LDC Group statement at opening of SBSTA 40Date: 06 June 2014
Fortieth session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 40)
Opening statement by Nepal on behalf of the Least Developed Countries Group
Thank you Chair. Good afternoon colleagues. I have the privilege to speak on behalf of the LDC Group. I would like to align my statement with the statement made by Bolivia on behalf of G77 and China.
Allow me first to congratulate you on your appointment as the chair of this important body. Congratulations on your appointment!
Chair, SBSTA plays a significant role as the link between the technological and scientific advice and the policy-oriented needs of the COP/CMP. In the wake of the latest IPCC findings and the processes we have initiated for the future global climate change regime, we believe that provision of timely information and advice on scientific and technological matters are extremely important for this process.
We think that we made significant progress in Warsaw on many issues, but more work is still needed on some. And we need to conduct our deliberations as efficiently as possible and optimize the time for formal and informal negotiations.
On the Nairobi Work Programme, while we welcome the ongoing work, we are still not convinced that it is delivering outcomes for the most vulnerable countries. The information flow from the Nairobi Work Programme is not as effective as it could be and we need to explore means for doing so. We would like to have a discussion on how this could be best achieved.
Chair, our work on REDD+ in Warsaw was a culmination of many years of work, and it is a significant achievement, bringing us one step closer to full implementation of REDD+ activities. We hope that we continue to progress and address the remaining issues for the full implementation of REDD+ activities. We are keen to see progress in the areas of methodological guidelines for both the non –market approaches and the non-carbon benefits related to REDD+ activities.
In Warsaw the joint report of the TEC and the CTCN could not be endorsed because of the controversy surrounding participation of TEC in initiating conversations with WIPO and WTO, on how to handle issues regarding IPR. Mr. Chair, IPR is important to some of us now or in future, so it needs to be addressed conclusively.
Mr. Chair, many parties have undertaken their TNAs which includes formulation of Technology Action Plans for prioritized technologies. TNAs are a basis for addressing technology needs of developing countries. We request that funds be mobilised for the implementation of our TNAs. Moreover, those countries that have not undertaken their TNAs should be supported to do so.
We further request clarity on the source of funds for the implementation of technology mechanism in the medium- and long- term especially when the CTCN is now set to receive requests from the developing countries for consideration. We could also consider special financing window under the financial mechanism for supporting the technology needs of developing countries.
On the 2013-2015 Review, we welcome the establishment of the Structured Expert Dialogue. We sincerely hope that the Structured Expert Dialogue delivers concrete outcomes to inform the work of the ADP. It is critical that the Structured Expert Dialogue is directed towards finding the pathways that will lead up to a below 1.5 Degree Celcius temperature limit relative to pre-industrial levels. We hope that the Structured Expert Dialogue can be focussed towards this outcome rather than simply being a talk-shop for broad ranging discussions with no outcome.
On the issues relating to agriculture, the emphasis on adaptation is critical for LDCs. The workshop on the current state of scientific knowledge was extremely valuable. It helped identify areas with gaps and also areas with extensive knowledge. Now we need to find a means to help the most vulnerable to access this information. We also need to give strong direction to the Adaptation Committee on how it should incorporate agriculture into its work. Furthermore, we need to give guidance to the ADP on how adaptation for agriculture can be incorporated into the 2015 Legal Agreement.
On Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage we welcome the work of the interim executive committee, but we stress the need for a committee that will deliver real outcomes for the most vulnerable countries and not become another talk-shop for institutions undertaking risk assessment and risk management work. We need to tap into the insurance and re-insurance industry and bring them on board. They have much of the information we need. They have already done extensive work on risk assessment and risk transfer mechanisms hence we do not need to repeat this work. We sincerely hope that we can avoid a situation of delaying progress on the work of this important body.
On issues related to economic instruments: market based mechanisms, non-market approaches, and framework for various approaches need careful consideration. We should consider the potential relationship of these instruments with the 2015 agreement and previous decisions, including amendments to the flexible mechanisms of Kyoto Protocol. This may mean not making certain decisions related to market instruments until we are clear about the 2015 Agreement.
On cross cutting issues, the SBSTA and SBI should work together so that we can benefit from both the areas of expertise. These issues include, among others, technology development and transfer, loss and damage, and key political issues such as 2013-2015 review.
Chair, we have full confidence in your leadership and we assure you of our full support in your work.