Addressing Sustainable Consumption in the Global Climate Change Agenda

ARBETSRAPPORTER

Kulturgeografiska institutionen

Nr. 722

___________________________________________________________________________

Addressing Sustainable Consumption in the Global Climate Change Agenda

Emma Stålmarck

Uppsala, maj 2010 ISSN 0283-622X

Abstract 

This thesis explores a framework for understanding why sustainable consumption could be important to address further in future development of the UN climate change agenda, which has been developed under the Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC). The ultimate objective of the Convention, and objectives concerning equity in relation to developing country needs, have been the target (and the normative warrant) of the study. A multidisciplinary perspective related to policy analysis has been used as a theoretical and methodological research framework. This investigation has focused on four main areas; the policy content of the UNFCCC and some proceeding documents, policy content on sustainable development which have been adopted in UN fora, summaries of research results on greenhouse gas emission trends and global footprints, and lastly, material which convey official standpoints of developing and developed country representatives. A conclusion drawn from this study is that a consumption perspective of sustainable development is found in UN policies on sustainable development, but is largely missing in the current climate change agenda. A second conclusion is that there is a lot of research which back up the thought that a consumption perspective is important in addition to a production perspective. This also seems to be a conclusion which in well established in parts of the UN such as the UNEP, and incorporated in key documents on sustainable development. A third conclusion is that there are reasons to believe that developed country parties will try to downplay a focus on consumption. In total these are the main points which are presented as a framework for understanding why a greater inclusion of sustainable consumption in the agenda could be important.

Contents   

1.  INTRODUCING THE TOPIC ... 4 

1.1  Aim ... 5 

1.2  Reflections on the aim ... 6 

1.3  Scope and outline of the thesis ... 7 

2.  TEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ... 8 

2.1  Adopting an agenda/policy framework ... 8 

2.2  Research approaches in policy analysis... 10 

2.3  A multidisciplinary framework ... 11 

3.  METHOD ... 13 

4.  UN CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA... 16 

4.1  The development of the agenda and its structure ... 16 

4.2 Key findings concerning agenda content... 19 

4.2  Analyzing agenda content ... 23 

5.  EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORKS... 25 

5.1  Sustainable development and consumption in UN fora ... 26 

5.2  Basic Data: emission trends and global footprints ... 28 

5.3  Political controversy ... 31 

6.  SUMMERIZING REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION ... 35 

7.  REFERENCES... 39 

Appendix 1 ... 44 

1. INTRODUCING THE TOPIC

“Climate change is the defining challenge of our age”.¹ This quote from 2007 by the United Nations’ Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, is an indicator of the great importance climate change issues have come to play in global contexts lately. This view is further emphasized by the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize of 2007 was shared between Al Gore, for his work on contributing to a greater knowledge about climate change, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).² Considering causes of climate change, the latest IPCC assessment report declares that it is very likely³ that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing impacts of climate change. It is also considered very likely that anthropogenic emissions, particularly CO₂ emissions, have contributed to this increase in greenhouse gas concentration.⁴ Since there is a broad consensus that these types of basic explanations are indeed facts, the issue of their uncertainty will not be questioned any further by this thesis. What will be focused on is instead the course of action that must be undertaken in response to the climate change threat, given the truth of these basic casual explanations.

This is where sustainable consumption comes into play, as one out of many possible focuses of the way a climate change solution could be addressed. Sustainable consumption can in wide terms be understood as consumption which is compatible with principles of sustainable development.⁵

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a global framework for climate change work which was adopted in 1992. Global negotiations on climate change from that time on have been based upon this Convention. The ultimate objective of the agenda speaks of a stabilization of the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.⁶ In the light of IPCC research this means that global emissions have to be reduced dramatically.⁷

The Kyoto Protocol, probably the most famous part of the agenda, is a protocol to the Convention where quantitative reduction targets for the period 2008- 2012 were negotiated.

The emission restrictions made there only cover developed countries.

Main agenda principles include that of protecting the climate system “on basis of equity”

and in accordance with countries “common but differentiated capabilities and respective

1 From CMP 3, quoted in United Nations (2008), Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of emissions and assigned amount, p.0, Available at:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf (December 2009)

2 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html (October 2009)

3 Very likely equals 90 % significance intervals.

4 IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report, available at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf (January 2010)

5 Build on the usage of the term in Agenda 21 and Report on World Summit on Sustainable Development.

6 Quotation from the ‘ultimate objective’, UNFCCC

7 IPCC (2007)

responsibilities”.⁸ The Framework Convention notes that per capita emissions in developing countries are relatively low and that developed countries are those that have contributed to the largest share of the greenhouse gas emissions.⁹ To increase the “energy consumption” in developing countries as well as their “share of global emissions” is described by the agenda as necessary steps in order to meet their social and developmental needs. These recognitions and principles help explain why reduction targets in the Kyoto Protocol only apply to developed countries.¹⁰

The binding reduction targets of greenhouse gas emissions are calculated by national emission inventories (NEIs). These NEIs are currently defined to include those emissions that origin from a specific country or geographical territory, which means that greenhouse gas emissions involved in exports and/or imports do not affect the calculations.¹¹ Current calculation measures show that developed countries are making progress towards Kyoto reduction goals. Taking the European Union as an example, the European Energy Agency (EEA) has presented results that show EU-15 countries are about half way towards their goal.¹² If exports and imports are taken into account there are many reasons to believe that this result is significantly less positive.¹³ This means that if emissions were allocated with reference to where goods and services are used, and a consumption-based approach is taken, the result is quite unlike the production-based approach made use of by the current implementation.

These initial recognitions hint that there is a trade-off between the ultimate objective of the agenda and important provisions, such as the principle of equity, which risk to get increased by a lack of focus on consumption. The desire to explore these matters more into depth is what has given birth to this thesis.

1.1 Aim

The broad purpose of this thesis is to depict a framework for understanding why sustainable consumption could be important to address further in future development of the UN climate change agenda (1). The ‘UN climate change agenda’ is referring to the agenda developed under UNFCCC. The agenda goals that are in focus of the analysis are those found in the formulation of the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC and the provisions concerning equity, in relation to developing country needs, included in the same document. These agenda goals are in this way seen as warrants or premises for a conclusion.

