Introduction to 2023 Special Issue

Understanding the Politics and
Governance of Climate Change
Loss and Damage
(cid:129)
Lisa Vanhala*, Elisa Calliari, and Adelle Thomas

Abstracto

This introduction to the 2023 special issue of Global Environment Politics brings questions
related to politics and political processes to the forefront in the study of climate change
loss and damage. The aim of avoiding the detrimental impacts of climate change has
been at the heart of the international response to global climate change for more than
thirty years. Yet the development of global governance responses to climate change loss
and damage—those impacts that we cannot, do not or choose not to prevent or adapt
to—has only over the last decade become a central theme within the discussions under
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Loss and
damage has also become a research topic of growing importance within an array of dis-
ciplines, from international law to the interdisciplinary environmental social sciences.
Sin embargo, the engagement of scholars working in the ﬁelds of political science and inter-
national relations has been more limited so far. This is surprising because questions
about how to best respond to loss and damage are fundamentally political, as they derive
from deliberative processes, invoke value judgments, imply contestation, demand the
development of policies, and result in distributional outcomes. In this introduction
we describe the context and contributions of the research articles in the special issue.
By drawing on a wide range of perspectives from across the social sciences, the articles
render visible the multifaceted politics of climate change loss and damage and help to
account for the trajectory of governance processes.

Por décadas, the scientiﬁc community has warned of the potentially catastrophic
consequences of climate change, including rising sea levels, increasingly fre-
quent and intense storms, and the degradation of land, agua, and ecosystems.
Todavía, it is only very recently that governance arrangements have begun to be
developed to explicitly respond to those climate impacts that we may not be
capaz (or choose not) to adapt to. While policy efforts to mitigate greenhouse

* Autor correspondiente: l.vanhala@ucl.ac.uk

Global Environmental Politics 23:3, Agosto 2023, https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_e_00735
© 2023 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

2 (cid:129)

Introduction to Special Issue

gas emissions and adapt to climate change impacts have been at the heart of
climate governance efforts for decades, climate change loss and damage has
only recently emerged as “a third pillar” of climate governance. Recent develop-
ments within the UNFCCC underscore the timeliness of this special issue. Este
collection of articles is published during a critical juncture in the development
of governance arrangements within the climate change regime and broader gov-
ernance landscape that will inﬂuence the way that loss and damage is under-
stood and responded to in the near future. These discussions are likely to shape
institutions and policies that will establish path dependencies, build new constit-
uencies, and ultimately inﬂuence the trajectory of people’s lives as they cope with
the wide variety of losses associated with climate change. We suggest that scien-
tiﬁc understanding and evidence are much needed, and the articles published
here stand to help inform policy approaches—both those that are being rapidly
developed now and others that will emerge in the future. This introduction
brieﬂy surveys historic and recent developments, highlights the key contribu-
tions of this collection of articles, and articulates an agenda for future research.
The concept of loss and damage was introduced in the early 1990s by the
Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in the UNFCCC and has gradually
become institutionalized at the international level (Roberts and Huq 2015;
Vanhala and Hestbaek 2016). While an ofﬁcial deﬁnition has never been agreed
in the climate regime, current scholarly understandings emphasize the unavoid-
ability and irreversibility of certain climate change impacts and the role played
by constraints and limits to adaptation as drivers of adverse outcomes (Mechler
et al. 2020).1 The latter can include both monetizable impacts and “non-
economic losses” (NELs), such as loss of biodiversity, territorio, cultural heritage,
and climate-induced human mobility (Serdeczny et al. 2018). En años recientes,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has increasingly
included assessments of “losses and damages” in its reports—understood as
harmful impacts or risks that can result from climate change-related slow onset
hazards and extreme weather events (IPCC 2022b).

