Page - 85 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

4 TheRiskandPolicySpace forLossandDamage… 85 The sciencebehind climate-related risks relevant for theL&Ddebate is equally complex. It hasmadegreat leaps forwardwith IPCC’sSREXand IPCC’sWorking GroupIIreportsaswellastheUNGARpublications,whichdiscussclimateandnon- climatedriversofclimate-related risk, the roleofuncertainty, the roleofattribution and the relevance of climate risk management (CRM) (IPCC 2012, 2013, 2014; UNISDR2015).Overall,thescienceshowsthat,whileanthropogenicclimatechange indeedamplifiesintensity,frequencyanddurationofmanyhazards,aclearcausallink fromanthropogenicCO2 emissions as a driver of risk to quantified socioeconomic risks cannot be established, and that therefore a principle of strict liability cannot (yet)beappliedtoclimaterisk(formoredetailsonthefrontiers inscienceregarding L&DseethechaptersBouwer2018;Jamesetal.2018andLopezetal.2018). Inthis context,Mechler and Schinko (2016) proposed a policy framework that builds on recentIPCCframingandevidenceonclimate-relatedrisk,andSchinkoandMechler (2017) suggested to apply recent insights fromCRM, an approach that strives for linking disaster risk reduction (DRR) andCCA agendas under one umbrella (see Schinko et al. 2016) to L&D. The authors argued that a better understanding of climate-related disaster risk and risk management can inform effective action on CCAandpoint away forward forL&Dpolicyaswell aspractice. This chapter takes this proposition forward to the L&Ddebate and suggests to findabalancebetweennotions of compensatory anddistributive justice.While the compensatory justice notion’s scope is distributing responsibilities in light of com- pensatory reasons and liability, the notion of distributive justice understandsL&D as undeserved harmdemanding redistribution to even out this unfairness (see also chapterbyWallimann-Helmeretal.2018;Dellinketal.2009onthefairdistribution of CCA costs). As a principle of strict liability cannot yet be applied to climate- related risk,we suggest an actionableway forward for the deliberations under the WIM based on the concept of CRM, which allows for an alignment of distribu- tiveandcompensatory justiceover time.Theapproach involves ina short-medium, needs-basedperspective, internationalsupport for riskmanagementbeyondindivid- ual countries’ ability to copewith climate-related risk; in amedium-longer term, rights-basedperspective,weparticularlyargueforastrongconsiderationfor liabili- tiesattributable tohuman inducedclimatechange.Thediscussioncanbe integrated towardsaprincipledframeworkfor identifyingthespaceforLossandDamagecom- posedofcurativeand transformativemeasures. Asanotherkeyelement tooperationaliseCRMinthecontextofL&Dinpractice, weput forward‘risk layering’asanactionableconceptof riskandriskmanagement (Mechler et al. 2014). This concept involves identifying efficient and acceptable interventions based on recurrence aswell as severity of climate-related risks. For example, for flood risk, this wouldmean identifying physical flood protection to dealwithmorefrequentevents,consideringriskfinancingfor infrequentdisastersas well as relyingonpublic and international compensation for extremecatastrophes. Risklayeringoverallpointstowardsconsideringriskcomprehensivelyasdetermined byclimaticandnon-climatic factorsaswellasconsideringportfoliosofoptions that manage risks todayand in the future.