Loss and damage and limits to adaptation: recent IPCC insights and implications for climate science and policy

Recent evidence shows that climate change is leading to irreversible and existential impacts on vulnerable communities and countries across the globe. Among other effects, this has given rise to public debate and engagement around notions of climate crisis and emergency. The Loss and Damage (L&D) policy debate has emphasized these aspects over the last three decades. Yet, despite institutionalization through an article on L&D by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the Paris Agreement, the debate has remained vague, particularly with reference to its remit and relationship to adaptation policy and practice. Research has recently made important strides forward in terms of developing a science perspective on L&D. This article reviews insights derived from recent publications by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others, and presents the implications for science and policy. Emerging evidence on hard and soft adaptation limits in certain systems, sectors and regions holds the potential to further build momentum for climate policy to live up to the Paris ambition of stringent emission reductions and to increase efforts to support the most vulnerable. L&D policy may want to consider actions to extend soft adaptation limits and spur transformational, that is, non-standard risk management and adaptation, so that limits are not breached. Financial, technical, and legal support would be appropriate for instances where hard limits are transgressed. Research is well positioned to further develop robust evidence on critical and relevant risks at scale in the most vulnerable countries and communities, as well as options to reduce barriers and limits to adaptation

Equity and justice in climate change adaptation : Policy and practical implication in Nigeria

Over the past decade, justice and equity have become a quasi-universal answer to problems of environmental governance. The principles of justice and equity emerged as a useful entry point in global governance to explore the responsibilities, distribution, and procedures required for just climate change adaptation. These principles are designed primarily through the establishment of funding mechanisms, top-down guides, and frameworks for adaptation, and other adaptation instruments from the UNFCCC process, to ensure effective adaptation for vulnerable countries like Nigeria that have contributed least to the issue of climate change but lack adaptive capacity. Global adaptation instruments have been acknowledged for adaptation in Nigeria. Climate change has a detrimental impact on Nigeria as a nation, with the burden falling disproportionately on the local government areas. As Nigeria develop national plans and policies to adapt to the consequences of climate change, these plans will have significant consequences for local government areas where adaptation practices occur. Although the local government’s adaptation burden raises the prospects for justice and equity, its policy and practical implication remains less explored. This chapter explores the principles of justice and equity in national adaptation policy and adaptation practices in eight local government areas in southeast Nigeria. The chapter argues that some factors make it challenging to achieve equity and justice in local adaptation practices. With the use of a qualitative approach (interview (n = 52), observation, and document analysis), this chapter identified some of the factors that constraints equity and justice in local government adaptation in southeast Nigeria.publishedVersio

Transformation, adaptation and development: relating concepts to practice

In recent years there has been a growing number of academic reviews discussing the theme of transformation and its association with adaptation to climate change. On the one hand this has stimulated exchange of ideas and perspectives on the parameters of transformation, but it has also given rise to confusion in terms of identifying what constitutes a non-incremental form of adaptation on the ground. What this article aims to do instead is help researchers and practitioners relate different interpretations of transformation to practice by proposing a typological framework for categorising forms of change that focuses on mechanisms and objectives. It then discusses how these categorisations link to the broader conceptions and critiques noted above, with the idea that this will enable those who seek to analyse or plan adaptation to better analyse what types of action are potentially constitutive of transformation. In doing so, it should equally assist in the identification and specification of critical questions that need to be asked of such activity in relation to issues of sustainability and equity. As the term transformation gains ground in discussions of climate change adaptation, it is necessary to take a step back, review quite what commentators mean when they use the word, and consider the implications on people, especially the most vulnerable and marginalised, of “doing” or promoting transformation in its different forms

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

A conceptual governance framework for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction integration

Climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) have similar targets and goals in relation to climate change and related risks. The integration of CCA in core DRR operations is crucial to provide simultaneous benefits for social systems coping with challenges posed by climate extremes and climate change. Although state actors are generally responsible for governing a public issue such as CCA and DRR integration, the reform of top-down governing modes in neoliberal societies has enlarged the range of potential actors to include non state actors from economic and social communities. These new intervening actors require in-depth investigation. To achieve this goal, the article investigates the set of actors and their bridging arrangements that create and shape governance in CCA and DRR integration. The article conducts a comprehensive literature review in order to retrieve main actors and arrangements. The article summarizes actors and arrangements into a conceptual governance framework that can be used as a backdrop for future research on the topic. However, this framework has an explorative form, which must be refined according to site- and context-specific variables, norms, or networks. Accordingly, this article promotes an initial application of the framework to different contexts. Scholars may adopt the framework as a roadmap with which to corroborate the existence of a theoretical and empirical body of knowledge on governance of CCA and DRR integration

Improving development outcomes and reducing disaster risk through planned community relocation

The idea of relocation as a transformative disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, and development strategy follows the assumption that relocation reduces the vulnerability of communities. Yet, it is unclear whose and what kind of vulnerability is reduced through relocation, and which factors are important in determining the "success" of relocation efforts as strategies for development, climate change adaptation (CCA), and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Temporary and short distance relocation is highly likely to achieve increased resilience by reducing exposure, but relocation to a new area and new communities brings a range of issues. CCA and DRR use different timescales and focal points regarding relocation: CCA focuses on future mass permanent relocation and the subsequent potential loss of cultures and identities mainly due to projected sea level rise. The DRR community focuses on temporary relocation as a way to reduce exposure to a range of hazards, although it is also involved in permanent movement as a transformative way to reduce risk and enhance development. We explore these differences in this paper, with examples mainly from the Pacific Small Island Developing States where past relocations have been numerous. Better understanding and articulation of the underlying assumptions and preferences in CCA, DRR, and development discourses on planned community relocation could provide a richer context for future planning and dealing with both slow-onset and sudden disasters

Policy Brief: Achieving Risk Reduction Across Sendai, Paris And The SDGs

The purpose of this document is to set out key policy messages based on the synergies and coherence between the major global agreements of Sendai, Paris and the SDGs - with specific reference to systematic and cascading risks. This focus is because of the extreme widespread and long-lasting potential impacts of such events. These impacts could have long-lasting negative effects on the livelihoods and well-being of people, economies and countries, undermining development and the achievement of the SDGs. This brief should read as complementary to material dealing with frequent, smaller events and the day-to-day emergencies that affect hundreds of millions regularly

The practice of integrating adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the south-west Pacific

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) and emergency management (EM) efforts are integral to climate change adaptation (CCA). The integration of DRR with adaptation is globally recognized as a rational use of resources benefiting both areas. There is a substantial literature on the topic, but little on the practice of implementing such integration on the ground. This paper presents some of these experiences at national and agency levels in the south-west Pacific and outlines possible future directions to support policy and practice. Based on the perspectives of practitioners from Australia, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, it explores institutional changes with country examples, and the range of constraints and enabling factors in integrating adaptation with DRR and EM practices. The Australian aim of spreading responsibility for CCA and DRR integration through mainstreaming across departments and agencies was seen as effective in increasing whole-of-government approaches. However, in both Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands the concentration of information, responsibility and actions through a single focal point was more effective in reducing overlap and providing a clearer picture of what was being implemented, by whom and where. The findings demonstrate a need to consider the experiences arising from practical implementation of the integration agenda and to document the lessons from this experience in a way that can inform policy and practice