Within the international climate change negotiations, discussions on loss
and damage have progressed far more slowly than on mitigation and adapta-
ción, with differing views among countries about what loss and damage encom-
passes, the best approaches to respond to it, and appropriate sources and levels
of ﬁnance to address it (Calliari et al. 2020; Johansson et al. 2022). The conten-
tious nature of the negotiations has led to loss and damage being repeatedly
referred to as a highly political topic, even as impacts of climate change are
already being documented around the world (IPCC 2022a). Sin embargo, recent
milestones in the UNFCCC have highlighted the urgency of the need for

1. We note that scholars use different spellings and capitalizations for the term loss and damage,
with some preferring to use capital letters (“Loss and Damage”) to signify the political discus-
sions within the UNFCCC and beyond. We do not follow that convention here and authors in
the special issue vary in their practices. See the article by Hartz (this issue) for more on the
signiﬁcance of orthographic choices.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Lisa Vanhala, Elisa Calliari, and Adelle Thomas (cid:129) 3

technical and practical understandings of what constitutes loss and damage and
related responses, as distinct from adaptation. The decision at COP27 to establish
new funding arrangements, including a fund to respond to loss and damage, tiene
brought the issue to the attention of a much broader set of actors, incluido
multilateral banks, humanitarian organizations, development agencies, the pri-
vate sector, and a wide range of UN bodies, and has highlighted existing gaps in
policy approaches to address loss and damage (Naylor and Ford 2023). All of
this suggests a pressing need for a deeper conceptual understanding of and
empirical evidence about climate change loss and damage.

Existing social science research highlights the myriad ways in which the prob-
lem of loss and damage—and appropriate governance arrangements—are articu-
lated (McNamara and Jackson 2019). While a variety of disciplines have developed
bodies of literature on topics related to loss and damage (p.ej., disaster studies,
impact modeling), studies speciﬁcally focused on climate change loss and damage
emerged around 2010, with a signiﬁcant increase in research after 2013 (McNamara
and Jackson 2019). Early work tended to focus on different conceptualizations of
loss and damage, ﬁnding varying interpretations and deﬁnitions, inﬂuenced in
part by disciplinary backgrounds. Scholars in law (p.ej., Adelman 2016; Broberg
and Romera 2021; Burkett 2016; Toussaint 2021), geography (p.ej., Barnett et al.
2016; Hepach and Hartz 2023; Tschakert et al. 2019; Warner and van der Geest
2013), anthropology (p.ej., Oliver-Smith 2013; O’Reilly et al. 2020), economics
(p.ej., Fanning and Hickel 2023; Markandya and González-Eguino 2019) and in
the interdisciplinary environmental social sciences (p.ej., Boyd et al. 2017; chico
et al. 2021; James et al. 2014; Mechler et al. 2019; Mechler et al. 2020) have begun
to turn their attention to the phenomenon of loss and damage and related
respuestas. Por el contrario, scholars working in the ﬁelds of political science and inter-
national relations have only recently (with a few exceptions such as Calliari 2016;
Calliari et al. 2020; Page and Heyward 2017; Vanhala and Calliari 2022; Vanhala
and Hestbaek 2016; Wapner 2014) begun to engage with this novel area of climate
investigación. Todavía, the contribution those working with the theoretical approaches and
methodological tools of the discipline can make is critical: questions about how
best to address climate change loss and damage are fundamentally political, como
they derive from processes of deliberation and imply distributional outcomes.
Además, Javeline (2014) and Eriksen et al. (2015) had already noted that climate
change adaptation—far from being a neutral, technical, and managerial
process—is based on contestation of what counts as “adaptive” for different
groups and implies differentiated outcomes in terms of vulnerability and the
capacity to adapt. We suggest that these considerations are equally applicable in
the loss and damage realm. Following Tschakert et al. (2019), we note that what
counts as “loss” in different places and over time is highly contextual and will be
grappled with (or not) through local, national, regional, and international politi-
cal processes.

We have two objectives for this special issue. Primero, by recognizing the
highly interdisciplinary essence of loss and damage research, we seek to

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

4 (cid:129)

Introduction to Special Issue

promote dialogue, cross-fertilization, and the building of bridges across social
science disciplines concerned with politics and governance. Segundo, we seek to
inform a policy landscape that was slow-moving for many years but has begun
to shift rapidly. Political actors and practitioners from the international to the
local level are quickly having to get to grips with the conceptual debate, política
discusiones, and empirical evidence on a topic that is both a threatening mate-
rial reality and a product of sociopolitical processes.

