Manjeet Dhakal is the Head of the LDC Support Team and a key adviser to the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group, a negotiating bloc of 44 nations at the UN climate talks. Since 2009, he has supported LDC positions in the UNFCCC process, including contributing to the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Dhakal previously served as Program 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 vulnerable nations. As a leading negotiator representing 44 countries, he remains on the front line of the talks. He spoke with The Climate Watch about the state of climate negotiations, the obstacles, frustrations, progress and hopes shaping COP30. Here is his interview.
LDC priorities: Limiting temperature rise and securing finance
Dhakal began by explaining that the Least Developed Countries represent 44 nations across Asia and Africa, including Bangladesh and Nepal from South Asia. For these countries, negotiating collectively is essential because it is extremely difficult to negotiate individually in a process as complex as the UNFCCC. The LDC Group provides negotiating strength and a unified voice.
He said the group’s first major priority is limiting the global average temperature rise. From the highest mountain regions to low-lying coastal areas, rising temperatures are already worsening impacts.
He described how extreme events increasingly threaten agriculture, fisheries and energy generation. For LDCs, limiting the temperature rise is not a theoretical target but a matter of survival, because their communities must be able to adapt. This is why the group insists the global community must reduce emissions urgently and keep temperature rise within a range where vulnerable countries can manage the impacts.
The second major priority is climate finance, especially adaptation finance. Dhakal emphasized that developed countries have a responsibility to provide financial support to developing countries. For LDCs, this support must be in the form of grants and from public sources.
Adaptation and addressing loss and damage require predictable finance. Without it, the most vulnerable communities face increasing hardship.
He added that COP30 also carries symbolic importance. Taking place in Brazil three decades after environmental multilateralism began and during the 10-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, this COP must send a clear message that collective action and multilateralism can still work.
According to Dhakal, the LDCs hope Brazil and COP30 will deliver such a message.
Slow and complex finance negotiations
Five days into COP30, Dhakal said the finance discussions are progressing more slowly than hoped. Expectations on the ground are extremely high because vulnerable countries need rapid progress to address their real-world challenges. But negotiations remain complicated due to the nature of multilateral processes.
He explained that several agenda items were not agreed upon on the opening day, including issues related to climate finance, trade-related barriers, and the strength of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The COP Presidency has been facilitating consultations, but key issues remain unresolved. Countries are still debating how to ensure NDCs are strong enough to keep the world on a 1.5°C pathway.
Another area requiring progress is the development of indicators for adaptation. These indicators will allow countries to measure progress in implementing adaptation actions. Technical negotiators have made some progress, but not enough to finalize decisions.
Dhakal highlighted a major frustration: countries still have not agreed on how to evaluate the implementation of the Paris Agreement, even two years after the Global Stocktake. From the ground level, this delay is discouraging. Vulnerable countries want clarity and accountability, yet the process has not been able to agree on how to assess collective progress.
He expects negotiators to intensify efforts this week across all major areas, including emissions, climate finance, adaptation and aspects of loss and damage. Items where agreement remains impossible will be escalated to ministers next week for political direction.
The push to triple adaptation finance
Dhakal explained the rationale behind the LDC demand to triple adaptation finance by 2025. As global temperatures rise, adaptation needs increase rapidly. Vulnerable nations are already struggling to cope with intensified impacts, making strong adaptation finance essential.
When the LDCs first introduced the demand a year ago, there was little support. But now many developing countries are backing it. The call to triple adaptation finance has even appeared in draft negotiating text within the adaptation discussions.
Dhakal clarified what tripling means. Currently, roughly USD 40 billion per year is delivered for adaptation. Tripling it would require USD 120 billion annually from 2025 to 2030. This finance must be provided as grants from public sources.
Even this figure, however, is far below what is needed. Dhakal referenced the new Adaptation Gap Report, which states that more than USD 300 billion per year is necessary to meet global adaptation needs. He stressed that what LDCs are asking for is already far lower than the actual requirement. If even that minimal request is not fulfilled, then the failure becomes a betrayal of the most vulnerable communities.
Obstacles created by high emitters and wealthy countries
Dhakal said the main obstacles to progress depend on the specific agenda item being discussed. When the issue is emission reduction, the most resistance comes from major emitters, especially oil-producing nations or countries whose economies have long benefited from fossil fuels. These countries are reluctant to accept guidance or decisions that would force stronger emission cuts.
When the issue is climate finance, Dhakal said the obstacles come primarily from rich countries that do not want to commit more money. He explained that LDCs cannot afford to divert resources away from essential development needs such as health and education. If they are forced to redirect funds toward climate action, their economies will become even more constrained.
He described the negotiations as a struggle between countries with high emissions and countries with high economic capacity. In this struggle, vulnerable nations suffer the most because their needs are overshadowed by the reluctance of those with greater responsibility and capability.
Hopes for vulnerable communities
Dhakal acknowledged that attending COP can be emotionally difficult for vulnerable countries. Decisions made at COP often take years to implement, even when agreed upon. But COP30 must deliver strong signals for vulnerable communities. He said it is essential that this COP shows a commitment to maintaining temperature limits, mobilizing climate finance, prioritizing adaptation finance and supporting measures to address loss and damage.
Without action on these fronts, he warned that the impacts of climate change will intensify rapidly. He stressed that the demands LDCs are making are not just negotiating positions, they are issues of survival for their communities.
Disappointment with the slow pace of multilateralism
Dhakal expressed clear disappointment with the pace of the negotiations. Vulnerable countries have high expectations when they travel to COP, often coming from great distances with the hope that meaningful progress will be achieved for their people and future generations. When the process drags, delays and stalls, it becomes a source of deep frustration. He stressed that the world must come together and make collective decisions, rather than allowing the process to slow to a crawl.
Which countries are holding back progress?
Dhakal reiterated that obstacles differ based on the issue. For emission reduction, it is the major emitters, including oil-producing countries and those whose economies are rooted in fossil fuels. For climate finance, it is the wealthy countries that do not want to commit more resources. There is no single country acting as an obstacle; the resistance is issue-specific and varies by agenda item.
What COP30 must deliver
According to Dhakal, COP30 must deliver hope. It must reassure vulnerable communities and future generations that collective action and multilateralism can still work. He said the world needs a clear signal that temperature rise will be limited, that high-emitting countries will reduce emissions quickly within this decade and that rich countries will provide grant-based finance to vulnerable nations. For some countries climate action may be a negotiation but for the LDCs it remains a question of survival.
The role of global leaders
Dhakal urged global leaders to consider the real impacts of climate change on vulnerable nations. Rising sea levels, coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion, melting glaciers and threats to lives and livelihoods are already imposing severe burdens. These impacts will only intensify for future generations. Leaders must make decisions now to ensure they are remembered for taking positive action, not blamed for neglect and failure.
Impact of the united states’ absence
Dhakal said that while there was initial concern when the United States stepped back from the process, the Paris Agreement has proven resilient. There was fear that other countries might follow its example, but that did not happen. Instead, countries continued submitting their NDCs, burden-sharing increased and several nations stepped up with financial commitments, even if only partially. Dhakal hopes any country that has left the process will return, but he stressed that the Paris Agreement continues to move forward, not backward.
Leadership from vulnerable nations
Dhakal noted that, despite their vulnerability, countries in South Asia have shown remarkable leadership. Bangladesh is widely recognized for its adaptation efforts. Nepal is known for its forest conservation achievements. Bhutan remains carbon negative. These examples demonstrate that vulnerable countries can lead from the front despite low emissions and limited resources. Dhakal concluded by asking why major emitters and rich countries cannot do the same.
