Contesting Climate Injustice

It was December 8, 2009, during the first week of international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. Mostly white men in dark suits filled a large room. They had gathered to participate in a question-and-answer session with the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board. This board oversees the methodology for granting approval for funding of “clean energy” projects deemed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.A very small woman from India wearing a vibrant yellow and blue sari loudly spoke into the microphone in the language Marathi. A woman next to her translated her message:My name Baby Mohite and I’m from Pune. I’m a waste picker. And the work that I do is picking out waste, recyclables... How can you [the CDM Board] possibly approve methodology [for waste incineration projects] that would make people like me lose my livelihood? And it’s not just me, but thousands of people who make their living from waste. How could you possibly approve such a methodology? What would I do? Where would my children go? How would they go to school? You are taking away my livelihood.1Mohite was in Copenhagen as part of a newly formed transnational advocacy network of waste pickers and allies. She was concerned that money flowing through the CDM, which was intended to reduce climate-changing emissions, was actually being used to fund waste disposal projects that would put her and her fellow informal recyclers out of business.I will argue that the scholarship on transnational advocacy networks (TANs)—such as the network of waste pickers and allies—has not articulated the diversity and range of rights struggles that take place in international regimes, particularly those of networks representing marginal or vulnerable groups. I explore the interventions of three networks in the UN climate change regime: gender equality advocates, indigenous peoples, and waste pickers. Despite several differences between these networks, they have all sought to gain rights in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to redress marginalization and inequality experienced by their groups, including disproportionate vulnerability to the impacts of a changing climate and climate change policies with adverse impacts, what the networks refer to as forms of climate injustice.To assess the effectiveness of these efforts, I introduce the concept of “regime rights,” and develop a framework for their analysis. Drawing on the case studies and relevant scholarship, I identify and discuss four main types of related struggles, those for recognition, representation, capabilities, and extended rights. I argue that deciphering distinct forms of rights struggles in international regimes is critical for deepening understanding of what types of rights gains are more or less likely and impactful for networks representing marginalized peoples to achieve.I have used process tracing and discourse analysis methods2 to analyze data collected through observation of events, participant observation (in the case of the waste picker network), and informal conversations from December 2009 through June 2014. I also draw upon official UNFCCC documents, archival video footage, academic publications, governmental reports and other official documents, international organizations’ papers, NGO statements, and press articles.First I conceptualize regime rights and develop the four-part typology. Then I describe the main successes and failures of the three networks in gaining distinct forms of regime rights. Then I categorize and assess the relative number of gains, and the extent to which gains are consistent with network demands. In this way, I offer an approximation of network gains in each rights category ranging from weak to high.The literature on international politics, and climate change politics in particular, has devoted significant attention to understanding the ability of TANs to gain rights through engagement in international regimes. TANs comprise actors who share specific values, principled beliefs, and common discourse.3 This literature has produced various insights into the mechanisms of TAN influence,4 conditions and determinants for success,5 and forms of influence.6Scholarship in this area also reveals specific forms of rights interventions, such as those for procedural rights in regime decision-making and for international safeguards designed to inhibit rights abuses in domestic contexts. However, no concept or framework both distinguishes and encapsulates the varied forms of rights interventions pursued by TANs specific to international regime contexts. As a result, it is not clear which types of rights interventions are more or less likely to succeed and have impact.In addition, the literature on TANs has devoted disproportionate attention to well-resourced networks, to actors from the global North, and to understanding victories rather than relative failures. In the literature on international climate change politics, the scholarly focus on the largest and oldest civil society network in the negotiations, the Climate Action Network, has meant that relatively few studies have investigated the engagement of smaller, more vulnerable, more radical, and/or less-resourced advocacy networks. These groups have proliferated in the climate negotiations since 2007 when civil society participation significantly increased and diversified.7There is thus an opportunity to develop a regime rights framework that elucidates the particular types of rights struggles specific to international regimes, particularly those of advocacy networks representing marginalized actors. This categorization is necessary in order to more precisely analyze what types of rights demands find success, the conditions under which they do so, and the relative impact of rights gains. In doing so, this framework offers a means to bridge core concerns of distinct literatures on TANs, rights, and transnational governance.I define regime rights as privileges for particular groups that enable certain behaviors and outcomes and constrain others, within and extending from a given international regime. This is