In terms of scope, the special issue investigates how loss and damage as a
“governance object” (Allan 2017) has been shaped by contentious negotiations
within the UNFCCC (Calliari 2016; Vanhala and Hestbaek 2016) and has been
then enacted (or not) by a range of actors across different levels and governance
sites. A growing number of actors are engaging with the implications of loss and
damage governance, including a range of nonstate actors from international
organization secretariats to civil society groups to scientists working within
and beyond the IPCC. At the national level, a wide variety of institutions, de
environment ministries to disaster risk management departments to courts,
have been invoked in loss and damage governance efforts but represent signif-
icantly different paradigms for action. Against this background, much of the
existing scholarship still situates loss and damage at the scale of UNFCCC nego-
tiations and focuses predominantly on states.

We broaden this perspective by posing the following overarching ques-
ciones: 1. What kinds of knowledge and ideas do stakeholders draw upon when
constructing, reproducing, or contesting loss and damage as a governance
object? With what consequences? 2. How do different stakeholders engage with
loss and damage at different scales (international, national, local) and across
sites of governance (p.ej., in international negotiations, across epistemic commu-
niidades, and within national institutions)? 3. How does this engagement affect the
ways in which the idea of climate change loss and damage are conceptualized
and institutionalized at the international and national levels?

The Articles in the Special Issue: The Politics of
Governing Loss and Damage

The articles cover a breadth of social science approaches: international relations,
comparative politics, science and technology studies, and political theory. El
articles themselves are underpinned by a shared interest in questions of power
and justice.

A ﬁrst group of articles explores the relationship between loss and damage
política, Por un lado, and science, conocimiento, and evidence on the other.
Serdeczny relies on a process tracing approach to show how developing country
negotiators used knowledge produced within the UNFCCC process (p.ej., techni-
cal papers) and beyond (p.ej., NGOs reports) in a political way to further their
interests in loss and damage negotiations from 2003 a 2013. While the role
of knowledge is usually conceptualized as helping to justify or rationalize

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Lisa Vanhala, Elisa Calliari, and Adelle Thomas (cid:129) 5

previously taken positions, Serdeczny ﬁnds that it can make a difference in policy
resultados. She portrays knowledge as having both an institutional effect,
whereby it was used to establish loss and damage as a theme under the UNFCCC,
and an individual effect, providing actors with a sense of clarity and legitimacy
that strengthened their resolve in defending political positions. The article by
Hartz focuses instead on the way the IPCC has engaged with the politically
charged concept of loss and damage over time. The IPCC plays a key role in
the climate change governance landscape, as it provides “certiﬁed” scientiﬁc
and policy-oriented knowledge” to stimulate and legitimize climate policies
(van der Sluijs et al. 2010). Hartz traces the representation of loss and damage
across IPCC assessment reports and accounts for the inclusion of the term “losses
and damages” in the Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) of the Working Group
II and III of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Cycle. By focusing on the implications of
orthographic choices (“Loss and Damage”, “loss and damage”, “losses and dam-
ages”) in the science–policy discourse, she shows how different ways of spelling
out the concept are appraised differently by individuals, depending on their con-
text and position in the loss and damage space. For those more closely involved
with the political sphere, the wording of “losses and damages” is considered yet
another way to impede the development of global governance in this area, pero
for those engaged with the topic at scientiﬁc-technical and practical levels the
inclusion of loss and damage terminology in IPCC SPMs is perceived as an
important next step in the institutionalization of the topic.

A second group of articles draws attention to the important role of ideas
and meaning-making processes in the politics of loss and damage governance.
While the ideas of liability and compensation are often associated with loss and
damage, Wallimann-Helmer argues that, from an ethical perspective they can be
de-coupled in the governance of loss and damage. He calls for a new way of
thinking about these concepts by taking climate resilience as a point of depar-
tura. By shifting from a backward-looking to a forward-looking conceptualiza-
ción, he proposes a reframing of responsibility within the sphere of loss and
damage governance.

