Page - 15 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

1 Science forLossandDamage.FindingsandPropositions 15 considerations alongside principles of need and responsibility linked to risk-based actions.Buildingonthefindingsofthetrendsandethicschapters,theauthorsdevelop a policy proposal arguing for international support for needs-based comprehensive climate riskmanagement.At the same time, they alsopropose to include actionon liabilitiesattributabletoanthropogenicclimatechangeandassociatedimpacts.They identify a policy space composed of, what they call curative and transformative measures.Transformativemeasures aremeasures that gobeyond the standard tool- box of riskmanagement, also involving actions that change fundamental systems’ attributes.Curativeactionwouldbetriggeredthroughtheidentificationofunavoided andunavoidablelossesanddamagesattributedwithrelativelyhighconfidence tocli- mate change (examples are impacts linked to sea-level rise and glacial retreat; see IPCC2014a).Presentingandgoingbeyondapublicfinanceapplication, theauthors maintain that thebroadriskand justiceapproachdevelopedmaybeapplied toother highlycontestedL&Dissuessuchasmigrationand thepreservationofculturalher- itage, asdiscussedelsewhere in thebook. 1.4.2 Critical IssuesShaping theDiscourse Anumber of issues have been critical for shaping the discourse. Importantly, the roleof attributionhasbeen in the limelight.Thechapter onAttribution: How is it RelevantforLossandDamagePolicyandPractice?byRachelA.James,Richard G. Jones, EmilyBoyd,HannahR.Young, FriederikeE. L.Otto, ChristianHuggel andJanS.Fuglestvedtprovidesanoverviewofthestateofscientificevidencelinking losses and damages to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and takes a criti- cal look at the relevanceof this science forL&Dpolicy andpractice. The authors’ point of departure is a consideration of the existing understanding andperceptions of attribution among policy-makers and observers to L&Ddiscussions. Following severalyearsof research intostakeholderperspectivesonattributionandL&D, they find thatattribution isoftenassociatedwith responsibilityandblame,and therefore, somemightprefer toavoiddiscussionsofattribution.Yet,as theauthorsargue,attri- butionscience itself isnotabout responsibility,but rather isascientific investigation ofcausal linksbetweenelementsof theearthsystemandsociety.Thechapter there- fore outlines available research into the causal connections between anthropogenic climatechangeandL&Dfromaclimatescienceviewfocusedonchanges inhazard, butalsofromariskresearchviewthatexaminesthedriversofexposureandvulnera- bility.Thechaptercloseswithanexaminationofpotentialapplicationsofattribution research, highlighting its importance to informpractical actions to avert,minimise andaddressL&D. Asmentioned, theL&Ddebate has been strongly shaped bypolitical rationale. ElisaCalliari, Swenja Surminski and JaroslavMysiak’s chapter on thePolitics of (and behind) the UNFCCC’s Loss and Damage Mechanism reviews political science research and takes an international relations view on the L&D discourse to enhance understanding of current negotiation processes. It also points outways