The strategy to achieve the broader purpose has been to formulate a second two-folded aim. This aim has partly been to analyze why sustainable consumption can be seen as

8 UNFCCC, article 3, paragraph 1

9UNFCCC, recitals.

10 Ibid.

11 IPCC (1996), Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. p.5, vol. 1, overview.

12 EEA (2009), Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2009, EEA Report No 9/2009, p.75.

13 This will be clarified further on by reference to sources such as SEI (2008) and WWP (2006) and (2008).

important for achieving the goals in focus (2.1), and partly to analyze how sustainable consumption is incorporated in the UN climate change agenda (2.2).

1.2 Reflections on the aim

That consumption patterns matter and that sustainable consumption is an important issue if a sustainable development is sought are no hard-breaking news.¹⁴ There is also much research done which relate to the topic of this thesis. Some of the reports which have been covered by this thesis are publications from United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) the World Wide Fund (WWF), and reports which focus on NEIs.¹⁵ Apart from reports that discuss possible advantages of consumption-based NEIs¹⁶, it is still hard to find sources which explicitly discuss reasons of why a consumption-perspective could be relevant to take further into account in the actual UN climate change agenda. This thesis aims to sketch a framework for these discussions which do not only focus on NEIs. Through a broad approach on the subject, my aim is that the report can help shed light to an overhanging problem.

The choice to focus on why-perspective, rather than a why-/ why-not-perspective, is related to some theoretical reflections which are here presented. The type of evidence included in a perspective on possible advantages could be significantly diverging from those included in a perspective on disadvantages. To present a certain standpoint involves presenting a certain viewpoint. In line with this, a policy argument can be seen as a “crafted argument”; an argument which involves a context understanding.¹⁷ For post-empiricist policy analysis authorities such as Majone and Fisher the job of a policy analyst is to gain insight into these sorts of “crafted arguments”.¹⁸ This view has inspired the development of this thesis and can also function as a motivation for the formulation of the broad purpose. Although the above reasoning does not eliminate the importance of exploring a why-not-perspective, it does point out that a research scope most likely need to be very huge in order to cover all possible standpoints required for a final well informed and merged standpoint. The contribution of this thesis will therefore not be to present such a standpoint. Instead, it will look more into depth to what constitutes the grounds for claiming that sustainable consumption is important to take further into account.

I would also like to comment on the choice of formulating a why-perspective in relation to a common methodological remark which states that researchers are to define their own perspectives and possible impact on the research process.¹⁹ My pre-understanding involves concerns that sustainable consumption is not addressed sufficiently. My own influence on the

14 For example, Agenda 21 addressed this issue back in 1992.

15 UNEP (2007), GEO 4, Global Environmental Outlook – Environment and Development, Available at: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/report/GEO-4_Report_Full_en.pdf (December 2009). WWF(2008), The Living Planet. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf (January 2010). Peters, G.P.,Hertwich, E.G. (2008), Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories:

Production versus consumption. Climatic Change 86, pp.51–66.

16Litterature on NEIs will be discussed in 5.2.

17 Fisher Frank et al. (2007) Handbook of public policy analysis – theory, politics and methods, CRC Press, p. 225, 235.

18 Fisher Frank et al. (2007), Chapter 16.

19NSF (2004), Workshop on scientific foundations of qualitative research, NSF.

research process would most likely be influenced by this regardless of the formulation of the purpose. The current focus is a way of avoiding false neutrality in relation to which viewpoints that will be focused on. Further preunderstandings are discussed in the methodology chapter.

1.3 Scope and outline of the thesis

Concerning limitations of the scope the starting criterion have been to try to outlay what lines of argumentation that carry most weight. Selecting sources which allow for a generalization as far as possible has been one such criterion. A methodological approach from policy analysis literature has guided the research along with a general multidisciplinary perspective.

The more precise scope has been developed during the research process, along with guiding research questions. The following questions have been especially significant for the research:

Questions in relation to the policy content of the UN climate change agenda:

A. How are the ultimate objective and objectives concerning equity formulated?

B. How is the designed solution reflecting these [mentioned in A] objectives?

C. How is sustainable consumption integrated in the problem and solution understanding?

Questions in relation to other sources:

D. How is (un-)sustainable consumption integrated in the problem and solution understanding of climate change in UN fora? And more specifically, how is this understanding present in the area of sustainable development?

E. What are some important basic data that clarifies the relation between consumption and GHG emissions?

F. How is the concept of (un-)sustainable consumption incorporated in the way different interest groups (especially developed versus developing country parties) present problems and solutions to climate change?

Concerning sustainable consumption I have chosen to not make use of any specific definitions of the concept. Instead I aim to adopt a general understanding of the concept in relation to the concept of sustainable development. A further clarification of the scope will be made in the methodology part in Chapter 3. Prior to that, Chapter 2 will introduce the reader to the theoretical and methodological framework which has been used. Chapter 4 will thereafter present the UN climate change agenda. Question A, B and C are primarily investigated in this part. Moreover, the chapter starts out with a presentation of what the climate change agenda is. Chapter 5, called ‘Explanatory Framework’, is divided into three parts which are focused on question D, E and F respectively. Chapter 6 includes a summarizing discussion of the previous chapters and presents a conclusion. This part connects the presented findings back to (2.1) and (2.2), and ultimately to (1).

Since I make use of much terminology and abbreviations that may be confusing for the less involved reader, there is an appendix in the very end of the thesis. The appendix also includes a list over the UN documents that have been the prime target of the study.

2. TEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter will initially describe how the terms ‘agenda’ and ‘policy’ have been used.

Research approaches found in policy analysis literature, which have been taken into consideration in the proceedings of this thesis, will thereafter be discussed. The covered methodological framework of policy analysis is intimately connected to a multidisciplinary theoretical framework. A description of multidisciplinary perspectives in other settings than in policy analysis will be presented in the last part of this chapter. The use of a holistic and systems thinking perspective in general is discussed. It is also pointed out how issues of sustainable development are capturing this perspective in its very concept.

