Advancing dialogue and action on loss and damage

Just like adaptation, L&D has grown into an extensive science and policy area and things are very complicated even for the researchers to take a stock of it and to provide solutions. A large part of this confusion is coming from the disjoint between the global negotiations and at the national level. While at the ground level, most L&D solutions are largely drawn from the adaptation, which includes an early warning, insurance, relocation, etc etc. We often hear from national level stakeholders if they should consider L&D within the adaptation framework or it should be treated separately and they are not sure why it should be considered separately while many solutions are similar or the same as that of solutions discussed in adaptation. More than 90% of the solution space of L&D comes from the GHG mitigation, CCA, and DRR. •We also realized that there is very little information on the residual risks i.e. risks remaining after implementing all known adaptation solutions at any given point of time in the future in a specific country context. This is an important limitation since without knowing residual risks, it is difficult to take a stock of L&D. Closely related is the soft and hard limits to adaptation. There is a need to take a clear stock of these limitations and what they mean for strengthening adaptation. Which geographical area and sector is likely to receive adaptation limits in a country is not known.