At the international level, environmental markets and market-based instruments (e.g. payment for ecosystem services) are increasingly established as tools for the management of natural resources. Yet, such innovation does not come without contestation concerning the effectiveness of this approach but also its legitimacy in terms of its normative implications (equity and justice). The paper will present two according cases of recent negotiations on the marketization of natural resources management, namely the market for genetic resources that was strengthened by the Nagoya Protocol (2010) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the most recent mitigation instrument of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries” (REDD+; 2010).
Conceptually, the paper will start with a typology of justice claims. In a second step, both empirical cases are – based on qualitative research – analyzed with view to their negotiation and normative dynamics. It will be shown that the cases share the interconnectedness of material and procedural dimensions to justice claims, and that 'weak' and notably South-centred actors are able to pursue transnational coalition-building, and to impact on the normative content (formalized justice principles) of international agreements, challenging the prevalent normative order, beyond their assumed weight: With regards to REDD+-negotiations in the traditionally state-centred UNFCCC, indigenous peoples' have been able to successfully lobby for the unprecedented acknowledgment of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this institution. In the case of the negotiations on the Nagoya Protocol some developing countries raised serious concerns to share benefits that stem from the genetic resources extracted during colonialization. Both cases will reveal that diverse framings are engaged to (de-)legitimize the appropriateness of these claims for recognition and substantial justice in an increasingly 'liberalized' governance architecture.