consistent with Young’s conception of rights, which emphasizes their relational nature. She argues, “Rights are relationships, not things; they are institutionally defined rules specifying what people can do in relation to one another. Rights refer to doing more than having, to social relationships that enable or constrain action.”8Regime rights struggles shape the opportunity structures of international regimes, which themselves represent “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area in international relations.”9 Scholarship from a neo-Gramscian perspective has emphasized that international regimes and their relevant principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures are highly contested terrains that privilege certain actors and interests in the international or transnational sphere.10 From this perspective, we can understand regime rights struggles as coordinated and competing efforts by actor groups to shape relevant regime structures to preserve or challenge the reproduction of established privileges.Rights demands in international regimes take various thematic forms that reflect specific historical conditions. Given this, the regime rights concept does not confine rights struggles to those that take a particular content or ethical form such as human rights, property rights, ecological rights, or citizenship rights.11 Moreover, regime rights as a set of group privileges may be strived for on social and normative grounds related to particular group identities, but they also may be advocated on technical and “objective” grounds, based on interpretation and/or reform of existing scientific or procedural constructs.The three cases in this article reveal that regime rights struggles have taken varied forms in the UNFCCC, have had disparate rates of success, and have likely varied in impact. Drawing on the cases, and engaging with the relevant literature, I identify and discuss four main regime rights typologies (Table 1) and interventions.First, gender equality and indigenous peoples’ networks have devoted significant attention to achieving recognition. These struggles have sought to diffuse, codify, and institutionalize certain norms, often established as “rights” in different international regimes, into the text of the UNFCCC and its subsidiary bodies. These norms link certain entitlements or protections to the identity of each group with reference to unique status, vulnerability, and/or capabilities. All three networks have also worked to leverage organizing in the climate regime to increase recognition and visibility of the relevant groups, their rights, and their positions in the broader including and other international struggles for recognition to the process of and that is for as a of for actors with a given by the and what a and for out procedures by which and for equality and indigenous peoples’ networks in the climate regime have also worked for gains in the participation and/or of particular groups in regime This rights and a number of that groups their participation in the and the of in these This has as civil procedural and global citizenship in the that civil society the global through its with of global has in as gender in in the such does not or a of and various forms of inequality can the ability of actors to on such rights. thus to struggles that a given to that groups have the ability to and a in This that may with rights, inequality within society the of to on these rights and conditions for to to the of an international regime like the UNFCCC, rights that are to as the to an in the to a or the to on an may in of the or necessary of or groups to upon these rights is As more for civil society groups within international does not the within civil society that will to participation is by as as other social such as and the of groups to through such as funding and of social to challenge and rights for for extended rights refer to efforts in the regime to mechanisms that rights related to the or of this is what and refer to as the TANs converge on an international to put on or to and These efforts are on the on particular rights as they are and/or out the As the cases gaining extended rights may be as particularly when the regime is an existing rights or an rights interventions take main which are often normative interventions on and to the of a given of technical interventions focus on achieving extended rights based on and/or and/or technical or rights struggles have in the literature as that and scientific around contested including in international regimes such as the These work to challenge and also leverage the process of which is of into a scientific from the social in which it is no of gender concerns in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or in the However, organizing for of gender equality to the of international climate have to main are by climate change as to They also to climate in different to to in number than men during and and men also different related to climate change as and different to the are not disproportionate but offer unique and for to more and gender equality is through and within the in policies that this regime to to various forms of inequality on the In doing so, have often norms of rights and gender equality are in various international that gender concerns into UNFCCC A was which for increased of to the UNFCCC and and the with the gender of these and these to the attention of However, the no mechanisms to change in this It also to the of gender inequality in all of climate including and organizing by several since the was in in gender equality an official in the This also its official in the UNFCCC the and which is a of four main networks, in for a Climate and Development and the These groups, with other groups, have in such as press statements, organizing events, in and for the of text in the extended rights engagement of gender equality groups with other such as indigenous peoples’ has to the of from in the Clean Development equality groups have devoted more to gaining other forms of rights. In the of what had as and to gender and in the UNFCCC the in Copenhagen in 2009 for of a to the Convention with the of