2.1 Adopting an agenda/policy framework

In Handbook of Public Policy and Analysis (2007) by Frank Fisher et al., public policy can be understood as a political guideline used to address a subset of potentially important issues.²⁰ It is common to distinguish a policy process from its policy content. Taking the Framework Convention as an example, the process behind the adoption of the Framework Convention forms part of a policy process, while the actual formulations included in the Convention are forming its content. The policy content is what has been the main target in this study.

Concerning the word ‘agenda’ and its relation to ’policy’, the Handbook of Public Policy and Analysis explains an agenda as containing the issues and the understanding of what sort of problems and solutions that the policy is set out to address.²¹ The understanding of agenda in this thesis will build on this view. Agenda is hence seen as a framework for policy content which includes the range of the problems and types of solutions/implementation measures that the policy is set out to address. Content that is of particular importance in this framework will be referred to as agenda core values. Content that deals with solutions and are of a more detailed character are referred to as implementations or outlined implementations. An important remark from policy analysis, as well as discourse analysis, is that policy content usually includes a mixture of normative values, science-based statements and instrumental statements.²²

This point is also made in relation to policy debates. In Science and Politics on Global Climate Change, Dessler and Parson discuss how policy relevant debates involve positive as

20 Fisher Frank et al. (2007)

21 Ibid.

22 Fisher et al. (2007), Fairclough Norman (2003), Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research, Routledge, pp. 47-55.

well as normative claims, which tend to overlap.²³ Facts are only relevant to policy in relation to normative claims. For example, if we do not wish to protect (or get rid of) agricultural land, it would not be relevant to know that climate change may decrease this.

Figure 1, below, presents an adopted model of the how the relation between agenda core values and outlined implementations can be understood. This model is developed in relation to the above theoretical remarks and the study of actual agenda content, but is also influenced by theoretical discussions in part 2.2 and 2.3. Instead of distinguishing agenda content in terms of science-based versus normative and instrumental statements, I have chosen to make use of the terms physical, social and technical. One reason for this is that this distinction is more easily related to a multidisciplinary perspective. The term ‘social’, is used to denominate content which relates to explanations in social sciences, as well as to social and normative values. The term ‘physical’ denominates content that relates to explanations in natural sciences. Lastly, the term ‘technical’ is used to denominate content of an instrumental kind.

Figure 1: Schematic view of how agenda content can be understood. Source: Author

Agenda content that concerns outlined implementations is seen as essentially technical, whereas core agenda values contain a multidisciplinary spectrum. The cloud-shaped figure containing the core agenda values, as oppose to the square-like figure containing outlined implementations, is used to indicate that this content – because it’s multidisciplinary character – can be more open for interpretation than outlined implementations, which are of a more technical and thus quantitative kind. Figure 1 will be used in Chapter 4 to structure findings of agenda content to help answer research question A, B and C.

23 Dessler, Andrew E. and Parson, Edward A. (2006), The science and politics of global climate change: a guide to the debate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.18 (via books.google.se January 2010)

2.2 Research approaches in policy analysis

The aim of policy research can be described as bridging science and policy – to communicate scientific knowledge in a way that helps policies to become scientifically sound. ²⁴ The origin of policy sciences, as a concept, is commonly attributed to Lasswell (from 1951). Lasswell introduced policy science as a multidisciplinary field where statistics, natural, physical and social sciences were all relevant. Results from all these disciplines should be used and weighted when designing polices. During the development of the field this initial vision has often been sidestepped for the benefit of narrower, and usually more positivistic, approaches.

There has also been a diversification of approaches where some researchers have instead adopted methods using primarily social, context-based, research.²⁵ To its nature, policy science is still described as distinctively multidisciplinary because of its problem-based approach where phenomena are not studied for its own sake.²⁶

Policy analysis is often making use of a policy cycle model, which begins with an analysis of the formulation of a policy and ends with an evaluation of the policy.²⁷ For the purpose of this thesis, policy evaluation is of certain importance. The concern, that the current agenda is insufficient, is a prerequisite for being interested in possible changes of the same. Impact evaluation is a form of policy evaluation which can be described as evaluating the extent to which a change has occurred in the direction intended by the policy.²⁸ Relating impact evaluation to the objective and provisions of the UN climate change agenda, it is clear that they are of such a character that actions and conditions all around the globe need to be taken into account to analyze intended impacts. Because of the global dimensions of the agenda it will be hard to know to what extent observed changes can be seen as a result of the current agenda. It will also be hard to know how much of a change which can be contributed to actual agenda content, and how much which can be contributed to the policy process around it. An impact evaluation will however be of importance to make although there are complications to determine causality.

Theoretically it is clear that agenda goals could be fulfilled although following the rules of action in the agenda content does not guarantee this. It is also clear that an agenda which ‘on print’ leads to accomplishing these goals, might still not achieve this in reality. When discussing possible improvements of an agenda, one focus could be to discuss whether the implementations – if followed – are sufficient from a formal/logical perspective for accomplishing its goals and guidelines. Another focus would be to evaluate whether the current implementations are sufficiently pragmatic for achieving its goals.

In a recent Oxford publication on international law, Martti Koskenniemi describes how legal formalism has been increasingly attacked, and how lawmaking to a large extent is about finding pragmatic solutions. As he points out; that which can protect us can also be a

24 SEI (2009) Getting to Policy Impact: Lessons from 20 Years of Bridging Science and Policy with Sustainability Knowledge.

25 Fisher Frank et al. (2007).

26 Fisher Frank et al. (2007), Chapter 1.

27Fisher Frank et al. (2007).

28 Ibid.

limitation and that which is a freedom can open up for exposure. A law may seem perfectly fine on print but could in reality be unsuccessful. If the aim with a certain law was to ensure freedom but instead lead to exposure it cannot be seen as success. Because of this insight we must be pragmatic and aim to adopt rules and laws that help achieve our goals in the way they are intended – as goals for humanity.²⁹ This point can be seen as a direct reflection on the sufficient/pragmatic divide made above. It suggests that a pragmatic perspective is needed as far as possible.

