Statement by Prerna Bomzan, LDC Watch, Nepal

Consultation of Civil Society with Member States in advance of the 2nd Preparatory Committee Meeting for the Fifth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC5)
28 July 2021

Statement by Prerna Bomzan, LDC Watch, Nepal

Thank you Madame Co-Chair,

I will be commenting on Section 5: Addressing climate change, recovering from COVID-19 pandemic, and building resilience against future shocks.

In this section, it is extremely crucial to include “Loss and Damage” in the text which is starkly missing. “Loss and Damage” is the third pillar of the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement, besides Adaptation and Mitigation. Article 8 of the Paris Agreement explicitly states: “Parties recognise the importance of averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage”. 

The LDC Group has been a champion on defending “loss and damage” in the UNFCCC negotiations so it would be amiss if the LDC5 outcome document fails to include this key element of the climate change crisis. At the recent first sessional meetings of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Bodies in June, the LDC Group in its closing statement underscored that “the issue of Loss and Damage remains key to our group and we expect it to be given enhanced consideration at upcoming sessions. Action and support for loss and damage must be anchored as a deliverable for COP26”.

The current text of the zero draft which only mentions “disaster risk reduction” is very limited in scope pertaining to only risk insurance and disaster relief and hence this needs to be rightly addressed by including the language of “loss and damage” consistent with the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement. 

In this context, the title of the key action area which currently reads climate adaptation and building resilience must read climate change loss and damage, adaptation and building resilience. Similarly, the first target must also read, develop national platforms for disaster risk reduction and for addressing loss and damage, including to implement fully the Sendai Framework targets and undertake actions to avert, minimize and address loss and damage.

Likewise, under the key action area of access to finance and technology to address climate change, it is imperative to include additional target on new and additional financing for loss and damage-related activities and projects in LDCs and developing countries, separate from and in addition to funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation. This maintains alignment with the ongoing negotiations at the UNFCCC where LDCs and developing countries are continuing their efforts to ensure loss and damage climate finance.

The other key element of climate finance which is again missing in the current text is the obligation and commitment by development partners under the UNFCCC for provision of grants to LDCs and developing countries. We need to take stock here that climate finance is increasingly being provided in loans rather than grants, which totally exacerbates the debt crisis in LDCs and developing countries, compounded further by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It is therefore essential to specify provision of public finance as grants in the outcome document.

We also note with great caution the use of new concepts such as risk-informed support and investment (Paragraph 222), risk-informed approach (Paragraph 234) and climate-related risk assessments and disclosures (Paragraph 233). While the need to integrate climate risks in development planning is important, we should nonetheless be extremely cautious because these new concepts and terminologies do not have a common understanding, let alone consensus on its use and implications. We would therefore suggest that such terms be avoided altogether in the text lest they imply new conditionalities for LDCs and developing countries vis-à-vis access to finance and investments. 

In the same vein, we suggest to delete risk-informed from the title of Section 6 thus reading, Mobilizing international solidarity, reinvigorated global partnerships and innovative tools for sustainable development, instead of risk-informed sustainable development. We stress that in the absence of common understanding of the terminology, there’s a danger of adverse implications, that LDCs and developing country governments’ public guarantees would be required to offset risk of low returns in sustainable development financing. 

Thank you for your attention.