues for future research 9 Reference

    Development of guidance for non-market approaches in the Paris Agreement: operationalizing Articles 6.8 and 6.9 of the Paris Agreement

    Full text link
    While market-based forms of cooperation are enshrined in Articles 6.2–6.7, Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement recognizes the importance of non-market approaches (NMAs) in international cooperation on climate change mitigation and adaptation in a variety of fields. Article 6.9 establishes the NMA framework that promotes NMAs described in Article 6.8. The Parties to the Paris Agreement are currently negotiating a work program to further elaborate on this. If properly designed, fostering the accelerated diffusion of non-market based international cooperation on technology development and transfer, capacity-building and finance in both adaptation and mitigation can provide a relevant contribution to NDC implementation and ratcheting up of ambition. Having that goal in mind, this report provides recommendations on the operationalization of the NMA framework and the work program and the identification of concrete NMAs for consideration by the negotiating Parties. We provide concrete examples of NMAs in various fields Parties have identified as relevant under the framework, including forests, resilience, removals, energy efficiency and the cross cutting topics mentioned above. The NMA work program should be designed as a meaningful addition to ongoing work under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The focus must be on activities that are not duplicating ongoing efforts, not implementable through markets, transformative, and have so far been side-lined by international public climate finance. The NMAs’ relevance will ultimately depend on Parties’ active engagement in the identification of concrete NMAs and their submission to the NMA forum envisaged in the latest iterations of the Presidency draft texts from COP25. The NMA forum should operate in a flexible but results-oriented manner to allow for the consideration of emerging concepts and pilot activities. In the end, the role of finance will also be pivotal for the work program’s relevance. According to the current status of negotiations, the work program will not have own financial resources but the consideration of finance is essential to avoid that the NMA work program becomes a mere ‘talk shop’

    El gran ĂĄrbol del Acuerdo de ParĂ­s. Sobre algunos de sus programas, asuntos y acciones

    Get PDF
    Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible::13 - Acció per al ClimaObjectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible::16 - Pau, Justícia i Institucions SòlidesPostprint (published version

    Climate Change Law and Colonialism : Legal Standing of Three Rivers and a Hypothetical Case of Bison Personhood in Canada

    Get PDF
    In March 2017, three new legal persons were created on Earth: the Whanganui River in New Zealand, and the Ganga and Yamuna Rivers in India. Taken together, and in consideration of two great apes designated as judicial persons in the last few years, these judgments suggest a new precedent may be forming regarding the extension of rights to non-human entities

    Becoming fundable? Converting climate justice claims into climate finance in Mesoamerica’s forests

    Get PDF
    For the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests, the idea of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) has opened a window for advancing member groups’ claims to territory and community well-being, despite concerns that REDD+ could proceed as development-as-usual in practice. However, the claims underpinning the engagement of this Indigenous and forest peoples’ network in international climate finance processes reflect conceptualizations of climate justice that diverge from those that have dominated policy and popular discussions. This article assesses the multi-scalar efforts of the Mesoamerican Alliance to promote claims to climate finance around different concepts of justice. Using empirical justice analysis to assess the subjects, dimensions, and criteria explicit and implicit in Mesoamerican Indigenous and forest groups’ claims, and drawing on decolonial and Indigenous perspectives on environmental justice, the article presents evidence as to the possibilities and challenges of translating REDD+ into just outcomes in historically marginalized territories. Using participant observation, unstructured interviews, and document and social media review, it specifically assesses the Alliance-proposed Mesoamerican Territorial Fund, which aims to directly capture climate finance, bypassing problematic relations with national governments and traditional donors. The article finds that although Indigenous peoples and local communities have made significant advances in terms of representation, recognition, participation, and concrete funding, the constraints of “becoming fundable” may hinder more transformative and reparative pathways to just climate outcomes

    Strengthening synergies for biodiversity and climate

    Get PDF
    STRENGTHENING SYNERGIES FOR BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE Strengthening synergies for biodiversity and climate / Kozban, Irina (CC BY-ND) ( -