The article by Calliari and Ryder changes scale, focusing on the country
level to understand how national policy actors make sense of and translate
el (ill-deﬁned) global agenda on loss and damage to the national level. Ellos
analyse how loss and damage is framed within countries’ archived and updated
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and outline countries’ different
understandings of what the problem of loss and damage entails and possible
soluciones. The authors ﬁnd that countries are not simply adopting the framing
of loss and damage elaborated by the UNFCCC but are instead actively shaping
the concept by advancing certain understandings that are consistent with the
challenges experienced in their national context. Calliari and Ryder outline an
emergent two-level ideational game, whereby countries attempt to shape the
global agenda by advancing certain framings of the loss and damage problem
and solution space.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

6 (cid:129)

Introduction to Special Issue

Finalmente, the article by Falzon et al. develops a typology of obstructionist
tactics that countries have used to delay action on loss and damage over the last
thirty years. Drawing on and contributing to international relations theories,
they center their analysis on the practices of power and how it is used to shape
legal and political understandings of loss and damage. The authors show how
the use of these tactics has limited what the concept of loss and damage encap-
sulates (at least within the global governance regime) and the effect this has on
potential policy solutions and legal outcomes.

The collection of articles in the special issue offer insights in three ways.
Primero, they advance our empirical understanding by building on earlier research
and highlighting the importance of varying, overlapping, and often competing
discourses and conceptualizations of loss and damage (Calliari 2016; Vanhala
and Hestbaek 2016; Vanhala 2023). The articles in this issue of GEP unpack
these discourses within different settings, from the UNFCCC negotiations
(Falzon et al., Serdeczny, Walliman-Helmer) to the IPCC (Hartz) to national
level articulations of the problem (Calliari and Ryder). Going beyond just an
analysis or description of these novel conceptualizations and existing
discourses, these articles together highlight their many impacts from the institu-
tional to the individual level and from the legal to the cognitive and emotional
realms. Segundo, the research presented here sheds new light on the role of
conocimiento (as well as a lack thereof, see Vanhala et al. 2021) in explaining out-
comes in the study of the global governance of loss and damage. Por ejemplo,
Hartz’s work draws on insights from science and technology studies and inter-
national relations to offer a nuanced understanding of the use and relevance of
language and spelling more speciﬁcally as a way of reaching consensus at the
interface of climate science and policy. Serdeczny highlights the multiple path-
ways through which knowledge about losses and damages shapes personal
engagement, political behavior, and legal outcomes within climate change
negotiations. Tercero, these articles contribute to broader theoretical debates
within the study of global environmental politics. Por ejemplo, Falzon et al.’s
typology of methods of obstruction can help us understand the full range of
negotiation tactics that are deployed in the climate change regime but also in
global governance more generally. Calliari and Ryder draw on the idea of a
two-level ideational game to analyze developments bridging the national and
international level, and Hartz shows how seemingly mundane matters, semejante
as spelling, can shape world views. Together these articles contribute to
constructivist theorizing of the modes and methods for constituting objects of
global governance.

Agenda for Global Environmental Politics

This special issue marks an important step forward in our understanding of the
politics and governance of climate change loss and damage. Sin embargo, we argue
that there remains a pressing need for further research and for all the tools of the

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Lisa Vanhala, Elisa Calliari, and Adelle Thomas (cid:129) 7

social sciences to be brought to bear on questions related to climate change loss.
We identify three promising avenues of research here.

Primero, the relationship between loss and damage and adaptation is an
ongoing area of research with particular relevance for policy approaches and
with potential ﬁnancial implications over time. In the discussions to establish
the new loss and damage fund there are challenges in trying to distinguish
between approaches. Planned relocation or permanent migration as a response
to climate change exempliﬁes the challenges of sharply differentiating adapta-
tion from loss and damage, as these approaches have been posited as viable
adaptation options or as examples of grievous loss and damage by different
research communities (McNamara et al. 2018). Other conceptually distinct
but practically and empirically murky dichotomies include the differentiation
between loss and damage; the distinction between noneconomic and economic
losses, and the categories of impacts resulting from extreme weather and slow-
onset events.

Segundo, while much of the early research on loss and damage focused on
the local level ( Warner and van der Geest 2013), the overwhelming focus of the
literature on the politics, governance, and law of loss and damage has been on
discussions within the UNFCCC. More recently, Calliari and Vanhala (2022)
have argued for a “national turn” in the study of loss and damage governance.
Both the existing gaps in knowledge about how national policymakers are con-
ceptualizing and managing the issues under the heading of “loss and damage”,
as well as political developments (including the operationalization of the
Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, which will offer technical support to
countries) demand a broader and deeper evidence base regarding the types,
eficacia, and legitimacy of policies, activities, and interventions that are
already in place. Governance and politics at other scales of governance, incluir-
ing within states and in supra-state regional bodies, also merit attention as
critically important in managing losses and damages.

Finalmente, this special issue seeks to stimulate political scientists’ and inter-
national relations scholars’ engagement with loss and damage, and to highlight
the vital insights that scholars from across subdisciplinary ﬁelds (p.ej., political
theory, comparative politics, political economy, international relations) poder
bring to the table. A range of theoretical approaches, methodologies, and under-
lying epistemological commitments from within and beyond political science
can help shed light on the problem and policy solutions of climate change loss
and damage.

Lisa Vanhala is a professor of political science at University College London.
She teaches and researches on global climate governance, climate change litiga-
ción, and the intersections of climate change and human rights. Her research has
been published in Comparative Political Studies, Law & Society Review, Global Envi-
ronmental Change, and Environmental Politics. She is the principal investigator on
a European Research Council Starting Grant Project on the Politics and

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

8 (cid:129)

Introduction to Special Issue

Governance of Climate Change Loss and Damage (CCLAD, project number
755753.oh). She is currently working on a solo-authored monograph entitled
Governing the End: The Making of Climate Change Loss and Damage focusing on
the history of the UN negotiations on loss and damage. She is also co-editing
a book with Elisa Calliari entitled Governing Climate Change Loss and Damage:
The National Turn.

Elisa Calliari is a research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Sys-
tems Analysis in Vienna. Her research focuses on the politics and governance of
climate change loss and damage at different scales, from climate change nego-
tiations to national policy-making processes. She is also interested in studying
how planned relocation can be employed as an anticipatory and strategic form
of climate change adaptation in Europe. Calliari is currently a member of the
Italian delegation at the UNFCCC, providing technical support on loss and
damage to the Italian Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security.

Adelle Thomas is a senior fellow at the Climate Change Adaptation and Resil-
ience Research Centre at University of The Bahamas, and Senior Scientist and
Loss and Damage Lead at Climate Analytics. Her areas of research focus on
adaptación, limits to adaptation and loss and damage in the developing world
contexto, with a particular focus on small island developing states. A human-
environment geographer, Adelle has over sixteen years of practice in intersec-
tions between climate action and development.

Referencias

Adelman, Sam. 2016. Climate Justice, Loss and Damage and compensation for Small
Island Developing States. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 7 (1): 32–53.
https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2016.01.02

Allan, Bentley B. 2017. Producing the Climate: Estados, Scientists, and the Constitution of
Global Governance Objects. International Organization 71 (1): 131–162. https://doi
.org/10.1017/S0020818316000321

barnett, Jon, Petra Tschakert, Lesley Head, and W. Neil Adger. 2016. A Science of Loss.

Nature Climate Change 6 (11): 976–978. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3140

chico, Emily, Rachel A. James, Richard G. jones, Hannah R. Joven, and Friederike E. l.
Otón. 2017. A Typology of Loss and Damage Perspectives. Nature Climate Change
7 (10): 723–729. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3389

chico, Emily, Brian C. Chafﬁn, Kelly Dorkenoo, et al. 2021. Loss and Damage from Cli-
mate Change: A New Climate Justice Agenda. One Earth 4 (10): 1365–1370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.015

Broberg, Morten P., and Beatriz Martinez Romera. 2021. The Third Pillar of International
Climate Change Policy: On “Loss and Damage” after the Paris Agreement. Londres &
Nueva York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003132271

Burkett, Maxine. 2016. Reading Between the Red Lines: Loss and Damage and the Paris
Outcome. Climate Law 6 (1–2): 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561
-00601008

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Lisa Vanhala, Elisa Calliari, and Adelle Thomas (cid:129) 9

Calliari, Elisa. 2016. Loss and Damage: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Parties’ Positions
in Climate Change Negotiations. Journal of Risk Research 21 (6): 725–747. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1240706

Calliari, Elisa, Olivia Serdeczny, and Lisa Vanhala. 2020. Making Sense of the Politics in
the Climate Change Loss & Damage Debate. Global Environmental Change 64
(Septiembre): 102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102133,
PubMed: 33362365

Calliari, Elisa, and Lisa Vanhala. 2022. The “National Turn” in Climate Change Loss and
Damage Governance Research: Constructing the L&D Policy Landscape in Tuvalu.
Política climática 22 (2): 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2027222
Eriksen, Siri H., Andrea J. Nightingale, and Hallie Eakin. 2015. Reframing Adaptation:
The Political Nature of Climate Change Adaptation. Global Environmental Change
35 (Noviembre): 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014
abanicando, Andrew L., and Jason Hickel. 2023. Compensation for Atmospheric Appropri-

ación. Nature Sustainability (Junio). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01130-8

Hepach, Maximilian Gregor, and Friederike Hartz. 2023. What is Lost from Climate
Cambiar? Phenomenology at the “Limits to Adaptation”. Geographica Helvetica
78 (2): 211–221. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-78-211-2023

IPCC. 2022a. Cambio Climático 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change, edited by H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, METRO. Tignor, mi. S. Poloczanska,
k. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, METRO. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. moller, A. Okem,
y B. rama. Cambridge, UK and New York, Nueva York, EE.UU: Cambridge University
Prensa. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844

IPCC. 2022b. Annex II: Glossary, edited by V. moller, R. van Diemen, j. B. R. Matthews, j.
S. Fuglestvedt, C. Méndez, A. Reisinger, and S. Semenov. In Climate Change 2022:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by
H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, METRO. Tignor, mi. S. Poloczanska, k. Mintenbeck, A.
Alegría, METRO. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. moller, A. Okem, y B. rama,
2897–2930. Cambridge, UK and New York, Nueva York, EE.UU: Prensa de la Universidad de Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.029

James, Rachel, Friederike Otto, Hannah Parker, Emily Boyd, Rosalind Cornforth, Daniel
mitchell, and Myles Allen. 2014. Characterizing Loss and Damage from Climate
Cambiar. Nature Climate Change 4 (11): 938–939. https://doi.org/10.1038
/nclimate2411

Javeline, Debra. 2014. The Most Important Topic Political Scientists Are Not Studying:
Adapting to Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics 12 (2): 420–434. https://doi
.org/10.1017/S1537592714000784

Johansson, Angelica, Elisa Calliari, Noah Walker-Crawford, Friederike Hartz, Colin
McQuistan, and Lisa Vanhala. 2022. Evaluating Progress on Loss and Damage:
An Assessment of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mecha-
nism under the UNFCCC. Política climática 22 (9–10): 1199–1212. https://doi.org
/10.1080/14693062.2022.2112935

Markandya, Anil, and Mikel González-Eguino. 2019. Integrated Assessment for Identify-
ing Climate Finance Needs for Loss and Damage: A Critical Review. In Loss and
Damage from Climate Change: Conceptos, Methods and Policy Options, edited by
Reinhard Mechler, Laurens M. Bouwer, Thomas Schinko, Swenja Surminski, y

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

10 (cid:129) Introduction to Special Issue

JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 343–362. cham, Suiza: Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5_14

McNamara, Karen E., Robin Bronen, Nishara Fernando, and Silja Klepp. 2018. El
Complex Decision-Making of Climate-Induced Relocation: Adaptation and Loss
and Damage. Política climática 18 (1): 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062
.2016.1248886

