Page - 121 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

5 Attribution:HowIs ItRelevant forLoss… 121 damages toanthropogenic forcing.6Conversely,vulnerablecountriesmightwant to highlight the strengthof attributionevidence to try toprompt action fromemitters7 (seealsochapterbyCalliari et al. 2018). Therefore,whilstonaninstitutional level it seemsimportant todistinguish losses anddamageswhichareattributabletoclimatechange,andlossesanddamageswhich mightnotberelevanttotheUNFCCC,doingsoisnotonlyscientificallychallenging, but also politically contentious. Perhaps in order tomake progress in the presence of this controversy, and to achieve agreement across different Parties, deliberately ambiguous language has been used in the official L&D text under theUNFCCC, including in theWarsaw International Mechanism (WIM) (UNFCCC 2013) and Article8of theParisAgreement (UNFCCC2015).8 TheWIMrefers toL&Dfrom climate change impacts, but it is unclear how those losses and damagesmight be distinguished fromL&Dfromnaturaldisasters (Jameset al. 2014a). 5.2.3 Perspectives fromPractitioners: Is ItMorePragmatic toAvoidIsolatingAnthropogenicClimateChange Impacts fromOtherLossesandDamages? The ambiguity in international policy leaves room formultiple perspectives on the relevanceof anthropogenic climate change toL&D,and thepotential role for attri- bution science.Boydet al. (2017) asked stakeholderswhether they thought actions to address losses and damages should refer only to the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, or to any adverse effects fromclimate variability and change (see Fig. 5.1). This revealed a divide in opinion. In 9 of the 36 interviews, stakehold- ers were clear that, since theWIMwas part of the UNFCCC, it should focus on anthropogenicclimatechange.Nineothers,predominantlypractitioners,arguedthat it would bemore pragmatic to address all weather and climate-related losses and damages together (inkeepingwithseveralworkingdefinitionsofL&D,Warnerand vanderGeest2013;UNEP2016).9 Manyof the remaining interviewees also expressedcautionabout limitingL&D actionstoostrictly tothoseimpacts thatcouldbeattributedtoanthropogenicclimate change.Thiswaspartlydue toawarenessof thepolitical connotationsofattribution 6For example, Vanhala andHastbaek (2016) refer to the response ofNewZealand to anAOSIS proposal, inwhich they rejected the proposal on the basis that it is not possible to attribute any specificextremeevent toclimatechange. 7One intervieweediscussed thechallengeof attribution science forvulnerable countries: “the risk is thatL&Dmaywellgounattributed toclimatechangeandonce theopportunity tocompensate is lost, in the schemeof things it’s lost…It’sdifficult, obviouslyyouwant toattributeeverything.” 8According toVanhala andHastbaek (2016), the ambiguousnature of theWIMwascentral to its establishment; or asone interviewee inBoydet al.’s (2017) studystated“they’vemade it fuzzy to getpeople to signon”. 9In the remaining18 interviews, aconclusiveopinionabout thisquestionwasnot expressed.