The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP-30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has begun in Belém, Brazil. However, Nepal's presence at the global climate conference appears to be weakened by the current government's desire to gain cheap popularity.

A 9-member team led by Minister for Agriculture and Livestock Development Dr. Madan Prasad Pariyar is participating in the conference on behalf of the Government of Nepal. Although it was decided to send ministers to the conference, which should be attended by the President or Prime Minister, the high-level meeting was addressed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Forest and Environment. 

The issue of climate change justice is not only of national concern for Nepal, but also a matter of existence. COP-30 is the highest opportunity for Nepal, which has been suffering from floods after the end of the monsoon, unseasonal rains and drought, to seek factual justice. However, the government did not take this opportunity seriously. The preparations for COP were seen as extremely weak both internally and externally. Since there will be many negotiation issues, Nepal's presence in international negotiations will be weak. 

National Position Paper

The country's national position paper should list priorities. The national position paper prepared in a narrow circle has not been able to list the agenda of contemporary needs. The national conferences and intensive workshops with experts that were held before COP in previous years were not held this time. The government, which held discussions with the Gen-G group, kept climate experts, researchers, the private sector, local governments, etc. out of the preparation process. COP-30 is preparing to finalize the indicators to be implemented through the Global Adaptation Goals (GGA) plan. If COP-30 approves the GGA indicators, how will Nepal measure the indicators? What will be the monitoring system? How will it be made? It is impossible to benefit from the achievements without that preparation. To what extent do the GGA indicators include problems related to mountains and issues that cover our territory? There is no such assessment. The lists of adaptation are nowhere to be found in the national position paper. It is the expectation of all Nepalis that specific and defined indicators for mountains be included in the GGA. Nepal has failed to create an environment and advocate for its issues to be included in the maximum indicators by collaborating with countries with mountains and mountains through diplomatic negotiations. 

The Adaptation Fund Board is ready to invest. However, the government should submit a proposal together with civil society to get grants from it. Since the government has not shown interest, international organizations working in Nepal are working with other countries to develop a system for measuring adaptation indicators.

Nepal has been suffering huge losses due to post-monsoon rains for the past few years. This year too, the rains damaged the paddy during the import period. If there had been investment in agricultural technology, farmers would not have been forced to harvest and dry the paddy in the fields. The growing climate crisis shows that adaptation is essential. Small efforts have been made in various parts of the country with the help of civil society organizations in adaptation, but the government does not have the data. How much of the damage in the last two years is due to human structures? And how much is due to climate change? There is also no data for that.

There is no alternative to implementing national and local adaptation plans to solve the growing climate crisis. It has been years since voices began to be raised that a project bank should be established to bring in the necessary budget for the implementation of the plan. Complaints that the ministry is blocking proposals submitted by civil society have been heard in the past as well. Instead of passing the proposal quickly and helping to bring in finance, the money received has been returned without being spent on time due to stalling it and passing suggestions. 

Even though the change in political leadership has affected some other areas, it is the staff administration that has been continuing the initiatives taken in a particular area for years on a regular basis. Weakening and weakening the national position paper under the pretext of the Gen-G movement is irresponsible towards the citizens. 

Impact on negotiations

Since the attendance is small, there is no question of representation in more than 50 parallel meetings daily. There are agendas and sub-agendas according to the subject. Will the representatives participate in high-level meetings or sit in on negotiations? With no quality participation except for the cat-tying work, the 'Sagarmatha Dialogue' that Nepal conducted this year will now be limited to 'expensive advertisement for the Himalayas'. How will the expenses incurred in the 'Sagarmatha Dialogue' be recovered, which was supposed to take initiatives for climate justice by making the Himalayas agenda a major issue at the global level?

