Page - 174 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

174 E.Calliari et al. againstwhich action could be tested (see chapter on justice byWallimann-Helmer et al. 2018). Such shared principleswould support an L&Dworking spacewhere solutions can be developed (see chapter by Schinko et al. 2018), including tools to address irreversible losses,which aremostly associatedwith slow-onset events. While there is general accord around the use of comprehensive riskmanagement approaches (including risk assessment, reduction, transfer, retention), how to deal withimpactsfromslowonseteventsremainsanopenquestion.Discourseaboutthose impactsandefforts todevelopcreativeortransformativeinstruments inresponsehas been somewhat limited, often hampered by the taboo of compensation. A change ofnarrative is thereforeneeded.FramingL&Dexclusively in termsof justicemight haveturnedtheissueintoawin-losenegotiationgame.Instead,abiggeremphasison mutual gains throughadaptation andactiononL&Dforbothdevelopedanddevel- oping countries is needed, aswell asmore clarity on the limits of those strategies. Examplesofsuchmutualgainsaremoreresilientglobal supplychains, reductionof climaterefugeesandenhancedsecurity.Asaresult,actingonL&Dwouldnotfeelas aunilateralconcessiondevelopedcountriesmaketovulnerableones: itwouldrather beabout elaboratingpatternsofcollectiveactiononan issueofcommonconcern. References ActionAid (2010)Loss and damage fromclimate change: the cost for poor people in developing countries. Johannesburg ActionAid, Care,WWF (2012) Tackling the limits to adaptation: an international framework to address“LossandDamage” fromclimatechange impacts. Johannesburg ActionAid,Care,WWF(2013)Tackling theclimate reality: a framework forestablishingan inter- nationalmechanismtoaddress lossanddamageatCOP19. Johannesburg AOSIS (2008)Proposal to theAWG-LCAmulti-windowmechanism to address loss anddamage fromclimatechange impacts. 1–8 BarbeyC(2015)Non-militarisation:countrieswithoutarmies. Identificationcriteriaandfirstfind- ings.Mariehamn,Åland,Finland BarnettM,DuvallR (2005)Power in internationalpolitics. IntOrg59:39–75 BetzoldC(2010)“Borrowing”power to influenceinternationalnegotiations:AOSISin theclimate change regime,1990–1997.Politics30:131–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.013 77.x BetzoldC,CastroP,WeilerF(2012)AOSIS in theUNFCCCnegotiations: fromunity to fragmen- tation?ClimPolicy12:591–613.https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.692205 BirkmannJ,WelleT(2015)Assessingtheriskof lossanddamage:exposure,vulnerabilityandrisk toclimate-relatedhazards fordifferent countryclassifications. Int JGlobalWarming8:191–212 BöhmeltT (2013)Acloser look at the informationprovision rationale: civil society participation instates’delegationsat theUNFCCC.RevIntOrgan8:55–80.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-0 12-9149-6 Bolivia (2015) IntervenciónBoliviaCOP21 -MinistroRenéOrellana. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=kQOEdNZBqFs.Accessed22Jan2016 BrownDA,WeiskelT (2002)American heat: ethical problemswith theUnitedStates’Response toglobalwarming.Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers