Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urban areas already suffer substantial losses in both economic and human terms from climaterelated disasters. These losses are anticipated to grow substantially, in part as a result of the impacts of climate change. In this paper, we investigate the process of translating climate risk data into action for the city level. We apply a commonly used decision-framework as our backdrop and explore where in this process climate risk assessment and normative political judgements intersect. We use the case of flood risk management in Cork city in Ireland to investigate what is needed for translating risk assessment into action at the local city level. Evidence presented is based on focus group discussions at two stakeholder workshops, and a series of individual meetings and phone-discussions with stakeholders involved in local decision-making related to flood risk management and adaptation to climate change, in Ireland. Respondents were chosen on the basis of their expertise or involvement in the decision-making processes locally and nationally. Representatives of groups affected by flood risk and flood risk management and climate adaptation efforts were also included. The Cork example highlights that, despite ever more accurate data and an increasing range of theoretical approaches available to local decisionmakers, it is the normative interpretation of this information that determines what action is taken. The use of risk assessments for decision-making is a process that requires normative decisions, such as setting 'acceptable risk levels' and identifying 'adequate' protection levels, which will not succeed without broader buy-in and stakeholder participation. Identifying and embracing those normative views up-front could strengthen the urban adaptation process--this may, in fact, turn out to be the biggest advantage of climate risk assessment: it offers an opportunity to create a shared understanding of the problem and enables an informed evaluation and discussion of remedial action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flooding is the largest natural disaster risk in England and it is expected to rise even further with a changing climate. Agreeing on how we pay for this now and in the future is a challenge, with competing drivers such as fairness, economic efficiency, political feasibility and public acceptance all playing their part. We investigate this in the context of recent efforts to reform the provision of flood insurance, which have been debated between government and industry over the last three years. Recognising the challenge of rising losses and increasing costs we are particularly interested in how the existing arrangement and the new flood insurance proposal (Flood Re) reflect on the need for physical risk reduction. By applying our analytical framework we find an absence of formal incentive mechanisms for risk reduction in the existing and proposed Flood Re scheme. We identify the barriers for applying insurance to risk reduction and point to some possible modifications in the Flood Re proposal to deliver a greater link between risk transfer and risk reduction. Our investigation offers some insights into the challenges of designing and implementing flood insurance schemes - a task that is currently being considered in a range of countries, including several developing countries, who hope to apply flood insurance as a tool to increase their climate resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flood insurance differs widely in scope and form across Europe. Against the backdrop of rising flood losses, a debate about the role of EU policy in shaping the future of this compensation mechanism is led by policy-makers and industry. While the question of supply and demand is at the core of the debate, we argue that another key dimension is often overlooked: how to use insurance as a lever for risk reduction and prevention efforts. We investigate whether and how current EU policies influence flood insurance and how this interplays with the national policy level. First, we consider affordability, availability, and risk reduction linkages in an EU context, and then gather insights from two contrasting cases of flood insurance: the UK, where flood insurance provision is widely available, but subject to ongoing reform; and the Netherlands, where several efforts to introduce broader flood insurance coverage have failed. This is followed by an analysis of how EU policy could help address the challenges at member state level, based on a stakeholder workshop discussion. We conclude that there is wide agreement that a complete harmonization of flood insurance offering across the EU is unlikely to be effective. However, there is clear scope for EU policymakers to play a greater role in linking risk transfer and prevention, beyond existing channels, to ensure an integrated approach to flood risk management across the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]