COP 30 Fails to Become an Opportunity: Mere Participation Without a Plan

As the world gathers under the banner of the 30th session of COP 30, the message from the United Nations environmental secretary was clear: Global solidarity on climate issues remains strong and humanity continues to fight for a habitable planet. This year’s COP, held in Belém, Brazil, concluded on Friday, serving as a massive global convocation of policymakers, planners, and advocates aiming to safeguard Earth’s future.

Yet, when we examine the events of this year, COP 30 appears to have operated in two distinct registers.

On one hand, the commitment to triple the resources of the adaptation finance fund by 2035 offers real hope ; especially for least developed countries such as Nepal, where the benefits of such support are indisputable. On the other hand, the conference failed to produce a robust roadmap for a complete phase-out of fossil-fuel reliance.

The biggest achievement of COP 30 was the establishment of the “Just Transition” mechanism which is a commitment that promises fair, equitable transformation for workers and communities worldwide. If we centre social justice in climate action, this could represent a truly ambitious and transformative move. Never before have COP decisions encompassed such far-reaching language touching fundamental human rights: workers’ rights, rights of Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, gender equality, women’s empowerment, education, youth development, among others.

Bringing together developed and developing nations under one roof always carries great significance. For countries like Nepal ,with its extraordinary geographic diversity the significance multiplies. The world agrees that Nepal’s environmental relevance is disproportionately high. But that same diversity also brings recurring challenges every year.

It is almost shameful in the sense that when there were nearly 60 parallel sessions in COP 30 in a single day, how could Nepal’s small group of delegation participate with such a visionless approach.  A nine-member group led by the minister of agriculture and livestock development may have reviewed matters on the ground — but will it review them again once home? It would have been far better if Nepal had sent a larger delegation under the leadership of the Prime Minister or President which could have shown that Nepal did not reflects limitations imposed by its recent political dynamics. But after a formal address by a secretary-level representative at the opening session, the world will not dismiss Nepal’s lack of sensitivity toward these issues.

Longstanding national and international organizations working on climate issues were not consulted by Nepal’s ministries before COP. This clearly indicates that our bureaucratic apparatus – the very civil-service officers designated with preparing the national position paper through prior consultation, coordination, and deliberation  simply ignored vital issues.

The fault does not lie only with political leaders but also with senior bureaucrats who remained willfully negligent. This institutional failure is stark. A properly drafted national position paper is prepared after thorough discussion with all stakeholders which is standard practice before attending COP. But this time, the process was rushed which led to pretext for confusion.

So what has prevented us from presenting Nepal’s real problems  – melting glaciers in the mountains, drought in the plains, rural communities reeling under unpredictable rainfall, fields ruined by unseasonal storms? Which crisis affects human lives most closely Is it glacial flood or drought-induced hunger? And why did such issues, which strike at the core of people’s livelihoods, never make it to the COP agenda from Nepal’s side? The climate problems faced by daily-wage labor in the Terai, the scarcity of water due to dry land and no boring waters, failing agriculture  are all as much Nepal’s problems as those of any other climate-vulnerable country. But why couldn’t we bring them to the negotiation table in a planned manner, in collaboration with civic organizations working on these issues?

Recent studies by concerned civic bodies have revealed alarming trends: around 91 per cent of 345 schools across nearly 70 municipalities in the Terai had to close for an average of 11 days per year due to rising heat waves. Clearly these findings demand urgent attention  yet our weak representation at COP exposes how hollow Nepal’s global presence on climate issues has been this year.

When grants turn into debt, when adaptation funding becomes symbolic, when finance remains trapped in bureaucracy and in few clever minded officials, how will a Tharu farmer in a drought-stricken field ever know the world held a COP and resolved to help? How will a Limbu paddy-farmer whose crops were ravaged by heavy rain know that somewhere, people were debating climate solutions?

We should not attend COP just to ask for aid ; we should attend to demand justice, accountability and real investment, not fleeting foreign visits or superficial reports. COP is not an opportunity for vacations and photo-ops. It could have been a meaningful platform. But once again, Nepal lost that opportunity.

Adhikari is a Journalist with Deshsanchar.com