What's at stake? A human well-being based proposal for assessing risk of loss and damage from climate change

Current scientific discourse on the assessment of loss and damage from climate change focuses primarily on what is straightforwardly quantifiable, such as monetary value, numbers of casualties, or destroyed homes. However, the range of possible harms induced by climate change is much broader, particularly as regards residual risks that occur beyond limits to adaptation. In international climate policy, this has been institutionalized within the Loss and Damage discourse, which emphasizes the importance of non-economic loss and damage (NELD). Nevertheless, NELDs are often neglected in loss and damage assessments, being intangible and difficult to quantify. As a consequence, to date, no systematic concept or indicator framework exists that integrates market-based and non-market-based loss and damage. In this perspective, we suggest assessing risk of loss and damage using a climate change risk and vulnerability assessment (CRVA) framework: the Impact Chain method. This highly adaptable method has proven successful in unraveling complex risks in socio-ecological systems through a combination of engaging (political) stakeholders and performing quantitative data analysis. We suggest expanding the framework's logic to include not only the sources but also the consequences of risk by conceptualizing loss and damage as harm to nine domains of human well-being. Our approach is consistent with the risk conceptualization by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Conceptualization and systematic assessment of the full spectrum of imminent loss and damage allows a more comprehensive anticipation of potential impacts on human well-being, identifying vulnerable groups and providing essential evidence for transformative and comprehensive climate risk management

Supporting Climate Risk Management at Scale. Insights from the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance Partnership Model Applied in Peru & Nepal

There has been increasing interest in the potential of effective science-society partnership models for identifying and implementing options that manage critical disaster risks “on the ground.” This particularly holds true for debate around Loss and Damage. Few documented precedents and little documented experience exists, however, for such models of engagement. How to organise such partnerships? What are learnings from existing activities and how can these be upscaled? We report on one such partnership, the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance, a multi-actor partnership launched in 2013 to enhance communities’ resilience to flooding at local to global scales. The program brings together the skills and expertise of NGOs, the private sector and research institutions in order to induce transformational change for managing flood risks. Working in a number of countries facing different challenges and opportunities the program uses a participatory and iterative approach to develop sustainable portfolios of interventions that tackle both flood risk and development objectives in synergy. We focus our examination on two cases of Alliance engagement, where livelihoods are particularly being eroded by flood risk, including actual and potential contributions by climate change: (i) in the Karnali river basin in West Nepal, communities are facing rapid on-set flash floods during the monsoon season; (ii) in the Rimac basin in Central Peru communities are exposed to riverine flooding amplified by El Niño episodes. We show how different tools and methods can be co-generated and used at different learning stages and across temporal and agency scales by researchers and practitioners. Seamless integration is neither possible, nor desirable, and in many instances, an adaptive management approach through, what we call, a Shared Resilience Learning Dialogue, can provide the boundary process that connects the different analytical elements developed and particularly links those up with community-led processes. Our critical examination of the experience from the Alliance leads into suggestions for identifying novel funding and support models involving NGOs, researchers and the private sector working side by side with public sector institutions to deliver community level support for managing risks that may go “beyond adaptation.

+1,5° C: Wieviel Treibhausgase dürfen wir noch emittieren? CCCA Fact Sheet #40

Um die globale Erwärmung und somit die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels, wie im Pariser Übereinkommen festgelegt, auf +1,5 °C bzw. unter +2 °C gegenüber dem vorindustriellen Niveau (1850-1900) zu begrenzen muss für die Klimaneutralitätsziele die Gesamtmenge an Treibhausgas (THG)-Emissionen entsprechend beschränkt werden. Unter aktuellen Maßnahmenplänen, ohne zusätzliche Schritte, bewegen wir uns noch in diesem Jahrhundert auf +2,8 °C zu, was deutlich größere Schäden und Verluste zur Folge hätte. Das Factsheet basiert auf der umfangreichen Ausarbeitung in: CCCA (2022): +1,5° C: Wieviel Treibhausgase dürfen wir noch emittieren? Hintergrundpapier zu globalen und nationalen Treibhausgasbudgets. K. Steininger, T. Schinko, H. Rieder, H. Kromp-Kolb, S. Kienberger, G. Kirchengast, C. Michl, I. Schwarzl, S. Lambert. Wien: CCC

