Page - 42 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

42 I.Wallimann-Helmeret al. large-scalebeachrenourishmentcanbeconsidered lossesanddamages thatwillnot beavoided.But itdoesnotfallwithinthecategoryofhardadaptationlimits: impacts thatcannotbeavoided. Impacts thatcannotbeavoidedare lossesanddamages that willmaterializewhatevermeasures are taken to adapt. For instance,AOSISgroups relocatingdue to sea-level rise that leads to lossof theirhomelandsanddamages to manyoftheirvaluedassets(seechaptersbyHandmerandNalau2018;Heslin2018). These losses and damages,which comprisemarket and non-market values, cannot beavoidedbyadapting to thenewconditions regardlessof the leveloffinancialand other assistance. This first “beyond adaptation” approach distinguishes L&D from adaptation by focusing on whether the different impacts can be avoided or will be avoided by appropriate measures without any assessment by those facing potential L&D. This is different from the “risk tolerance” approach. This second approach to distinguishing between adaptation and L&D focuses on how those facing the risks of L&Devaluate these risks. Risks of climate impacts that are judged to be intolerable are considered L&D and are contrasted with tolerable risks that are understood to be avoidable through adaptation (Dowet al. 2013a, b;Mechler and Schinko2016;Wallimann-Helmer2015).Suchanevaluationof risksas intolerable, and thus relevant for L&D, presupposes value judgments that can only be taken by those facing those risks. Thus, according to the “risk tolerance” approach, it is crucial that those potentially facing climate impacts can assess the risks they are facing.Sincedifferent communitiesmight assess similar risksdifferently, theywill demand differentmeasures thatmight fallwithin either the category of adaptation orL&D(seechapterbySchinkoet al. 2018). The “risk tolerance” approach primarily relies on the value judgments of those facingpotentialclimateimpacts.Thisnotonlyshowswhy,accordingtothisapproach, thedistinctionbetweenadaptationandL&Dtendstobeblurred.Italsoshowswhyitis mostprobablyassociatedwithaprimaryconcerntofosterappropriatestructuresand institutions for collectivedecision-makingandcapacitybuildingwithinandamong potentially impacted communities. The decisions regardingwhatmeasures should be taken,bywhomandhowtheyshouldbe implementedare relegated tosecondary importance. Thus, priorities regarding climate L&D tend to differ depending on theway of distinguishing adaptation fromL&D (see Table 2.1). For the “beyond adaptation” approach, priority lies with fostering implementation of efficient and effectiveL&Dmeasures, i.e.measures not beingprone to soft andhard adaptation limits. For the “risk tolerance” approach, in contrast, priority lieswith supporting capacitybuilding inorder for communities facingclimate impacts tobebetter able tocollectivelyassess the risks they face. Thus, while the first approach to distinguishing adaptation and L&D mainly focuses on the impacts and themeasures theydemand todifferentiate responsibili- ties, the second approach primarily derives the responsibilities to be differentiated fromwhether and towhat extent capacity building is necessary.On the “risk toler- ance”approach, althoughsupport for implementingL&Dmeasures isof secondary concern, itmay in fact bemore effective for support to be provided if needed.As suggestedbyadaptation research, implementationofL&Dmeasures is likely tobe