gender However, this for recognition, and the of civil society groups the Copenhagen not a reference to or a few in the including the language that equality and the participation of and indigenous peoples are for on all of climate In addition, gender was in relation to and also the for gender and that gender is with vulnerability to and climate change impacts and of human in the in the the to these and also for gender in relation to the Climate and other bodies. has a for civil society groups since its as a funding to the and equality groups such as have various demands ranging from in extended rights such as a redress to by groups on the and such the of mechanisms to the of as these efforts, the has to gender equality are out of a and on the gender equality to in achieving to gender such as the of relevant including vulnerable groups and gender However, these and it is not clear they will funding And the a fund the was on of gender equality in the negotiations in in Executive of the UNFCCC, to a on gender as the And as and of human rights is a that will gender into the of the of and the of the and it’s that this is to make a are to on climate the text reveal that was for the of a and and climate change a And language for was the with the concept of with the Climate Change this as a that of in the UN process to gender She we have is a gender not a just have in a And as articulated by the civil society the gender under means that the and concerns of the not given a place of their in the of the of in the first on gender was This to a that a to gender and climate and by on are mechanisms to these and to in this gender equality groups have in the regime to the to gender equality and the disproportionate vulnerability of and in the climate including gaining an and on as engagement of indigenous peoples’ groups and networks in relation to several and in the As part of the of more than indigenous and that the UNFCCC and the participation of the and and do not take into peoples’ network have to three main to being the vulnerable and peoples, indigenous peoples disproportionate impacts of climate they often have to to with the indigenous peoples’ groups argue that the impacts of climate change such as and have in the of indigenous peoples from their as as to the upon which their and indigenous peoples’ networks have often that the is a living being with rights that be in the climate regime. Moreover, indigenous peoples have the from and for and their and ecological be and the on Climate Change was a indigenous peoples’ to participate in the Despite various rights no was in the negotiations for in 2007 a from and a in the regime and it was as part of the As part of this text was to the of and when is taken to reduce from and in of civil society and the a for as a However, just three the of the for the Rights of indigenous peoples’ as a to indigenous rights and that would in and was the indigenous peoples’ and also are indigenous peoples’ networks in the climate regime from around the groups and networks have their efforts to to indigenous peoples’ rights in the and of They have in the UNFCCC such as on the on with such as the Development to develop social coordinated events, and to draw attention to their and on the for safeguards in the Climate and UNFCCC have in and the UNFCCC to framework that and in the name of climate change They have on and and policies the groups have taken a and other for indigenous peoples’ peoples’ networks for reform within the UNFCCC have for an international framework that would that their rights and that rights extended to the and This was a particular both in relation to a of of indigenous peoples’ and their and also a to cases of as and/or indigenous peoples’ groups to their peoples’ also that and would not rights of their was an international framework with and capabilities. As Executive of the network and of the on of the UNFCCC, is that rights are not we have the of being more from the impacts not climate change but also the like they are to more they are to more we are very from the it’s a of and it’s the of that is efforts sought the climate regime and subsidiary to existing international such as and the to and to the of their they in including language in in of and indigenous peoples’ rights in this language was to from including the and the of the of into the newly climate the Copenhagen not indigenous peoples or their rights. However, upon that indigenous peoples’ networks had established in the the negotiations in the various explicit reference to for a process to social safeguards and in relation to and recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights in various subsidiary such as those related to and However, the of safeguards and as be and and was no of the to and in in to safeguards in to that data on safeguards was form of safeguards to be and a for of data during and projects to and on in in language was as part of the on that the of safeguards have and based for the UNFCCC has to develop such as the and have and safeguards related to indigenous peoples’ rights for to being for However, have from indigenous peoples and civil society of their related to and In addition, the has under for its to a of by UN as to its of peoples’ and have also extended rights interventions to and as projects in the Clean Development Mechanism to the of in CDM to the of in the framework in order to and to that does not for the of into language was in the that the of diversity and not be used for the of on from in the CDM in set of network interventions have on indigenous peoples’ in the regime. In this have for decision-making to that of As are not just we are rights a the but that has not we are just just like we are not the as we have clear rights, we have clear we have we have it’s not the we a the and they are in and these are the that are being used or being for rights on the of the Climate indigenous peoples’ not gain as official In to this has for such as a civil society and indigenous peoples’ and funding to indigenous peoples’ They have also extended rights demands for to funding by and social and safeguards that link to an and the framework does have on