Seite - 144 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

144 R.A. Jameset al. 5.5 Conclusions In this chapterwehavediscussedhowattribution sciencemight beuseful forL&D policy andpractice.As has beenwidely recognised, the concept ofL&Dfromcli- mate change is still vague and contestedwith a diverse range of perspectives held amongststakeholders.Thismakesitchallengingtosayexactlywhatkindofscientific input is needed.Herewe takeabroadapproach toconsiderhowattribution science might be relevant to L&D discussions, and a range of possible options for L&D policy and practice. Thefirst stepwas to examine the discourse surroundingL&D and existingmentions of, and debates about, attribution in the L&Dpolicy space (Sect.5.2). If scientists,practitioners, andpolicy-makersare to jointly integrate sci- ence into actions to address losses and damages, it is important to understand the baseline understandings and associations held by different stakeholders.We have followed policy discussions for a number of years, and directly askedmany par- ticipants in L&D discussions about their views on attribution, including through stakeholder interviews (Box5.2).This researchhasdemonstrated that attribution is a controversial but also recurring issue inL&Ddiscussions. In our interviewswith stakeholders and observations ofmeetings about L&D, attributionwas oftenmen- tioned. Few stakeholders demonstrated in-depth knowledge of attribution science, but theyoftenraisedquestionsaboutwhetherlossesanddamagescouldbeattributed to climate change. These questions relate to practical issues about themandate of the UNFCCC, but also have important political implications. Attribution is often mentionedalongside responsibility, blameand liability. It thereforeappearsthatattributionisakeyissueofrelevancetoL&Ddiscussions, but it is so far very difficult to discuss in detail how the science might be used, because it is considered to be a controversial topic. If scientists are to effectively engage in dialoguewith policy-makers, it would be helpful for them to be aware of these associations and controversies; and also aware that policy-makers work in an environmentwhere science is often used for politicalmotives, and clarity is not always helpful or asked for. In fact, climate negotiators may bemandated to avoid certain topics or terminology. Communicating scientific results is therefore not sufficient to support policy: itmustbecommunicated ina language thatpolicy- makers canworkwith.At the same time, itwould be helpful if policy-makers and practitionersweremademoreawareofthefindingsandmethodologiesofattribution studiesandthefactthatattributionscienceitselfisnotprimarilydesignedtoestablish responsibility. The political and ethical implications are far beyond the realm of physical scientists, andmany scientists are keen to remain impartial purveyors of information,withoutbecominginvolvedinpolitics:apotentiallyuseful resourcefor policy-makers ina landscapewheremost actorsdohavepoliticalmotives. Amore in-depthdiscussionbetween scientists, practitioners, andpolicy-makers about attribution sciencewould likely revealmuch that is relevant to averting and addressing losses and damages, regardless of political positions. As outlined in Sect. 5.3, there are a number of fields of inquiry that are advancing rapidlywhich could be integrated to better understand the influence of anthropogenic climate