In the figure below, Figure 2, a second model has been adopted in relation to the reasoning in above section. This model has been used as an analytical tool to structure the outline of the thesis in general. Just as Figure 1, this figure has developed throughout the research process.

The idea of “bridging science and policy” is used by Figure 2 through the division between

‘UN Climate Change Agenda’ and ‘Explanatory frameworks’.

Figure 2: A multidisciplinary approach to evaluate the UN climate change agenda. Source: Author The label ‘Explanatory frameworks’ refers to scientific, social and technical understandings.

This has been chosen in the spirit of a multidisciplinary perspective and traditional policy analysis thinking, a la Lasswell, to point out that the types of arguments that will be considered in the “bridging” needed to depict a framework in line with the overall purpose are of multidisciplinary and integrative kind.

By thinking in terms of explanatory frameworks, I aim to enlighten impacts sought by the UN climate change agenda which are tied to consumption. It will also be used to consider the questions on whether the agenda content is sufficient and/or pragmatic in order to achieve its goals, and how a focus on consumption relate to this. Not only agenda implementations but also its addressing of core values will here be considered.

2.3 A multidisciplinary framework

The necessity to take on a multidisciplinary and holistic approach, in order to understand questions that relate to complex systems, is presented in a variety of settings external to policy analysis. Socio-ecological- or socio-technical systems perspectives are two approaches which can be referred to. A socio-technical systems statement could be that technological

29 Malcolm D. Evans (red.) (2006), International Law second edition, Oxford University Press.

development should be understood from the social context where it has occurred, or that social structures should be understood in relation to the physical and technical environment.³⁰ A socio-ecological view might state something similar about the prerequisites for understanding natural resources. Although the holistic focuses vary among multidisciplinary approaches, depending on the type of system and questions that are of main concern, they have a common element; a belief that systems can only be properly understood if seen as multidimensional.³¹ The term socio-economical, which is used more frequently, implies that the economical system is integrated with the social system and not possible to completely separate from it. This is yet another dimension of what multidisciplinarity may include.

As in the case of policy analysis, holistic and multidisciplinary theoretical perspectives are commonly related to research fields. Ecological Economics is one of these. There is lots of research made within this field that relate to climate change policy issues. This interdisciplinary research field aims to integrate the study of ecology and economics upon a belief that “conceptual and professional isolation have led to economic and environmental policies which are mutually destructive rather than reinforcing in the long term.”³² Another field where a multidisciplinary view is build into the concept is research related to sustainable development. Sustainable development is commonly understood as being based upon three pillars; sustainability with regard to social, economical and environmental aspects. It is no surprise that the number of scholars that recommend a multidisciplinary approach for research on issues that relate to sustainable development is increasing.³³

A problem with holistic perspectives is that taking it to its extreme viewpoint would mean that we are trying to explain the whole world. Regardless of whether an outspoken holistic approach is used or not, people will never become omniscient. This means that we will still always be dealing with a subdivision of reality. The benefits of a certain subdivision must be evaluated against the intentions of our research. A way of understanding systems thinking is that the larger claim we make about a system the less accurate it becomes if it is only based on piecemeal analysis.

The use of multidisciplinary lenses in this thesis has several motives. One motive is that the goals of the climate change agenda involve a complex system that does require a holistic view to be sufficiently understood. A second motive is the belief that the (social) problem- based purpose makes such a perspective needed. An additional third motive is that sustainable consumption can be seen as a part of sustainable development. To understand the importance of sustainable consumption for the UN climate change agenda does then in particular require a holistic view.

30 See for example descriptions in; Günter Ropohl (1999), Philosophy of socio-technical systems, Society for Philosophy and Technology, vol.4, nr. 3,1999.

31 Capra F. (1996) The Web of Life – a new understanding for living systems, referred to via Bergquist, D. A. (2008) Colonized Coasts, p. 50.

32 http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503305/description#description (October 2009)

33 Hornborg A. (2007) referred to via Bergquist, D. A. (2008), p. 51.

3. METHOD

The research method has largely been to conduct a literature study which involves studying actual policy content. During the research process I have continuously integrated theoretical and empirical knowledge and adapted the direction of the research thereafter. This can be seen and a combined top-down bottom-up approach. The initial phase of the research process was focused on enhancing the context understanding of the UN climate change agenda and the problem-based purpose. Later phases of the research have been more focused on specific questions, where those of greatest relevance to the final version have been presented in 1.3.

To structure this chapter I have chosen to describe the method in line with the structure of the completed thesis. The actual research process involves all of the below parts although not conducted in the same chronological order.

What in brief has been studied and evaluated is what role consumption is given in the UN climate change agenda and in chosen explanatory frameworks, in relation to the agenda goals.

I have later sought to compare the role consumption is given in the UN climate change agenda and chosen explanatory frameworks in order to fulfil the overall purpose. The explanatory frameworks that have been chosen are divided into three main parts. A first part focuses on the UN fora, especially sources related to United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and policy content on sustainable development. Official viewpoints presented through reports and key documents such as Agenda 21 (1992) has been studied in relation to this. I have sought to find out how sustainable consumption is addressed by these sources, where and how it is a part of the way problems and solutions to climate change are formulated.

A second explanatory framework focuses on recent research results that are referred to when discussing sustainable consumption in relation to climate change. This includes reports of the development of greenhouse gas emission trends in general. The selection of sources in this part has largely been based on searching for material which is naturally linked to the UN climate change agenda and can be thought of as presenting results from basic data with a high degree of consensus. A key document has been the UNEP publication Geographical Environmental Outlook, GEO 4 (2007). In these sources I have especially been focusing on what kind of statistical material that is used to back up arguments.

The third part focuses on different interest groups. This part has especially sought to enhance the framework for understanding how the agenda goals concerning equity and developing country needs are related to consumption. The research in this part has been focused on diverging presentations of the climate change issue which can be related to consumption. Collection of sources that relate to different interest groups has been done with the historical background of colonialism in mind. Criticism that has been directed towards failed aid project between developed and developing countries have also been a consideration in mind. A pre-understanding has thereby been that the relation between developing and developed countries has a history of complications where developed countries have tended to overlook developing country needs. Sources in this part have been reports and statements from developing respectively developed country representatives.

