Page - 41 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

2 TheEthicalChallenges in theContextofClimateLossandDamage 41 2.2 TwoApproaches toDistinguishBetweenAdaptation andL&D Some argue that the three pillars of climate policy at theUNFCCC level aremiti- gation, adaptation, andL&D (see introduction byMechler et al. 2018; chapter by Calliari et al. 2018).Whilemitigation can be distinguished from adaptation quite easily (mitigation involves reducingGHGemissionsandenhancingsinksandreser- voirswhereasadaptationinvolvestheprocesses,practices,andstructurestomoderate potential negative impacts), L&Dismore challenging todifferentiate fromadapta- tion.Nevertheless, we can adopt a standard definitionwhich helps to separate the two: in a climate change context,L&Dmay refer to actionsdealingwith the resid- ual,adverse impactsofclimatechangewhichremainaftermitigationandadaptation measures have been adopted (Mace andVerheyen 2016).Wecall this the “beyond adaptation” approach.This is similar towhat theparties to theUNFCCCacknowl- edge inDecision2/CP.19whentheystate thatL&D“involvesmore than, thatwhich canbe reducedbyadaptation” (UNFCCC2014). In the literature, an alternative approach to the distinction is that adaptation involves responses to keep risks within the range of tolerable risk whereas L&D involves responses to risks that cannot be kept within the range of tolerable risks andsobecome intolerable.Thismeans thatdespite adaptationmeasures these risks exceedsociallynegotiatednormsorvaluesdefiningtolerability(Dowetal.2013a,b; Wallimann-Helmer2015; seechapterbySchinkoet al. 2018).Wecall this the“risk tolerance” approach.Depending onwhich of these approaches is chosen, different kinds of responsibilities andmeasureswill become the primary focus of policy. In the following,wefirst showwhythis is thecaseand thenarguewhyinsetting these prioritiesbothapproachescomplement eachother. The question of which responsibilities and measures the “beyond adaptation” approachencompassescanbeelaboratedbyconsideringwhether theclimate-related impacts cannot be avoided orwill not be avoided in the future by mitigation or adaptation (Mace andVerheyen 2016). In the literature, this same distinction has alsobeendiscussed in termsofunavoidable andunavoided impacts (Roderick and Verheyen 2008). According to this approach, a key reason why some adaptation measuresthatcouldhavebeentakenwillnotbetakenis thatactorsmaybesubject to socio-economicconstraints.Typically,L&Dmeasuresarenot takendue toa lackof internationalfinancing, implementation restrictions, or political constraints leading to soft andhard limits (ChambweraandMohammed2014).The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sees soft limits if adaptation constraints can in principle be overcome in contrast to hard adaptation limits,where constraints lead to limits that cannotbeovercome(Kleinet al. 2014). To illustrate this, imaginea scenario inwhichmembersof theAllianceofSmall Island States (AOSIS), without international financing, may be unable to afford large-scale beach renourishment needed to guard against the impacts of high sea level rise. In turn, suchadaptationwouldbe takenwere there sufficientfinancial (or other) resourcesavailable.Theimpactsassociatedwith the inability toconductsuch