The Evolution of LDCs in the UN Climate Process: A Personal Reflection from 1999 to SB 64

Guest blog by Youssef Nassef, Climate Adaptation Director - UNFCCC, former Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Egypt. Originally published here.

As delegates gather in Bonn for SB 64, I find myself reflecting on a journey that has unfolded over more than a quarter century.  Today, discussions on least developed countries (LDCs) are firmly embedded in the climate agenda.  Dedicated agenda items, constituted bodies, funding arrangements, adaptation plans, and references throughout the Paris Agreement all reflect a broad recognition of the special circumstances and needs of LDCs.  Yet this current reality masks the remarkable journey that brought us here.  When I joined the UNFCCC secretariat in 1999, there was no dedicated LDC Group within the negotiations as we know it today. There were no decisions specifically devoted to operationalizing support for LDCs. There was no Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG), no Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), no National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), no National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and no dedicated adaptation architecture under the Convention.  Adaptation was still the weaker sibling to greenhouse gas mitigation, and some viewed it with suspicion as potentially detracting attention away from solving the core problem of greenhouse gas concentrations.

That same year, I had the privilege of organizing the first workshop under the UNFCCC process dedicated specifically to adaptation and response measures.  The discussions focused on vulnerability assessment methodologies, adaptation planning approaches and the challenges faced by vulnerable countries.  Looking back, it is striking to see how many of the issues we grapple with today were already visible, even if the institutions and mechanisms to address them had yet to emerge.

Looking back, however, there is a broader lesson.  In times when attention is focused on gaps, it is important to acknowledge how far we have come since the Convention was adopted in 1992.  The evolution of support for least developed countries provides a powerful example.  What began as a recognition of special circumstances under Article 4.9 of the Convention evolved into dedicated institutions, funding arrangements, adaptation plans and a prominent place for LDC priorities across the climate agenda.

In the early years of the Convention, discussions concerning LDCs were framed through Article 4.9, which called on Parties to take full account of the specific needs and special situations of the least developed countries in relation to funding and technology transfer.  The devastating floods that struck Mozambique in 2000 helped crystallize concerns regarding the vulnerability of least developed countries and reinforced the case for a more organized and visible LDC presence within the negotiations.  For the LDCs, the climate crisis was already crystalizing into a developmental challenge and a poverty challenge.

In the course of the COP 6 negotiations in The Hague, LDC negotiators recognized that, while they shared many priorities with the broader G77 and China, their particular circumstances required dedicated attention.  Their unique vulnerabilities, limited capacities and development challenges justified tailored approaches under the Convention.  As a result, a separate section within the decision on adverse effects and response measures was created for the implementation of Article 4.9 of the Convention on LDCs.  This outcome was ultimately adopted at COP 7 under decision 5/CP.7, which formed part of the Marrakesh Accords, and led to the establishment of the LDC work programme with terms of reference for National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) to address the urgent and immediate needs of LDCs, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG).

In reality, decision 5/CP.7 represented the beginning of a practical adaptation architecture under the Convention.  The LDCF created a mechanism through which NAPA priorities could be supported.  The LEG constituted a dedicated source of technical expertise to help LDCs assess and implement their adaptation needs.  Many of the institutional features that later became commonplace across the adaptation agenda, both for LDCs and non-LDCs, can trace their origins to this period and this particular decision.

Today, adaptation planning is taken for granted as a fixture in the process.  In 2001 it was a novel concept.  NAPAs were designed around a simple but powerful idea: countries should not have to wait for perfect climate models, top down scenarios, exhaustive studies or complete certainty before taking action.  In fact, the participatory National Action Programmes developed under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification provided an early inspiration for shifting vulnerability and adaptation assessments from being top down scenario/model-based assessments towards the bottom-up approach centred around existing climate vulnerabilities that was subsequently embodied in the NAPAs.

There was already sufficient knowledge to identify urgent and immediate adaptation needs.  NAPAs emphasized country ownership, participation, local knowledge and practical action long before these notions became commonplace in other workstreams under the climate change process.  They focused on identifying those adaptation measures that are so urgent that delaying them would increase future losses and costs.

As countries implemented NAPAs, another realization emerged.  Climate change was not only creating urgent adaptation needs; and the time was ripe for LDCs and other developing countries to embark on longer-term adaptation planning over decades rather than years.  The challenge became one of integrating climate resilience into development pathways.

This led to the launch of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process under the Cancun Adaptation Framework in 2010 in COP 16.  Initially proposed to enable LDCs to identify and address medium- and long-term adaptation needs, the NAP process extended beyond the LDC community; and other developing and developed countries have been producing national adaptation plans ever since.  The NAPs are now the principal planning instrument for adaptation worldwide.

The negotiating positions of LDCs consistently reminded the international community that those who contributed the least to climate change were often among those with the least capacity to adapt to its most severe consequences.

Looking back over more than twenty-five years, one pattern stands out.  Much of the advance in adaptation ambition under the UNFCCC process was championed first by countries whose vulnerability made climate change an immediate reality rather than a future concern.  The influence of LDCs extended beyond the provisions that explicitly refer to them.

As SB 64 convenes in Bonn, the climate community are discussing issues that would have been difficult to imagine in 1999.  Yet there is also continuity.  We are still considering how to best translate vulnerability into action; how do we support those with the most exposure and the least capacity, how do we ensure that adaptation contributes to, and is integrated in, sustainable development, and how do we move from planning to implementation.

The story of adaptation is a success story, but it is still unfolding.  It is also the story of how some of the countries most vulnerable to climate change helped transform adaptation from a marginal concern into one of the defining pillars of the global climate regime.