Concerning the UN climate change agenda, I have studied actual policy content as well as conducting some secondary research. Secondary sources on the policy content have been used to provide an overview and thereby decrease the risk to overlook important parts. The purpose of using secondary sources has also been to provide a shortcut to different terminology. The content of the following documents has been the major focus; UNFCCC (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), Marrakesh Accords and Declaration (2001) and the Bali Roadmap (2007).

The Kyoto Protocol is significant since that was where the general framework adopted in UNFCCC was quantified into timelines and quotas. The Marrakesh Accords and Declaration is an important document since specifications about the Kyoto Protocol was made in that document which enabled it [the Kyoto Protocol] to open for ratification. The Bali Roadmap is useful since it is a fairly recent set of documents and often referred as an important marker in the climate change negotiations. Secondary sources include the Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of emissions and assigned amount (2008), a document which contains guidelines for better apprehension of the rules and regulations that applies to the Kyoto Protocol. The Rough Guide to Climate Change (2006) and Multilateral Environmental Agreement’s: Negotiators Handbook, a UNEP publication from 2007, are two other sources which are used.

One of the reasons for choosing UN documents for enhancing the understanding of the agenda can be described with reference to the concept of interpretative prerogative. In situations where people have diverse versions of how something should be interpreted this concept is sometimes referred to. It incorporates the viewpoint that one side has more insights into a subject and therefore can make a larger claim in having the right interpretation.

Although there is a danger of using that concept too casual it can be referred to as a line of thought that strengthen reasons for investigating views within the UN fora for better understanding of the agenda.

The study of the UN fora and policy content on sustainable development involved in the explanatory framework is also used to enhance the understanding of the climate change agenda in general. Thinking in terms of intertextuality is a line of though similar to interpretative prerogative which explain the benefit of such an approach. See Fairclough (2003) for further clarifications.³⁴

I have conducted the study of policy content and explanatory framework sources with the idea that, policy- and policy relevant statements can be a mixture of facts, values and predictions.³⁵ A general mindset that seeks to understand the intertwined nature of normative and empirical content of arguments is what has characterized the reading process. This applies to the reading of separate sources and the analysis of the relation between them. I believe this approach can be best described as an argumentative policy analysis. The idea of this approach is that, as Fisher explains it, “the scientific acceptability of the conclusions depends on the full range of interconnections³⁶, not just empirical findings”³⁷. This relates back to thinking in

34 Fairclough (2003).

35 See Fairclough (2003), Fisher et al (2007) and Dessler and Parson (2008).

36 Interconnections refer to empirical findings, normative assumptions, situational contexts and interpretative judgments in the data-collection process.

terms of “crafted arguments” as discussed in 1.2. A more general methodological term, which is can also be referred to as a methodological take-off, is hermeneutics, as discussed by Gilje and Grimen (1992).³⁸

In the readings of the agenda content I have tried to compare formulation in UN writings on sustainable development with those in the climate change agenda, and tried to scan off if understandings and formulations in agenda 21 etc. could be found in latter. A method to get an overview of documents, which can also be mentioned, has been to search for key words such as ‘consumption’. This is not something which I have drawn any conclusions directly from but it has given some insights into how focus differs among sources.

In the reading of the climate change agenda I have also tried to distinguish quantitative language from qualitative language. This has been a way to clarify how social content is interrelated with scientific and technical content. An example of qualitative language would be a phrase such as ‘equal rights’, which contain a normative value and can be seen as a

‘social’ content. A phrase like “equal, meaning 50 % each” is of a definite character and exemplifies quantitative language as well as scientific and/or technical content.

It can be noted that the number of sources which have provided an overview of agenda content and/or enhanced the understanding of the issues that relate to the thesis topic are many more than those mentioned in the reference list. Considering the character of topic this is pretty obvious. The sources I have consciously and explicitly made used of are those that have been included in the reference list. A couple of additional sources that have been valuable and can be worth pointing out though are lectures with Bo Kjellén, Swedish chief negotiator at the time when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, and Niclas Hallström, climate expert at the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

Despite the aim to cover sources which enable a broad context-understanding and provide input to how certain documents can be read and interpreted there is always a risk of overlooking important parts. Although I have tried to make sure my interpretations of factual statements are reflecting the original sources correctly there is still a chance that some details could be interpreted slightly different. I do not believe though, that any such minor mistake or controversy could affect the general framework which is being sketched in this thesis.

37 Fisher et al (2007), p.231.

38 Gilje N and Grimen H (1992), Samhällsvetenskapernas förutsättningar, Daidalos, Chapter 7.

4. UN CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA

This chapter will present important findings from studying agenda content. A first part provides a brief background description of how the agenda has developed, as well as an overview of the agenda structure. The second part presents actual agenda content findings. A third, and final part, is then discussing some important observations which are of relevance to point out before the final summarizing discussion and analysis in chapter 6.

4.1 The development of the agenda and its structure

The UNFCCC was established at the Rio Conference of Environment and Development in 1992, and has been valid since March 21, 1994.³⁹ At present time, November 2009, 194 countries, referred to as Parties of the Convention, have ratified⁴⁰ the Convention which means the membership is close to universal. The Kyoto Protocol is the only protocol to the Convention. It was established 1997 and has been valid since February 16 2005.⁴¹ It had then been ratified by countries that together accounted for no less than 55 percentages of global GHG emissions, which was the requirement for its entry into force along with having been ratified by at least 55 countries.⁴² The United States, which accounted for a major proportion of the global emissions in 1990 has signed the UNFCCC but has still not signed the Kyoto Protocol.⁴³

The two other documents which are being covered by this study are the Marrakesh Accords and Declaration and the so-called Bali Roadmap. Marrakesh Accords and Declaration from 2001 was where specifications about how the Kyoto Protocol should be implemented were made which enabled it – the Kyoto Protocol – to open for ratification.⁴⁴ The Bali Roadmap is a more recent document which was adopted in 2007. It is considered as an important marker in the agenda development and includes guidelines of future work. There has not been any major development of the agenda since this time.

