Page - 84 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

84 T.Schinkoet al. compensation functions.Toquantify theLossandDamagespace for specificcoun- tries, we suggest as one option to build on a risk layering approach that segments riskand risk interventionsaccording to risk tolerance.Anapplication tofiscal risks in Bangladesh and at the global scale provides an estimate of countries’ financial supportneedsfordealingwith intolerable layersoffloodrisk.Withmanyaspectsof LossandDamagebeingof immaterialnature,wefinally suggest thatourbroad risk andjusticeapproachinprinciplecanalsoseeapplicationto issuessuchasmigration andpreservationofculturalheritage. Keywords Climate justice ·LossandDamagespace ·Transformativemeasures Curativemeasures ·Climate riskmanagement 4.1 TacklingClimate-RelatedRisk inaContestedPolicy Context The19th conferenceof theParties (COP19) inWarsaw in2013 saw the establish- ment of the “Warsaw InternationalMechanism for Loss andDamage” (UNFCCC 2014).WithArticle 8of theParisAgreement (UNFCCC2015a)Loss andDamage (L&D)cannowberegardedasasortof“3rdpillarof theworkunder theUNFCCC inaddition tomitigationandadaptation” (Verheyen2012).The terrain is extremely contested with highly-at risk countries of the global South (such as those of the Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS) demanding compensation payments for actual past, present and future incurred losses anddamagesdue to climate change, while Annex I countries are unwilling to consider such framing and any related actions (see introduction byMechler et al. 2018; chapters byCalliari et al. 2018; chapter byWallimann-Helmer et al. 2018).Yet, these parties have shownwilling- ness to support climate change adaptation (CCA) and have supported ‘good’ risk management over the years to tackle potential loss and damage, as evidenced by intense debates onmoral responsibility that preceded the approval of the Sendai FrameworkofAction (SFA) inMarch2015. Interestingly, this discussion also saw heateddebateasdevelopingcountriesstartedtoframetheir interventionsaroundthe common,butdifferentiatedresponsibility logic,whichhasbeenfundamental for the UNFCCCdiscussion (Mysiaket al. 2015). Liability and compensation on the one hand, and support for disaster riskman- agement plus insurance on the other hand remain keynegotiation positions for the parties.Thedivergenceinperspectives(seealsochapterbyJamesetal.2018)hasled todifficultnegotiationsfor theExecutiveCommittee,whichwasestablishedin2015 to support the implementationof an informationalworkprogramme.Currently, the workprogrammesomewhat balances the twoperspectiveswithout explicitly refer- ring to justiceandequityprinciples (moreon thepoliticsbehindL&Dcanbefound in thechapterbyCalliari et al. 2018).