Page - 539 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

22 Technology forClimate Justice… 539 and damage as they have limited capacities and funding for innovating, accessing and using technology. They are therefore forced to implement the bareminimum largelycopycat typeof technology.Asclimatechangeprogresses, the levelofadap- tation required increases,whereas ifnoaction is taken, the technologyavailable for adaptation remains the same.Thismeans the adaptation deficit (Burton 2004)will increase. Wearguedthatattentiontoclimatejusticeprinciplescanhelptomotivatesupport for widening the technology spectrum available to developing countries and for addressing the injustices we inventoried by distributingmeans of implementation (technology, finance and capacity building) through underlying principles such as distributive, compensatory, transitional or procedural justice.We hold that global communities have a responsibility to ensure sustainable use of, equitable access to and inclusive innovationof technology to shape the soft adaptation limit and, once this limit is reached, to support transformative and curativemeasures necessary to tackleadditional risksdue toclimatechange. In thisconcludingsection,webuildontheframeworkinorder todeveloprecom- mendationsfortheParisAgreementandWIMastohowtechnologycanbemobilised to contribute to climate justice.As the required actions are partly in the adaptation and partly in the L&Dpillar, recommendations will cover both.We organise our suggestions around the threemain functions of theWIM(understanding, dialogue andsupportplusaction). UnderstandingL&D Understanding the switch fromadaptation toL&Denables improved investment in technologies foradaptationwhileclarifyingtheunavoidable risksrequiringcurative or transformativeaction.Weemphasisethat thiswillbepossibleuptothehardlimit, afterwhichonlyL&Dmeasuresarepossible.Theexecutivecommitteeof theWIM may include in thework streamand expert group on comprehensive riskmanage- ment an inventoryofhowtechnologies shape the soft limits inbothdevelopingand developedcountries. Itwillalsobeimportant toreachasolidbasisandagreementon what thehard limits fromatechnologicalpointare forclimatechangerisks, suchas for sea-level rise, to avoid contentious political discussions onoperationalising the L&Dmechanism. Dialogue,CoordinationandCoherenceonLossandDamage Partiesmaywant to link dialogue, coordination and coherence to the transparency mechanismunderArticle 7, as theWIMdoes not have a transparencymechanism. Article 7 of the ParisAgreement states that each party should periodically submit anadaptationcommunication,whichmayinclude itspriorities, implementationand support needs, plans and actions. In this context, Article 13 states that, under the transparencyframework,countriesareencouraged—withoutitbeingmandatory—to report informationon their adaptationactions tohighlightwhat theyhavedoneand whatmoreneeds to bedone (Desgain andSharma2016).The transparency frame- work offers flexibility in the scope, frequency and level of detail of reporting, and in the scope of review (Kato and Ellis 2016). There is a window of opportunity as part of the facilitative dialogue to start a discussion on including technology in