IIASA/EQU Justice Framework: A descriptive guideline for science and policy

The consideration of justice has become a critical area of focus for researchers, as awareness is increasing that (perceived) injustices are a main barrier for effectively tackling the interconnected global grand challenges, such as the climate and the biodiversity crises. Insufficient attention to perceptions of justice is a major issue slowing progress on climate change and other major policy issues. Justice, however, is difficult to grasp as it is a multi-dimensional and culturally diverse term and is in many instances of global socio-environmental issues not formally institutionalized. This working paper introduces the first version of the IIASA/EQU justice framework, which comprehensively outlines justice in its multiple aspects with the aim to facilitate justice assessment across diverse research and policy contexts. It is thus a descriptive framework with no normative objectives. The framework is grounded in philosophy and is applied and tested in a variety of applications, to be useful for research and decision-making. It is meant to be accessible across disciplines, powerful in terms of capacity to express a variety of justice ideas, and modular so researchers can select and deploy the aspects that are most appropriate or useful. The framework as presented here serves as a baseline for further refinement, expansion, applications, and evaluation across disciplines, subject areas, and cultural backgrounds

A typology of loss and damage perspectives

Loss and Damage (L&D) has been the subject of contentious debate in international climate policy for several decades. Recently, formal mechanisms on L&D have been established, but arguably through unclear language. This ambiguity is politically important, but researchers and practitioners require clearer understandings of L&D. Here we report on the first in-depth empirical study of actor perspectives, including interviews with 38 key stakeholders in research, practice, and policy. We find points of agreement and also important distinctions in terms of: the relationship between L&D and adaptation, the emphasis on avoiding versus addressing L&D, the relevance of anthropogenic climate change, and the role of justice. A typology of four perspectives is identified, with different implications for research priorities and actions to address L&D. This typology enables improved understanding of existing perspectives and so has potential to facilitate more transparent discussion of the options available to address L&D

Science for loss and damage. Findings and propositions

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation

Development of the Bi-Partite Gal4-UAS System in the African Malaria Mosquito, Anopheles gambiae

Functional genetic analysis in Anopheles gambiae would be greatly improved by the development of a binary expression system, which would allow the more rapid and flexible characterisation of genes influencing disease transmission, including those involved in insecticide resistance, parasite interaction, host and mate seeking behaviour. The Gal4-UAS system, widely used in Drosophila melanogaster functional genetics, has been significantly modified to achieve robust application in several different species. Towards this end, previous work generated a series of modified Gal4 constructs that were up to 20 fold more active than the native gene in An. gambiae cells. To examine the Gal4-UAS system in vivo, transgenic An. gambiae driver lines carrying a modified Gal4 gene under the control of the carboxypeptidase promoter, and responder lines carrying UAS regulated luciferase and eYFP reporter genes have been created. Crossing of the Gal4 and UAS lines resulted in progeny that expressed both reporters in the expected midgut specific pattern. Although there was minor variation in reporter gene activity between the different crosses examined, the tissue specific expression pattern was consistent regardless of the genomic location of the transgene cassettes. The results show that the modified Gal4-UAS system can be used to successfully activate expression of transgenes in a robust and tissue specific manner in Anopheles gambiae. The midgut driver and dual reporter responder constructs are the first to be developed and tested successfully in transgenic An. gambiae and provide the basis for further advancement of the system in this and other insect species

Zusammenfassung für Entscheidungstragende

Die Zusammenfassung für Entscheidungstragende fasst die Inhalte des APCC Special Report „Landnutzung und Klimawandel in Österreich“ in komprimierter Form zusammen. Im Lichte des Zusammenhanges von Landnutzung, Klimawandel und gesellschaftlichem Wohlergehen werden die gegenwärtige Situation und zukünftige Entwicklungen in Österreich synoptisch beschrieben, wesentliche Optionen der Klimawandelanpassung und des Klimaschutzes dargestellt, deren Trade-offs und Synergien systematisch beleuchtet und zentrale Einsichten zur Umsetzung von Strategien zum Klimaschutz und der Klimawandelanpassung in Österreich zusammengefasst