both and the has that this framework international UN indigenous peoples’ the board has to to indigenous peoples’ indigenous peoples’ rights gains have in the form of recognition, an area these networks have also devoted significant organizing has on representation, or extended rights. both and have safeguards for in indigenous peoples’ a form of extended rights these safeguards have under for their pickers have a engaging in this regime than the other cases In Copenhagen in 2009, their first a the of and was This when international for and in and with waste picker in and have since of waste pickers from three to negotiations in and with groups also the negotiations in and from and waste pickers have also Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) board since to make relevant has from and a board representing networks from three and change negotiations have a for transnational waste picker indigenous peoples’ groups, which have in their demands and waste pickers and have a relatively group in the the process of a transnational has advocacy efforts in the regime as a that as has pursued within the climate negotiations into three main the network has sought to increase recognition of climate change is waste picker This has taken shape as the negotiations in and the waste pickers have out from the in of pickers and have also press in events, reports and case coordinated a and their of the gains of these has international press This has increased recognition of the of waste picking and the for work conditions and the of their rights. the negotiations in waste pickers in different international is for waste which are often as a in the marginalized or in waste pickers from and have in Copenhagen to for recognition as in the climate has sought to the Climate to a funding to waste picker thus extended rights. They have that this is critical to that and waste picker is not by disposal They have particularly the for a funding to the the other networks a that is to marginalized groups, they have to gains in this work has on gaining extended rights for waste pickers through reform of the waste They have that CDM waste projects are for three main They waste that and more They the of waste pickers of the people in They the that can be to these CDM has CDM waste and on several They have a methodology as and to waste pickers to and for small has to incineration on grounds that it the Convention on UN network has also advocated to and civil society the CDM, an to their in the These have to in has in its main the network has worked to the waste to methodology to for waste picker in greenhouse gas pickers CDM Executive in Copenhagen and the of waste pickers out of work through the of waste This was by from the board that that it is not in their to social in the board that to the waste to would be and the CDM to an this that the board the methodology to that projects reduce with a in on the to approve the They an that in each from people around the that to for and just the board a to the it to the of CDM from and that the is projects through the of CDM that would be in the to its various waste was by from the from various and civil society from In a the one CDM to waste will be to As the largest for CDM from CDM waste projects a to the in this the board the is to that this is and to the of a to In to technical emphasized the and normative that they have the CDM in their to is precisely that You can a that can be in of it will take to around to doing when we out in of the and taking away of they a more is a between what they are to take of and what actually CDM to do waste picker network engagement has in the recognition of waste pickers as a with rights in the with such as the and with such as the they have had in their extended rights interventions (Table with which they have engagement on scientific grounds with various to and normative of this article has to offer a framework for understanding the distinct types of rights struggles out in international regimes, particularly those of networks representing marginalized This to the literature on transnational advocacy networks, which has not between the varied forms of rights interventions pursued specific to international the cases rights gains have in the form of recognition. peoples’ and gender equality networks have devoted and to gaining recognition. certain rights in regime has a relatively for the of to the regime in to network advocacy efforts, changing a weak such recognition may be impactful for groups as a for rights gains It also may in groups can leverage international norms to put on and/or However, we have understanding of the conditions under which such recognition is as to and thus it is not clear this has a of and by the networks the networks have few to achieving core and demands. of has taken more by the regime than indigenous peoples’ representation, attention to the by both networks. This is not given that positions of in society and within the including the of indigenous peoples and waste pickers do does not with the of indigenous peoples’ does a challenge to this concept of the with in gender on it is not clear that this has translated to for decision-making in the regime. is it that this has to more gender policies as they from the networks have in achieving relevant extended rights. have often extended social and protections in the name of However, several international which are often the of have their and to extended rights related to indigenous peoples’ domestic have with the of indigenous rights related to the of these has by this that has likely an of indigenous peoples’ in the climate the waste picker network to reform the CDM to extended rights on scientific and grounds, and also by on normative and CDM it methodology to be in with network demands. However, the impact of this gain is of a to related to the methodology a In addition, with the CDM to a of the may be relevant for for other to informal the analysis that the of TAN have and have core of and into the specific conditions under which TANs representing vulnerable actors are more or less likely to distinct forms of regime rights, particularly those that change the

