Seite - 18 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

18 R.Mechler et al. inaction.To this end, theypresent tools andapproachesdeveloped in thecontextof CCAandDRR,which, as theauthors show,arealsoof relevance forL&D. Understandingallcomponentsof impactsandrisks iscrucial forconsideringfur- therpolicyactions.WouterBotzen,LaurensBouwer,PaoloScussolini,OnnoKuik, MarjolijnHaasnoot, JudyLawrence and JeroenAerts present approaches for Inte- gratedDisasterRiskManagementandAdaptationaimedat informingL&Dpol- icymakers. Insights provided refer tohowriskmanagement andadaptationoptions interact with options discussed in the L&Ddebate (such as insurance), aswell as howL&D-related activities may support risk reduction and adaptation in vulner- able communities and countries. The authors particularly focus on outlining how riskmanagementcanhelppeopleandsocieties toadapt to the increasing impactsof weather-relateddisasters in relation toanthropogenic climate change.Theperspec- tive established is one of holistic riskmanagement comprising state-of-the-art risk assessmentmethods,socio-economicevaluationsofriskmanagementandadaptation options—includinghousehold-scaleriskreductionstrategiesandinsuranceschemes for residual risk. The method of adaptation pathways is presented as an innova- tive contribution for copingwith uncertainty in the timing and intensity of climate change impacts. Case studies on Jakarta,HoChiMinhCity,Mexico,Bangladesh, Netherlands,NewZealandandGermanyillustrateeachofthesetopicswithconcrete insight. LauraSchäfer,KokoWarner andSönkeKreft’s contribution onExploring and Managing Adaptation Frontiers with Climate Risk Insurance followsa similar veinastheadaptationpathwayspropositiondiscussedabove.Theauthorssuggestthat climateinsurance,akeyfocusofpolicydiscussionandimplementation,mayserveas anentrypointandtoolforexploringadaptationfrontiers,whicharecloselylinkedto theconceptoflimitsanddefinedintheliteratureasa“transitionalspacebetweensafe andunsafedomains” (Prestonet al. 2014). Introducingclimate risk insurance (also covered in the chapter byLinnerooth-Bayer et al. 2018), the authors propose three routes throughwhichaninsurancefocusmaycontribute tothisexploration.Thefirst routeprovidesanaction-focussedframeworkforsignallingthemagnitude, location, andexposure toclimate-related risks, aswell asonanyactual andpotential adapta- tion limits.Thesecondroutesupportsactors inmovingawayfromadaptation limits by improving ex-ante decisionmaking, incentivising risk reduction and reducing uncertaintyaroundclimate-resilientdevelopment,while the third routehelpsactors tostaywithinthetolerableriskspacebyfacilitatingfinancialbufferingaspartofrisk financing approaches. The authors also highlight that insurance-based approaches are not a silver bullet, and suggest that these are effectively embedded in a com- prehensiveclimateriskmanagementframeworkintegratingotherrisk-reductionand management strategies (for a similar point, see the chapter byWallimann-Helmer et al. 2018). Unsurprisingly, climatefinancehasbeenahot topic for theL&Ddebateandhas been receiving a lot of emphasis in current policy dialogue (in 2018 it is the focus of the so-calledSuvaDialogueunder theUNFCCC informingpotential actions on finance leading up to theWIM review in 2019). The evidence base is, however, almost non-existent and there are very few empirical andmodel-based estimates