39 http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php (2009-12- 14)

40 See Appendix.

41 http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (2010-01-13)

42 Kyoto Protocol, article 25, paragraph 1.

43 Henson, Robert (2006), The rough guide to climate change, Rough Guides.

44 The Marrakesh Accords and Declaration.

Figure 3, below, presents a timeline over important UN proceedings which are to be covered by this Chapter and the following. The four UN climate change documents mentioned above are together seen as the “UN climate change agenda” as used by this thesis.

Figure 3: A timeline of the development of the UN climate change agenda including UN proceedings on sustainable development.

I have not been able to cover all juridical information that is involved with the climate change agenda. Some basic juridical information of the documents is however described here. The Convention, as well as the Kyoto Protocol, is a multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) which in UN terminology refers to a “legally binding agreement between several States related to the environment”.⁴⁵ This means that when it has been ratified by a country, international law applies to it. A distinction between “hard law” and “soft law” instruments are sometimes done where MEAs are referred to as a hard law instrument while agreements of a non-legal kind is referred to as “soft law” instrument. Agenda 21 is one example of such a “soft law”.

As being the case with the Framework Convention, multilateral environmental agreements are in generalproducts of huge international conferences within the UN fora. The United Nations Conference on Human Development in 1972, or the Stockholm Conference as it is more commonly referred to, was a start out for MEAs. This was where the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) was formed. UNEP is the body within the UN with the main responsibility to oversee and coordinate global environmental policies and laws such as MEAs.

After 1972 about 300 MEAs have been adopted under the wings of UNEP. ⁴⁶

The Stockholm Conference was also where the Stockholm Declaration was established, a document that contains many of those principles which occur in other MEAs. Principles concerning “present and future generations”, “economic and social development” and

“international cooperation” are examples of principles from the Stockholm Declaration which show up in the UNFCCC.

45UNEP et. al. (2007), Multilateral Environmental Agreement’s: Negotiators Handbook.

Chapter 2, p.1 (2-1).

46 Ibid.

There are numerous non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations (NGOs and IGOs) which have observer status to these kinds of UN conferences. Currently there are almost a thousand NGOs along with 67 IGOs which have observer status at COP meetings.⁴⁷ COP meetings are conferences that deal proceedings of the climate change. This term along with some other terminology are presented in the following section which provides an overview of the Convention structure.

Convention Structure

The introductory part of the Framework Convention includes ‘recitals’. Recitals, also called

‘preambular statements’, are a set of opening statements which are included in order to create a context and refer to historical understanding and policy development which is of importance for the issue. Recitals are important for the interpretation of the document but do not form part of the operational content.⁴⁸

The recitals are followed by 26 articles. Article 1, 2 and 3 cover definitions, ultimate objective and principles in respectively order. Principles are usually stated in pretty wide terminology and are sometimes seen as elements of “soft law”, although they are still legally binding.⁴⁹ In a handbook for MEA negotiators, co-published by the UNEP in 2007, it is stated that the provisions made early on in MEAs, as well as the principles that are included to guide the action of the Parties, “have an important interpretive value as an agreement is implemented”.⁵⁰ To connect this to what was covered in the previous chapter it can be understood that the interpretation made will be important in an evaluation of whether outlined implementations reflect back on these provisions. That is – if the agenda can be considered to be implemented according to its starting guidelines.

Article 4 covers commitments. Article 2, 3, 4, and also article 11 on financial mechanism, is where core values are mainly found. Recitals can in regard to core values be seen more as providing a perspective of how they are to be interpreted in a relevant way. Article 12 on

“communication of information related to implementation” is also worth pointing out since it partly specifies commitments made in article 4.

Moreover, there are four articles that cover the formation of different bodies to the Convention; two main bodies with responsibility for organizing the work under the Convention: the conference of the parties COP and the secretariat (article 7 and article 8), and two subsidiary bodies: one on science and technology advice and one for implementation (article 9 and 10). Remaining articles cover, more or less, guidelines and rules of different legal implications.

47 http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php (February 2010)

48 UNEP et al (2007)

49 Malcolm D. Evans (red.) (2006) p. 180.

50 UNEP et al. (2007), Chapter 2, p.18 ( 2-18) and Malcolm D. Evans (2006), “Environmental governance” chapter.

4.2 Key findings concerning agenda content

Some basic understanding of the agenda is already presented in brief in the introduction in Chapter 1. This section will review agenda core values and implementation measures a bit more into depth.

UNFCCC content

The ultimate objective of the agenda is found in the Framework Convention and relates to all legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt. The objective is stated in the following words:

“…to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

As can be read above, “in accordance with relevant provisions” is included in the very formulation of the ultimate objective. To achieve a stabilization of greenhouse gases without recognizing relevant provisions, can thereby be understood as failing to reach the ultimate objective.

The first principle stated in the Framework Convention points out that climate change work should be carried out; “[…] for the benefit of future and present generations, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their [the Parties] common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”

Agenda statements concerning developing country needs that relate to consumption (and production) are found in the part with recitals. The Convention ‘notes’ that there is a major difference in historical contribution to global emissions between developed and developing countries and furthermore that; “[...] the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs”. It also ‘recognizes’ that the energy consumption in developing countries need to grow in order to progress towards that goal. Although increased energy consumption does not equal increased emissions per se, setting it in relation to the previous quote makes it pretty clear that an increased share of emissions is partly contributed to a need of increased energy consumption in this understanding.

Most outlined implementations are made in the Kyoto Protocol and documents adopted by the COP/CMP⁵¹. A few guidelines of implementation character are made in the Framework Convention though. That all Parties, developed as well as developing countries, shall provide national emission inventories of anthropogenic emissions is one of these implementation guidelines. These inventories shall include all greenhouse gases, which are not already regulated via the Montreal Protocol, and are to be calculated using comparable methodologies

51 See Appendix.

(article 4, paragraph 1). In article 12, first paragraph, it is specified that Parties shall also provide “any other information” that they consider relevant for achieving the objective of the Convention. If feasible, this information shall also include “material relevant for calculations of global emission trends”.