Climate change · Climate justice · Environmental ethics · Environmental justice · Environmental politics · Human rights · Injustice · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Environmental law and policy · Gender Studies · Human Rights and Development · Law · Social Science and Policy Research

• Indigenous and Minority Populations - Perspectives From Scholars and Writers across the World

  Sylvanus Gbendazhi Barnabas•Indigenous and Minority Populations•2023

  Add to list

• Explaining stated partnerships of Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations engaged in climate governance

  Open Access•Jakob Maas, J Tosun•Humanities and Social Sciences…•2026

  Add to list

• Accountability and Representation

  Jonathan W Kuyper, Karin Bäckstrand•Global Environmental Politics•2016

  Add to list

• Challenging the Narrative of Inclusion

  Miriam Gay-Antaki•Global Environmental Politics•2025

  Add to list

• Process Tracing in the Study of Environmental Politics

  Lisa Vanhala•Global Environmental Politics•2017

  Add to list

• The indigenous Pacific Islands’ resilience against climate injustice

  Baiq Wardhani, Vinsensio Dugis et al.•Culture and Religion•2024

  Add to list

• Gender-based climate (in)justice

  Open Access•Walef Pena Guedes, Bruna Angela Branchi et al.•Environmental Science & Policy•2024

  Add to list

• Splintering South

  Open Access•David Ciplet, J T Roberts•Journal of World-Systems Research•2017

  Add to list

• Subverting the status quo? Climate debt, vulnerability and counter-hegemonic frame integration in United Nations climate politics – a framework for analysis

  David Ciplet•Review of International Political…•2017

  Add to list

• Climate change and the transition to neoliberal environmental governance

  Open Access•David Ciplet, J T Roberts•Global Environmental Change•2017

  Add to list

• Indigenous peoples activism on climate change in Southeast Asia

  Kim D Reimann•The Pacific Review•2022

  Add to list

• Lessons from the Women and Gender Constituency

  Open Access•Joanna Flavell•International Journal of Politics…•2023

  Add to list

• A call for a sociology of adaptation

  Open Access•Danielle Falzon, Raka Sen•Sociological Forum•2024

  Add to list

• Climate institutions matter

  Open Access•Gunnhildur Lily Magnusdottir, Annica Kronsell•Cooperation and Conflict•2024

  Add to list

• Global review of human waste-picking and its contribution to poverty alleviation and a circular economy

  Open Access•Jandira Morais, Glen Corder et al.•Environmental Research Letters•2022

  Add to list

• What do researchers mean when talking about justice? An empirical review of justice narratives in global change research

  Open Access•Elizabeth Dirth, Felix Biermann et al.•Earth System Governance•2020

  Add to list

• Transition coalitions

  David Ciplet•Environmental Sociology•2022

  Add to list

• Seeing complexity

  Open Access•Kate O’neill, Erika Weinthal et al.•Journal of Environmental Studies…•2017

  Add to list

• Linking wastes and climate change

  Open Access•Kate O’neill•Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews…•2018