McNamara, Karen E., and Guy Jackson. 2019. Loss and Damage: A Review of the Liter-
ature and Directions for Future Research. WIREs Climate Change 10 (2): e564.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.564

Mechler, Reinhard, Chandni Singh, Kristie Ebi, Riyante Djalante, Adelle Thomas, Rachel
James, Petra Tschakert, et al. 2020. Loss and Damage and Limits to Adaptation:
Recent IPCC Insights and Implications for Climate Science and Policy. Sustainabil-
ity Science 15: 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00807-9

Mechler, Reinhard, Laurens M. Bouwer, Thomas Schinko, Swenja Surminski, and JoAnne
Linnerooth-Bayer, eds. 2019. Loss and Damage from Climate Change: Conceptos,
Methods and Policy Options. cham, Suiza: Springer Nature. https://doi.org
/10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5

Naylor, Angus William, and James Ford. 2023. Vulnerability and Loss and Damage
Following the COP27 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Regional
Environmental Change 23 (1): 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02033-2
Oliver-Smith, Antonio. 2013. Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation:
The View from Applied Anthropology. Human Organization 72 (4): 275–282.
https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.72.4.j7u8054266386822

O’Reilly, Jessica, Cindy Isenhour, Pamela McElwee, and Ben Orlove. 2020. Clima
Cambiar: Expanding Anthropological Possibilities. Annual Review of Anthropology
49: 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-043113

Página, Edward A., and Clare Heyward. 2017. Compensating for Climate Change Loss
and Damage. Political Studies 65 (2): 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0032321716647401

Roberts, Erin, and Saleemul Huq. 2015. Coming Full Circle: The History of Loss and
Damage under the UNFCCC. International Journal of Global Warming 8 (2): 141–157.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2015.071964

Serdeczny, Olivia Maria, Steffen Bauer, and Saleemul Huq. 2018. Non-Economic Losses
from Climate Change: Opportunities for Policy-Oriented Research. Climate and
Desarrollo 10 (2): 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1372268

Toussaint, Patrick. 2021. Loss and Damage and Climate Litigation: The Case for Greater
Interlinkage. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law
30 (1): 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12335

Tschakert, Petra, Neville R. Ellis, Christopher Anderson, Adam Kelly, and James Obeng.
2019. One Thousand Ways to Experience Loss: A Systematic Analysis of
Climate-Related Intangible Harm from around the World. Global Environmental
Cambiar 55 (Marzo): 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.006
van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., Rinie van Est, and Monique Riphagen. 2010. Beyond Consen-
sus: Reﬂections from a Democratic Perspective on the Interaction between Climate
Politics and Science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2 (5–6):
409–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.10.003

Vanhala, Lisa. 2023. Putting the Constructive Ambiguity of Climate Change Loss and
Damage into Practice: The Early Work of the UNFCCC WIM ExCom. Review of

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Lisa Vanhala, Elisa Calliari, and Adelle Thomas

(cid:129) 11

European, Comparative & International Environmental Law (Junio): 1–11. https://doi
.org/10.1111/reel.12508

Vanhala, Lisa, and Cecilie Hestbaek. 2016. Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in
UNFCCC Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 16 (4): 111–129. https://doi
.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379

Vanhala, Lisa, Michai Robertson, and Elisa Calliari. 2021. The Knowledge Politics of
Climate Change Loss and Damage across Scales of Governance. Ambiental
Política 30 (1–2): 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1840227
Vanhala, Lisa, and Elisa Calliari. 2022. Governing People on the Move in a Warming
Mundo: Framing Climate Change Migration and the UNFCCC Task Force on
Displacement. Global Environmental Change 76: 102578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.gloenvcha.2022.102578

Wapner, Pablo. 2014. Climate Suffering. Global Environmental Politics 14 (2): 1–6. https://

doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00224

Warner, Koko, and Kees van der Geest. 2013. Loss and Damage from Climate Change:
Local-Level Evidence from Nine Vulnerable Countries. International Journal of
Global Warming 5 (4): 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2013.057289

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

2
3
3
1
2
1
5
6
5
2
1
gramo
mi
pag
_
mi
_
0
0
7
3
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Descargar PDF