The system boundary of NEIs

The national emission inventories (NEIs) are using geographical territories as their system boundary where emission originating from geographical territories is what is being covered.⁵² This can be seen as a production-based approach, since emissions associated with the construction of products are allocated to the country where they were produced, regardless of where they later are consumed. The system boundary used by NEIs is not defined in any part of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol mentions the word consumption only once, namely consumption of halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride in industrial processes - in a completely different context so to speak.

In the Stockholm Declaration (principle 21), also restated as principle 2 in the Rio Declaration, it is stated that States have – because of international law and the Charter of the United Nations – 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 national jurisdiction”.⁵³ This can possibly be an explanation of a predefined understanding of the system boundary of NEIs where only production within country borders is calculated.

It can be pointed out though that the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer did take exports and imports into account. This is done in the Protocol by regulating calculated levels of production as well as those of consumption.⁵⁴ The ozone layer that the Montreal Protocol was supposed to protect has begun to recover and the Protocol is by many considered to be one of the most successful MEAs.⁵⁵

A division into Annexes

As exemplified in above sections, provisions are often making use of the dichotomy developing and developed countries. This dichotomy is however often replaced by the usage of different Annexes. Which group(s) a country belongs to is settled by the actual Annex I and Annex II to the Framework Convention. The major divide is made with reference to Annex I and non-Annex I countries, where industrialized countries comprise the group of Annex I countries. Non-Annex I countries are those that have ratified the Convention and do not belong to the Annex I group. Annex II countries are instead a subgroup of Annex I countries and have special obligations to support other Parties under the Convention. It is possible to do amendments to these Annexes. A recent example of this is how the name of Malta was added to Annex I in COP 15 in Copenhagen.⁵⁶

52 United Nations (2008).

53 From Rio Declaration (1992), referred to in UNEP et. al. (2007), Chapter 1, p. 3 (1-3).

54 Montreal Protocol.

55 UNEP (2007), p.9.

56 http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_mal_auv.pdf (January 2010)

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is where measurable obligations under the Convention are included.

Actual quotas for decreases in GHG emission for Annex 1 countries for a first period of commitment, 2008 – 2012 are specified (article 3). These quotas represent a decrease with in average at least five per cent for developed countries taking 1990 as a baseline.⁵⁷ The formulation of this part speaks of how Annex I Parties individually or jointly should decrease

“their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions”. Three types of mechanisms are introduced by which Annex I Parties can achieve compliance with their reduction quotas; emission trading, joint implementation (JI) and clean development mechanism (CDM). All of these mechanisms are to be supplementary to reduction of national emissions. Emission trading is pretty much what the name implies, a way for Parties to trade and in that way add or subtract to their assigned quotas. Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism are project-based mechanisms. These are both about making investments in projects that reduce levels of GHG in the atmosphere through reducing emissions or enhancing sequestration outside of the own country borders. In this way the Party that does the investment earns credits that counts as reductions on their account. JI projects are made between Parties that both have assigned quotas under the Kyoto Protocol and can therefore be seen as a redistribution as reductions. CDM projects are instead involving both a Party with obligations to reduce emissions and another Party, a non-Annex I Party, without these obligations.⁵⁸ One of the reasons for the existence of these mechanisms is to enable cost-effective reductions.⁵⁹

According to article 13, paragraph 4 of the Kyoto Protocol, the implementation of the Protocol is to be under regular review by the COP. Among the specifications can be noticed that the COP should promote and guide “the development and periodic refinement of comparable methodologies for the effective implementation of this Protocol”. This points out that there is room for amendments in implementations.

Sustainable development references in agenda writing

Apart from enabling cost-effective reduction, another major purpose of the CDM is to contribute to a sustainable development for the developing country Party where the project takes place.⁶⁰ A lot of focus is placed on “capacity-building” in developing countries which then should be carried out in a way with promotes a sustainable development. This is particularly articulated in the Marrakesh Accords and Declaration. A principle concerning sustainable development is included in the Framework Convention where it is stated that all Parties “have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development".⁶¹

57 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, article 3, paragraph 1.

58 Kyoto Protocol article 17, 6 and 12. Also se Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of emissions and assigned amount, UNFCCC, 2008, p.15

59Henson, Robert (2006)

60 Kyoto Protocol article 12.

61 UNFCCC, article 3, paragraph 4

In agenda documents adopted after the Framework Convention, the usage of sustainable development has turned into being primarily focused on developing countries in relation to the CDM.⁶² Recitals in the Marrakesh Declaration points out that the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) provides an important opportunity when it comes to addressing climate change and its linkage to sustainable development. Using the widest possible cooperation is also mentioned in this document, and many other agenda documents, as something which is important in order to achieve the ultimate objective.

As being the case with the Marrakesh example that points to the importance of WSSD, there are several similar cross-references in the agenda content, which are often forming part of the recitals. One example of this is how a recital in the Framework Convention is “recalling provisions of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989 on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development”.⁶³ Recitals in resolution 44/228 include the following two phrasings;⁶⁴

“Gravely concerned that the major cause of the continuing deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of production and consumption, particularly in industrialized countries”

“Recognizing that measures to be undertaken at the international level for the protection and enhancement of the environment must take fully into account the current imbalances in global patterns of production and consumption”

Although these concerns and recognitions are not explicitly referred to, they are indeed forming of a part of the context understanding in the cross-reference.

Recent Development

Implementation pathways adopted in the Kyoto Protocol has functioned as the main track by which to organize work under the Convention. In recent year a second track has been adopted, where focus lies more on long-term perspectives. This was done at COP 13 in Bali 2007 and is formulated in the Bali Roadmap. By the establishment of a new working group, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA), future action would partly be negotiated in relation to long-term cooperative action under the Convention and partly in relation to the track set out by the Kyoto Protocol.⁶⁵ An important purpose with the LCA it to create a “shared vision” for future work on climate change.⁶⁶ In relation to this it is specified that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities is particularly important. It is also reaffirmed that “economic and social development and poverty

62 Marrakesh Accords and Declaration.

63 UNFCCC, introductory notes

64 A/RES/44/228, United Nations (1989),Available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/ares44- 228.htm (2010-01-16)

65 Bali Roadmap. Agenda item 4: Revised draft decision -/CP.13 (2007).

66 Ibid. Paragraph 1.

eradication are global priorities”. The principle of equity is not restated explicitly in the Bali document on LCA as it was in the Marrakesh Accords and Declaration.

