The Politics of (and Behind) the UNFCCC’s Loss and Damage Mechanism

Despite being one of the most controversial issues to be recently treated within climate negotiations, Loss and Damage (L&D) has attracted little attention among scholars of International Relations (IR). In this chapter we take the “structuralist paradox” in L&D negotiations as our starting point, considering how IR theories can help to explain the somewhat surprising capacity of weak parties to achieve results while negotiating with stronger parties. We adopt a multi-faceted notion of power, drawing from the neorealist, liberal and constructivist schools of thought, in order to explain how L&D milestones were reached. Our analysis shows that the IR discipline can greatly contribute to the debate, not only by enhancing understanding of the negotiation process and related outcomes but also by offering insights on how the issue could be fruitfully moved forward. In particular, we note the key importance that discursive power had in the attainment of L&D milestones: Framing L&D in ethical and legal terms appealed to standards relevant beyond the UNFCCC context, including basic moral norms linked to island states’ narratives of survival and the reference to international customary law. These broader standards are in principle recognised by both contending parties and this broader framing of L&D has helped to prove the need for action on L&D. However, we find that a change of narrative may be needed to avoid turning the issue into a win-lose negotiation game. Instead, a stronger emphasis on mutual gains through adaptation and action on L&D for both developed and developing countries is needed as well as clarity on the limits of these strategies. Examples of such mutual gains are more resilient global supply chains, reduction of climate-induced migration and enhanced security. As a result, acting on L&D would not feel as a unilateral concession developed countries make to vulnerable ones: it would rather be about elaborating patterns of collective action on an issue of common concern

Participatory Agent-Based Modelling for Flood Risk Insurance

In the context of climate change adaptation, there has been a recent research focus on the impact of flood insurance on flood risk reduction behaviour. ABM has been recently used in such researches to model the interaction of stakeholders. Building on this foundation, we propose the integration of participatory methods to capture the socio-cognitive and behavioral aspects of flood risk insurance, which have been missed in such models. The results of our suggested line of research on Participatory ABM for Flood Risk Insurance can support public and private sector considering their preferences and contextual requirements

Reconciling place attachment with catchment-based flood risk management:What can we learn from film?

A catchment-based approach to flood risk management (FRM) is gaining prominence in the United Kingdom. It is undertaken with wider awareness of multiple stakeholders, as part of a catchment scale understanding, and, as with other approaches, can visually re-shape place. Land cover and land management change at this scale also has the potential to reconfigure landscape values and place attachment. Researchers have used qualitative, quantitative, and mapping approaches to understand place attachment. Here we explore secondary data, specifically, we transcribe and code the stories of five Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire residents from the short film, Calder about the December 26, 2015 floods. We find place attachment, identity, and social capital are interconnected and feature strongly in the mitigation and prevention phase, post-disaster. Our findings suggest better understanding of place attachment can support a more catchment scale approach to FRM policy and practice

The challenges of extending climate risk insurance to fisheries

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Research via the DOI in this recordNatural Environment Research Council (NERC)Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)Willis Research NetworkCommonwealth Marine Economies Programme, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Offic

Changing storminess and global capture fisheries

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.Climate change-driven alterations in storminess pose a signifcant threat to global capture fsheries. Understanding how storms interact with fshery social-ecological systems can inform adaptive action and help to reduce the vulnerability of those dependent on fisheries for life and livelihood.N.C.S. acknowledges the financial support of the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; GW4+ studentship NE/L002434/1), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and Willis Research Network

Insurance as a Response to Loss and Damage?

This chapter asks whether insurance instruments, especially micro-insurance and regional insurance pools, can serve as a risk-reducing and equitable compensatory response to climate-attributed losses and damages from climate extremes occurring in developing countries, and consequently if insurance instruments can serve the preventative and curative targets of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM). The discussion emphasises the substantial benefits of both micro-insurance programs and regional insurance pools, and at the same time details their significant costs. Beyond costs and benefits, a main message is that if no significant intervention is undertaken in their design and implementation, market-based insurance mechanisms will likely fall short of fully meeting WIM aspirations of loss reduction and equitable compensation. Interventions can include subsidies and other types of support that make insurance affordable to poor clients; interventions can also enable public-private arrangements that genuinely catalyse risk reduction and adaptation. Many such interventions are already in place, and the chapter highlights two potential success stories for insurance instruments serving the most vulnerable: the African R4 micro-insurance program and the African Risk Capacity (ARC) regional insurance pool. While support to these and other insurance programs continues to be framed as humanitarian aid based on the principle of solidarity, discussions on the G7 initiative to insure vulnerable households, as well as on ARC’s initiative to link international payments to climate risks, raise the question whether the narrative will evolve from solidarity to responsibility based on the principle of developed country accountability

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

Review of Economic Instruments in Risk Reduction

Economic instruments (EI), such as subsidies, taxes and insurance-related options are at the heart of discussions regarding novel approaches for managing risk and adapting to climate change, including in the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSP) between the private and public sectors. Although the attractiveness of reducing and managing disasters has long been demonstrated, there is underinvestment into disaster risk management (DRM). A number of factors, such as lack of comprehensive information and cognitive biases are important. In particular, financial constraints and moral hazard, i.e. adverse incentives provided by current arrangements for dealing with disasters rule high. In this line of thinking, instruments that provide a price signal for risk management and incentivize behavioural change hold high appeal to policymakers including the EU. Yet, little is known about such economic instruments, their mechanics, links to risk management and concrete application in the field of disaster risk management (and climate adaptation). Knowledge gaps exist particularly for conditions that create enabling environments for innovative market based EI. Among these are, e.g., the attractiveness for stakeholders in the context of MSP or institutional settings that are required to successfully and efficiently apply the EI. This report reviews key EI according to their potential for managing and incentivising risk management in the context of the ENHANCE project. The guiding questions for this review are: What economic instruments exist for managing disaster risk? How do they contribute to risk management? What innovative options re being discussed? How do case studies plan to discuss and assess economic instruments? The overall aim of this report is to develop an inventory of EI as they support risk management generally and their anticipated uptake in the ENHANCE cases studies. This report first discusses the methodology and the mechanics of EI. Next it presents the market-based and risk financing instruments; finally it concludes with a synthesis of our findings and next steps for the case studies, which are being carried out as part of the ENHANCE project