  Add to list

• The Pyu Ancient Cities World Heritage application

  Jonathan Liljeblad•Journal of Civil Society•2016

  Add to list

• The Wrong Solution at the Right Time

  Open Access•Amanda M Rosen•Politics & Policy•2015

  Add to list

• Institutional Control and Climate Change Activism at COP 21 in Paris

  Shannon K Orr•Global Environmental Politics•2016

  Add to list

• From Gender-Blind to Gender Bind

  Joanna Flavell•Global Environmental Politics•2023

  Add to list

• Climate justice or inequality lock-in? Analysis of U.S. incarceration in a changing climate

  David Ciplet•Environmental Politics•2026

  Add to list

• Means of the Marginalized

  Open Access•David Ciplet•International Studies Quarterly•2019

  Add to list

• Revolution in the Garbage Dump

  Michelle Rosaldo, Manuel Rosaldo•Social Problems•2016

  Add to list

• The unequal geographies of climate finance

  Open Access•David Ciplet, Danielle Falzon et al.•Political Geography•2022

  Add to list

• The Hopi, thekatsinam, and the French courts

  Jonathan Liljeblad•International Journal of Heritage…•2017

  Add to list

• From consent to consultation

  Open Access•Thomas Rudolf Eimer, Tom Bartels•Environmental Politics•2020

  Add to list

• Gender Differences in Risk Perception

  Open Access•Per E Gustafsod•Risk Analysis•1998

  Add to list

• Gender Differences in Risk Perception

  Open Access•Per Gustafson, Per E Gustafson•Risk Analysis•1998

  Add to list

• Activists beyond Borders

  Margaret E Keck, Kathryn Sikkink•Activists beyond borders•2014

  Add to list

• Development as Freedom

  Open Access•Alan M Rugman, Amartya Sen•Rugman reviews international…•2009

  Add to list

• Justice and the Politics of Difference

  Danielle S Allen, Iris Marion Young•Justice and the Politics of…•2012

  Add to list

• The politics of indigeneity

  Open Access•AmityA Doolittle•Conservation and Society•2010

  Add to list

• Agency in international climate negotiations

  Open Access•Heike Schroeder•International Environmental…•2010

  Add to list

• The Wrong Solution at the Right Time

  Open Access•Amanda M Rosen•Politics & Policy•2015

  Add to list

• Toward a New Sociology of Rights

  Open Access•Margaret R Somers, Christopher N J Roberts•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2008

  Add to list

• Civil Society, Corporate Accountability and the Politics of Climate Change

  Peter Newell•Global Environmental Politics•2008

  Add to list

• Understanding Disenfranchisement

  Dana R Fisher, Jessica Green•Global Environmental Politics•2004

  Add to list

• Issue-linkages to Climate Change Measured through NGO Participation in the UNFCCC

  Miquel Muñoz Cabré•Global Environmental Politics•2011

  Add to list

• The Politics of International Climate Adaptation Funding

  David Ciplet, J T Roberts et al.•Global Environmental Politics•2012

  Add to list

• No climate justice without gender justice

  Geraldine Terry•Gender & Development•2009

  Add to list

• Democratizing Science Movements

  Open Access•Sabrina Mccormick•Social Studies of Science•2007

  Add to list

• Multilateralism and world order

  Open Access•Robert W Cox•Review of International Studies•1992

  Add to list

• Indigenous Health and Climate Change

  James D Ford•American Journal of Public Health•2012

  Add to list

• Structural causes and regime consequences

  Open Access•Stephen D Krasner•International Organization•1982

  Add to list

• The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society

  Open Access•Ann Marie Clark, E J Friedman et al.•World Politics•1998

  Add to list

• International Norm Dynamics and Political Change

  Open Access•Martha Finnemore, Kathryn Sikkink•International Organization•1998

  Add to list

• The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters

  E Neumayer, Thomas Plümper•Annals of the Association of…•2007

  Add to list

• Civil Society and Global Governance

  Michael Muetzelfeldt, Gary Smith et al.•Citizenship Studies•2002

  Add to list