Adaptation finance one of the main agenda as COP30 edges forward, says LDC negotiator Manjeet Dhakal

Manjeet Dhakal is the head of the LDC support team at climate analytics and a key adviser to the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group, a bloc of 44 vulnerable nations across Asia and Africa.

He has been deeply engaged in UN climate negotiations since 2009, contributing to major milestones including the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Dhakal previously served as programme director at Clean Energy Nepal and is affiliated with the School of Environmental Science and Management at Pokhara University.

His work focuses on climate diplomacy, institutional capacity building and evidence-based advocacy for countries most threatened by the climate crisis.

Speaking to The Business Standard at COP30 in Belém, he discussed the expectations of the LDC Group, the slow-moving finance talks, the growing frustration among vulnerable nations and the hopes that still remain.

What are the expectations or priorities of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group at this COP?

The LDC Group consists of 44 countries, spanning both Asia and Africa. From our region, Bangladesh, Nepal and a few others are part of this group. It is a major negotiating bloc because negotiating independently is extremely difficult for our countries. Coming together gives us collective strength.

Our first and most urgent priority is to limit global temperature rise. From the Himalayas down to the coastal plains, the impacts of warming are already severe. In the mountains, we see glaciers melting; downstream, coastal areas face sea-level rise, cyclones and saltwater intrusion. If temperatures continue to rise, we will face more intense and frequent extreme events that disrupt agriculture, fisheries, energy generation and overall livelihoods. That is why we continue to call on the global community to cut emissions rapidly enough to keep temperature rise within limits we can adapt to.

Our second major priority is climate finance, especially for adaptation. Developed countries have a clear obligation to provide financial support to developing nations, and for us, that support must come primarily as grants and from public sources. Adaptation finance and support to address loss and damage are essential, not optional.

Since COP30 comes at a time when the world is marking three decades of multilateral environmental cooperation, and the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, we also want this COP to send a strong message that multilateralism still matters and that collective action can deliver real results. We are hoping Brazil can guide a COP that restores confidence in the UN climate process.

How is the finance discussion progressing compared to the LDC Group's expectations?

We are now on the fifth day of COP30, and the progress is slower than what we need on the ground. Several agenda items could not be adopted on the opening day, which is already a sign of difficulty. The COP president has been holding consultations on issues such as climate finance, trade-related barriers and the strength of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), including whether they are strong enough to guide us toward the 1.5°C pathway. These issues are still being unpacked and consensus has not yet been reached.

Adaptation is another challenging area. We have been trying to agree on indicators that would allow countries to assess the progress they make on adaptation. The technical discussions have made some headway, but not enough to move toward a firm decision. Two years ago, we completed the Global Stocktake, which was meant to assess how far we have come in implementing the Paris Agreement. Yet countries still have not been able to agree on how to evaluate collective progress. From the perspective of vulnerable countries, it is frustrating that after so many years of negotiation, we still do not have a shared approach to measuring implementation.

This week, we are trying to push forward discussions on limiting temperature rise, emission reductions, climate finance, adaptation and parts of the loss-and-damage agenda. Any issues that remain unresolved will be taken up by ministers next week and political engagement will be needed for breakthroughs.

Adaptation finance needs to be tripled. How is the discussion moving?

With temperatures rising steadily, the scale of adaptation required has grown dramatically. This is why the LDC Group has demanded that adaptation finance provided in 2025 be tripled, and that it be delivered primarily as grants. When we first raised this demand last year, there was little support. Now we see increasing backing from many developing countries and this demand has even appeared in a draft negotiating text on adaptation.

Tripling adaptation finance means moving from the current level of about 40 billion US dollars a year to at least 120 billion US dollars annually from 2025 to 2030. Even this figure is far below the actual need. The recently published Adaptation Gap Report makes it clear that developing countries require more than 300 billion US dollars a year. So what we are asking for is already a compromise, it is far less than what vulnerable communities actually need. If countries fail to deliver even this minimum, it will be a profound betrayal of the world's poorest and most exposed populations.

What obstacles are negotiations facing now?

The obstacles differ based on the agenda item. For emission reductions, the resistance primarily comes from major emitting countries, particularly those whose economies have been built on fossil fuels and continue to depend heavily on them.

When discussions shift to finance, the resistance comes mainly from wealthy countries that are reluctant to commit new or additional resources. For countries like ours, diverting funds away from development priorities such as health and education toward climate action is simply not possible. That would weaken our economies even further.

So we are caught in a difficult place: high-emitting countries that do not want strong mitigation commitments and wealthy nations that resist providing the finance needed for adaptation and loss and damage. In between, vulnerable nations face escalating climate impacts with limited capacity to respond.

What hopes remain for vulnerable communities?

It is often hard to stay hopeful. Negotiations move slowly, and even when decisions are made, implementation can take years. But this COP must send a clear message that temperature rise will be contained, that climate finance will be mobilised rapidly and that adaptation and loss-and-damage support will be prioritised.

For vulnerable communities, these are not political demands, they are basic survival needs. If temperatures continue to rise unchecked and finance continues to be delayed, the impacts will intensify, and the suffering will grow. Communities already living on the edge cannot afford more delays.

What are the main disappointments so far?

The biggest disappointment is the slow pace of the process. Expectations among vulnerable communities are extremely high. People come from South Asia and other regions with the hope that this COP will finally deliver something meaningful for their future. When years pass without decisive progress, it becomes deeply discouraging.

We have travelled across the world to attend COP30 because we believe in the process. But when the process keeps stalling, it becomes an obstacle rather than a solution. Ultimately, the world needs collective decision-making. Without that, negotiations cannot deliver justice for those suffering most.

Which country or bloc is creating the biggest obstacles?

There is no single culprit across all agenda items. For mitigation, the resistance comes mostly from major emitters, including oil-producing countries and those whose economies have long relied on fossil fuels. For finance, the resistance comes from wealthy countries that do not want to scale up their contributions. It varies depending on the issue under discussion.

What should COP30 ultimately deliver?

COP30 should deliver hope, not just political declarations, but real hope for vulnerable people and for future generations. The world needs to hear that global temperature rise will be limited, that emissions will be reduced urgently in this decade, and that rich countries will provide substantial grant-based finance for adaptation and loss and damage.

These are the signals we need to restore trust in the multilateral process. Without them, the world's most vulnerable nations will be left even more exposed.

What should global leaders do now to overcome these obstacles?

Global leaders must understand that for LDCs, climate negotiations are not abstract diplomatic exercises. They are about survival. When sea levels rise and coastal erosion accelerates, when saltwater intrudes into farmland, when mountain glaciers melt and rivers run dry, people lose their homes and livelihoods. Future generations face even more severe impacts.

Leaders must think beyond political mandates and short-term national interests. They must act with the knowledge that the decisions they make today will define how history remembers them. This is their opportunity to act responsibly and be remembered for decisive action, not blamed for inaction.

The US is not participating at COP30. Does this affect the negotiations?

When a major country steps away from the process, it naturally raises concerns. But what we have seen is that the Paris Agreement is resilient and inclusive. Countries continue to submit their NDCs and show commitment to the process. Some are even stepping up their financial contributions.

We hope any country that leaves the process will return soon. But it is clear that the global climate regime has not collapsed because of one or two countries withdrawing. It continues to move forward.

What is also evident is that despite our limited resources and minimal responsibility for the climate crisis, countries like Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan have become global examples. Bangladesh is recognised for its adaptation leadership, Nepal for its forest conservation and Bhutan for remaining carbon-negative. We have shown that vulnerable countries can lead. So the question remains: if we can lead with so little, why can't major emitters and wealthy nations do more?