4.2 Analyzing agenda content

The above section has particularly been trying to provide input to research question A, B and C on agenda content which involve, respectively, how the ultimate objective and objectives concerning equity are formulated, how the designed solution reflects these [mentioned in A]

objectives, and how sustainable consumption is integrated in the problem and solution understanding. Some reflections in relation to these questions will be covered in this section.

By the usage of Figure 1, agenda content can be structured as shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Figure 1 applied on agenda content

Overall, Figure 4 is mainly intended to represent agenda content in a somewhat structured way and relate different type of content to the goals of interest. It is not trying to claim that this is the only possible way to divide agenda content. In the case of technical agenda core values for example, they might also be regarded as outlined implementations. The use of Annexes and the idea of NEIs are however never something which is open to revision.

Although the concept of Annexes can be seen as a core value it is, as pointed out, open to revise which Annex a country should belong to. Regardless of if it is seen as core value content or an outlined implementation there is a certain difficulty in translating social core values which refer to developing and developed countries into the technical language speaking of Annexes.

To a large extent the division into Annex I versus non-Annex I countries are similar to the dichotomy developed versus developing countries. While the former classification is objective because of actual annexes, or updates of those, the latter classifications are of a more subjective nature, which enables a certain degree of flexible interpretation. The reason for the division into different annexes can be understood as depending on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities. Differentiated responsibilities are related to the recognition of an unequal historical contribution to the current situations. A division between developing and developed countries with regard to this recognition can be considered definite, since historical facts are not something which is changed by future events (although new historical findings may change our viewpoints of the past). With regard to differentiated capabilities though, the division ought to undergo a continuous change since there is no reason why countries that have few capabilities today might not have more capabilities in the nearby future. The importance of “capacity building” in developing countries through different activities including aid from other parties to the Convention is furthermore something which is frequently emphasized throughout the agenda.⁶⁷

There is a linguistic problem in referring to a country’s responsibility and capability.

Socially speaking, people living within the borders of a country may have a responsibility but the geographical area cannot have this. In the same way it does not make sense to talk about a geographical area as acting or being capable of doing anything. Since people within a country comprise a heterogenic group it could easily be argued that their capabilities and responsibilities look different. This fact – that the polarization between rich and poor in the world goes far beyond national geographical borders – is something which often has been pointed out in globalization contexts.⁶⁸ Saskia Sassen who promoted the concept of the global city, is one of those pointing out local polarization within the global context.⁶⁹ Peter Dicken is discussing these issues and concludes that statistical data aggregated into national boxes are not as useful as they once were, because of geo-economical conditions.⁷⁰

In this situation it may be argued that a consumption-perspective where exports and imports and accounted for is providing a more balanced picture of peoples capabilities and responsibilities than what a production perspective does. Anyhow, it is clear that the choice of perspective is effecting conclusions on equity issues between countries.⁷¹ No matter which perspective that is taken it is clear that questions of equity must be handled with national policies in addition to international to capture national differences. Since the choice of perspective at the international level can potentially affect the way national policies are designed it can still be relevant also from a national perspective.

67 Marrakesh Acccords and Declaration. Bali Roadmap.

68 See for example Potter, Robert B. (red.), Geographies of development: an introduction to development studies, 3. [revised] ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Harlow, 2008

69Sassen, Saskia, The global city: New York, London, Tokyo, 2. ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 2001

70 Dicken Peter, Global Shift –reshaping the global economic map in the 21st century, 4th edition, SAGE publications, 2003, p.14

71 This point will be addressed further in the following chapter.

Above reasoning has functioned as input to a perspective of weather the designed solution is reflecting goals concerning developing country needs and equity and it suggests that this is not unproblematic. In the same way it is clear that it is somewhat complicated to translate the underlying objectives concerning a reduction of greenhouse gases into a technical terminology. For example, the ultimate objective speaks of establishing a condition that does not threat food production, what does this mean in technical terms? Although it may be agreed upon the technical understanding, it is highly dependent on the social understanding of the question.

Concerning the objective of reductions of greenhouse gases it is clear that the designed solution is not in itself sufficient to guarantee global reductions since there are no restrictions on emissions that origin from Non-Annex 1 countries. More pragmatic remarks on whether the designed solution reflects the goals of concern can be extended if sources other than the agenda itself are studied. Findings in the following chapter, Chapter 5, can therefore be seen as additional input to this question (question B).

Research question C asked how (un)sustainable consumption is integrated in the problem and solution understanding of climate change. The findings presented in this chapter shows that the concept of ‘consumption’ and ‘sustainable consumption’ are largely missing in the agenda content. “Human activities” are highlighted as a problem in the Framework Convention, via the initial part with recitals. Since ‘human activities’ incorporates consumption, unsustainable consumption does in this sense form a part of the problem understanding. This is never explicitly stated though. It can be concluded that sustainable consumption is not on the agenda. At the same time it is apparent that the implicit understandings of how a focus on sustainable consumption is a part of the problem and solution to climate change is a lot more extended than the explicit agenda content. The importance of cross-references and recitals as important instruments for interpretations and context-understanding are providing evidence for this.

5. EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORKS

This section covers findings from sources that are not part of the UN climate change agenda (content), and that in different ways reflect on climate change and consumption. The section aims to provide answers to research question D, E and F.

The first part – sustainable development and the UN – provides examples of how climate change concerns relate to UN agendas on sustainable development. This part is also highlighting how sustainable consumption is a main component in those fora where sustainable development is addressed. The second part focuses on research findings that link consumption with climate change. The concept of global footprints is of special importance since the connection between consumption to environmental damage such as climate change in incorporated in the concept in a very direct way. Research which uses this concept is frequently referred to as evidence of consumption impacts. A third part covers political viewpoints of developed respectively developing country representatives. Viewpoints from