Page - 5 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

1 Science forLossandDamage.FindingsandPropositions 5 insuranceforlossesduetosea-levelrise(INC1991),ittookabout20years,alongside increasing evidence and public awareness of climate change impacts and risks as collatedprominently in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel onClimateChange (IPCC), for it to be recognised at the institutional level. In 2007UNFCCC’s 13th ConferenceoftheParties(COP13)inBalifirstbroadlyconsideredmeanstoaddress LossandDamage,yetonly in2012atCOP18 inDohadidParties for thefirst time decide to consider institutional arrangements to address L&D,which in 2013 led negotiators atCOP19 to establish the “Warsaw InternationalMechanism forLoss andDamageassociatedwithClimateChangeImpacts”(WIM)(UNFCCC2013). In 2015atCOP21,theParisAgreementestablishedaseparatearticleonL&Dendorsing theMechanism(UN2015) (seeFig. 1.1). Since its establishment, theWIM,whose ExecutiveCommitteehasdevisedworkprogrammestoinformthedeliberations,has been subject to intense debate.While some consider it a distinct building block of negotiationsundertheUNFCCCalongsidemitigationandadaptation,otherssuggest that it is supposed to be an integral part of the negotiations under climate change adaptation. The implications and final directions for thisMechanism, which will undergo reviewin2019, are, however, largelyunclear. Thedebate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing,while concepts, methodsandtools,aswellasdirectionsforpolicyremainvagueandcontested.Over the last fewyears, researchhas been requested to provide actionable input andhas increasingly become active. Scholarship has started to provide evidence on losses anddamages invulnerable countries (Warner andvanderGeest 2013), coined and criticallyexamineddefinitions, therationaleandpluralperspectivesonthediscourse (Verheyen andRoderick2008; James et al. 2015;VanderGeest andWarner 2015; Vanhala andHestbaek 2016;Boyd et al. 2017), employed applicablemethods and models(Gall2015;BirkmannandWelle2015;SchinkoandMechler2017),reviewed roles for justice and equity considerations (Huggel et al. 2016a;Roser et al. 2015; Wallimann-Helmer 2015), spent due attention onnon-economic losses (Serdeczny et al. 2017; Tschakert et al. 2017;Wewerinke-Singh 2018a), supported crafting of policyandgovernanceoptions(Pinninti2013;PageandHeyward2017;Mechlerand Schinko2016;Croslandetal.2016;BiermannandBoas2017)andexaminedtherole oflegalresponsestoL&D(MaceandVerheyen2016;Mayer2016;Wewerinke-Singh 2018b). Manygaps remain, not the least in terms of communication across the science- policy interface. Analysts and observers, including the authors of this book, have argued that thesegapshavehamperedunderstandingandprogress towardseffective policy formulation, aswell as practical implementation.Aswedemonstrate in this book, a more strongly evidence-based dialogue is desirable and feasible, and we seeanumberofpromisingoptions for instillingmorecoherence into thedebateand fosteralignmentwithotherpolicyagendas,particularlywithregardtoclimatechange adaptation (CCA), current international effortsondisaster risk reduction (DRR), as well as theUnitedNationsSustainableDevelopmentGoals (SDGs). Thisbookthusaimsatprovidinginsights intotheL&Ddiscoursebyhighlighting state-of-the-artresearchfrommultipledisciplinesaswellaspolicycontextsrelatedto L&D.Itarticulates themultipleconcepts,principlesandmethodsrelevant forL&D,