Page - 94 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

94 T.Schinkoet al. Fig.4.4 Framing riskacceptanceand (in)tolerance. SourceKlinkeandRenn(2002) Eventually, what constitutes acceptable, tolerable, and intolerable risk can be defined in a subjective/normative or technical/science-basedway.Risk tolerance is stronglydeterminedbysocial,cultural,andeconomicfactorsandoftenrequiressub- jectivejudgment(Dowetal.2013).TheIPCCWorkingGroupIIin2014,forexample, used expert judgement for determining levels of low,medium and high risk in its regional riskassessments.On theotherhand, riskanalysishasdevelopedanalytical procedures forsegregatingriskaccording todifferentialability tobear risk towhich riskpolicyinstrumentscanbetailoredto-termedrisklayering(Mechleretal.2014). 4.3 AnActionableFrameworkforOutlining theRisk andPolicyOptionsSpace forLossandDamage Overall,we argue for a practical and dynamic policy approach to theL&Ddebate basedontheconceptofcomprehensiveCRMandbalancingtheethicalprinciplesof compensatoryjusticeanddistributivejustice(seealsoDellinketal.2009,discussing asimilarapproachfor thecaseofCCA).Figure4.5conceptualizesadynamicneeds andliability-basedCRMapproachtotheL&Ddebate.Itsummarizesthetwodifferent notionsof justice (compensatoryanddistributive)as linked to thedifferentpolitical principles(capacityandneeds,liabilityandrights)onwhichpoliciestacklingresidual