In order to negotiate effectively in the thematic meetings of the conference, there must be a strong and shared understanding among the representatives on the priorities and positions at the national level. Who is representing the country on the issues included in the draft proposals prepared for COP-30 after the meeting in Bonn, Germany? What is our position and that of the national group we are involved in on the proposed agenda? The government has not clarified anything on these issues. What will be Nepal's position on the proposed agenda for discussion at the conference? The national position paper is also not clear on this. There is no situation where a thesis-sized document can be read out verbatim. 

Nepal's representation in important meetings such as loss, damage, adaptation, finance, global stock-take, etc. There is a risk of zero attendance in discussions on economic and technical cooperation as well. 

Big countries have sent teams of dozens of experts to negotiate on their positions. It would be pointless to expect Nepal's effective presentation from the representatives of COP-tourists and quotas. Without a deep understanding, even the person entrusted with responsibility cannot play an effective role. In a negotiation meeting of COP-29, Nepal's representative had to face an embarrassing situation when he did not express his opinion on the subject at the appropriate time during the discussion. Nepal did not participate in the important negotiations that Nepal prioritized in COP-28. These are just a few examples of the selected participants not playing an effective role. 

Retrospective decision

Those who have been understanding the process and content of COP for years are now unable to participate in COP. After the Ministry of Forests tightened the rules for those who wanted to participate in COP and arranged a letter of acceptance with a seal, many representatives of NGOs and subject experts were deprived of participating in COP-30. The government calls this good governance. However, this has caused losses to Nepal itself. In the name of gaining popularity, the government also closed the door to those who wanted to stay in Nepal and observe the conference activities virtually. Some experts were forced to participate in COP as representatives of other countries. The government should not forget that international conferences are also an appropriate means of presenting problems to the world, obtaining information from others, exchanging experiences, and emulating good practices. The government should encourage, not discourage, citizen-level participation in the international arena. If it thought that the country would save a lot of money if expert participation from citizen organizations decreased, it would have sent only the head of state or the chief executive to high-level meetings. 

Sagarmatha Dialogue Expensive Advertisement

Nepal has not advocated for a new agenda in COP. If it does not set its own agenda, it means participating in discussions on other people's agendas. Only if many countries register the same topic or agenda can it become the agenda of COP discussions. If a country sets its own agenda, it does not mean that it will be on the agenda of COP Secretariat. It will only become a topic of discussion. Whoever 

is able to lobby on that topic, that topic becomes the priority of COP President, and those topics become the main agenda of COP. 

In fact, about 80 percent of the agendas in COP are old. It is not that a new agenda is added every year and that all member countries' agendas are included in it. However, how were the Sagarmatha Dialogue, Mountain Dialogue, and its conclusions held in the international circle, which prioritized the climate-related disasters, damage, losses, and mountain conservation issues faced by Nepal in the last two years, and asked to lead the group of Himalayan countries after 2026? This is the concern of common Nepalis. Where and how is the Sagarmatha Call, which is said to be placed in international forums, including the 'Baku to Belém' roadmap, included? How did Nepal get involved in the agenda setting for the past three months?

Nepal has failed to create a situation where it can become the COP agenda by reaching a consensus with countries that share its priorities. After the Sagarmatha Dialogue, the government should have intensified consultations with countries that share its interests and taken diplomatic initiatives to get the issues put forward in the 'Sagarmatha Call' included in COP. Climate diplomacy should have been expanded by making mountain conservation a national agenda through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. To say that the issue of the mountains was raised at COP without preparation is just paper propaganda. 

Conclusion

How much money did Nepal receive from the decision made in Baku to mobilize 300 billion per year? How many of the adaptation plans we have made have been implemented? How much funding was brought in for climate action? How did the situation arise that the funding was returned? A thorough review of many issues is needed. Why could not a permanent expert team be formed in addition to high-level government representation to participate in international conferences? These questions have been raised at every COP. If a delegation consisting of some influential and some tourist members participates, COP will remain limited to participation only in the coming years. Nepal's participation in COP-30 should not be limited to formality. Ignoring representation at COP while being a country most affected by climate change is a question of national interest.