Page - xiv - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

List of Figures Fig. 1.1 Evolution of the Loss andDamage discourse under the UNFCCC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Fig. 1.2 Co-evolution of climate change research reported by the IPCC and theUNFCCCprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fig. 1.3 Risk as a function of hazard, exposure and vulnerability. . . . . 12 Fig. 1.4 The risk concept as applied to sudden-onset and slow-onset processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Fig. 3.1 Risk framework for the analysis of extreme event impacts . . . 65 Fig. 3.2 Past, current and future risk from extremeweather events, and the relation to Loss andDamage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Fig. 4.1 Characterisation of climate-related risks relevant for Loss&Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Fig. 4.2 Selected key risks and potential for adaptation for small islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Fig. 4.3 Degree of confidence in the detection of observed impacts of climate change versus degree of confidence in attribution to climate change drivers for tropical small islands . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Fig. 4.4 Framing risk acceptance and (in)tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Fig. 4.5 Elements of the dynamic principled approach to Loss and Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Fig. 4.6 Identifying the risk and policy options space for Loss and Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Fig. 4.7 Climate riskmanagement (CRM) six step approach . . . . . . . . 98 Fig. 4.8 Defining acceptable and unacceptable risks for accident risks in Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Fig. 4.9 Conceptualising risk layering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Fig. 4.10 Understanding risk and risk layering for the caseofflood risk in Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Fig. 4.11 Global map identifying high-level risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 xv