Page - 122 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

122 R.A. Jameset al. Fig.5.1 Aschematic diagram illustrating a spectrumof viewsonL&DidentifiedbyBoyd et al. (2017). Each of the four perspectives are arranged along an axis in terms of how far suggested approaches to address losses and damages are distinct from, or go beyond, existing adaptation mechanisms.Theshadingillustrateshowtheperspectivesdiffer intermsoftherelevanceofanthro- pogenicclimatechange:fortwooftheperspectivesidentified,L&Dreferstoanthropogenicclimate changeimpactsonly, for theother twoperspectives, there isanemphasisonaddressingallclimate- related risk.Adapted fromBoydet al. (2016,2017) in thenegotiations,10 and thesuggestion thatmoreprogressmightbepossible if the mandateofL&Dmechanismsremainedvagueandinclusive.11 Itwasalsopartlydue tofrustrationat the inefficienciesofmultiple institutions indisaster risk,humanitar- ianaid,development,adaptation,andnowpotentiallyL&D,workingonseparatebut relatedissueswithouteffectivecoordination12;andanappealformoreintegratedrisk 10Thiswas expressed several timeswhen this questionwas linked to issues of compensation and attribution by the interviewee, e.g. “to get political consensus around attribution, and therefore compensation, is justnevergoing tohappen.” 11Forexample:“Ifyoupushtoohardthediscussionondefining,other thanthequagmiresemantics andpolitics it takesyouinto, itactuallyworksagainst the ideathatyouhavetoaddress theproblem comprehensively.” 12For example: “There are toomany forms of funding coming out of development, the problem withthat is thatyouneedabroadresilienceapproachtoshort termriskandlongtermstresseswhich cancreateconflict related toclimatechange.”