How did COP29 go for Nepal?
The 29th COP (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, brought together representatives from nearly 200 countries. The event focused heavily on climate finance, earning it the nickname ‘Finance COP’.
Negotiations at COP were conducted in groups, enabling participants to share perspectives, negotiate terms, and agree on common agendas. High-level sessions allowed the heads of delegations to address the assembly, presenting their country’s positions, priorities, and demands. While these speeches help amplify nations’ voices, the heart of COP lies in the negotiations and agreements.
Experts often warn against evaluating how a specific country fared at COP, as success is typically measured collectively rather than individually.
While it is difficult to assess how Nepal, as a country, specifically fared at COP29, the conference concluded with several decisions and outcomes relevant to Nepal.
First and foremost—financing. More than 80 countries, including members of the African Group, Barbados, Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and small island states, jointly demanded the needed additional financing beyond the $1.3trn already outlined for climate action. Experts estimate that $1.3trn is needed annually. These countries proposed a roadmap to the COP29 presidency to resolve discussions around the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance. This proposed target aims to enable climate action in emerging and developing nations post-2025, replacing the outdated $100bn annual goal set during COP15 in Copenhagen over a decade ago.
However, at the last moment on the final day of COP29, the presidency unveiled the final agreement. The deal sets an annual target of mobilizing $300bn for developing countries by 2035. Additionally, it establishes a long-term goal to scale up total climate finance flows to $1.3trn per year by 2035 which is rarely going to happen because the wealthy countries failed to meet the previous goal of $100bn on time. This decision sparked outrage among climate-vulnerable nations, who criticized it as inadequate given the urgent climate challenges they face.
Even the president of COP29 Mukhtar Babayev admitted the deal was imperfect and was insufficient to meet escalating needs.
The group of LDCs expressed outrage and deep disappointment at the outcome of COP29. In a statement, they said, “Once again, the countries most responsible for the climate crisis have failed us. We leave Baku without an ambitious climate finance goal, without concrete plans to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C, and without the comprehensive support desperately needed for adaptation and loss and damage. This is not just a failure; it is a betrayal.”
Nepal, as a member of the LDC group, echoed this sentiment. “The voice of LDCs is also of Nepal,” noted Nepali experts and government officials.
Manjeet Dhakal, a Nepali negotiator and Advisor to the Chair of the LDCs for the multilateral process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), acknowledged the mixed outcome. “While we did not achieve everything needed to fully respond to the climate crisis, the voices of the most vulnerable were heard. The work continues, and the fight against climate catastrophe goes on.”
He added, “We leave this COP with both pride and pain. Pride in the resilience of our bloc, as we fought valiantly for the survival of the most vulnerable, but pain that our hopes for true climate justice have not been met. On the positive side, securing $300bn annually is three times the previous $100bn target.”
Another significant decision at COP29 relevant to Nepal was the operationalization of market-based cooperative approaches (carbon trading) under Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. After nearly a decade of stalled negotiations, the agreement finalized the rules for international carbon markets, enabling countries to trade carbon credits and collaborate on reducing emissions more cost-effectively.
The agreement’s two key elements include guidelines for country-to-country trading and the establishment of the Paris Agreement Trading Mechanism.
Maheshwar Dhakal, joint-secretary at the Ministry of Forests and Environment (MoFE), said COP29 has paved the way for countries to develop national policies and agendas on carbon trading. “It’s up to countries whether they want to pursue it through government-to-government (G2G) arrangements, government-to-private sector partnerships, or voluntary or competitive approaches.”
Dhakal acknowledged that Nepal, being relatively new to carbon trading, lacks extensive knowledge and experience in this area. “We should adopt a flexible approach in the initial phase and gradually become more competitive as we gain experience in the next phase. At least now, we no longer face the obstacle of international law hindering our progress,” he added.
The launch of the Baku Adaptation Roadmap and the Baku High-Level Dialogue on Adaptation—aimed at enhancing the implementation of the UAE Framework and establishing a clear path for the Indicators Work Program on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) at COP30—is another significant development for Nepal. Dhakal highlights that some mountain-related issues were addressed regarding the GGA. “As further discussions on mountain agendas have been postponed to the next sessions, we cannot label this a failure, but neither do we have concrete achievements to show,” Dhakal said.
Loss and damage is another key area of interest for Nepal. At COP29, it was decided to ensure the full operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund, a long-awaited development for climate-vulnerable countries. To date, total pledged financial support for the Fund exceeds $730m. It is expected that the Fund will begin financing projects starting in 2025. However, no further agreements were reached, and negotiations on the specifics were postponed to the next session.
“The calculation of the price of non-economic losses is challenging, and it cannot be done without capacity development. Unfortunately, Latin American and African countries had differing views on capacity development, preventing us from achieving a concrete outcome on this issue,” said Dhakal, who also serves as a board member of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage.
COP29 did nothing to implement the outcomes of the Global Stocktake Agreement, which called for phasing out fossil fuels and aligning climate pledges with the 1.5°C target. Parties failed to reach an agreement to include explicit commitments to transition away from fossil fuels, leaving this critical negotiation to be revisited at COP30.
According to Dhakal, climate action cannot progress without major carbon emitters phasing out fossil fuels and supporting vulnerable nations through climate finance for adaptation. “But we also need to take responsibility to protect ourselves. For example, the Thame flood was caused by a natural glacial lake outburst from Thyanbo, but the Kathmandu flood was the result of reckless and unplanned infrastructure development and our negligence,” he explained.
Manjeet Dhakal assessed the three major expectations from COP29. “For climate finance, I would rate it two out of 10. For mitigation, I would give zero because, regarding the Global Stocktake, we are still where we were before COP29—not a single step of progress. As for carbon trading, I would give full marks, as it has been fully operationalized. However, we had no issues with carbon trading earlier also, yet we are still not fully utilizing our potential in this area,” he said.
Several agreements were signed by Nepal on the sidelines of COP29. These include the accreditation of the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC) by the Adaptation Fund (AF) for five years, allowing NTNC to function as its National Implementing Entity (NIE). This accreditation grants NTNC direct access to the AF and enables it to develop and implement adaptation and resilience projects of up to $10m each. Additionally, an agreement was signed between the MoFE and the Swedish Energy Agency on emissions trading. Furthermore, MoFE and WWF Nepal launched two GEF-funded projects: Managing Watersheds for Enhanced Resilience of Communities to Climate Change in Nepal (MaWRiN), with a budget of $9m, and Building National Capacities of Nepal to Meet Requirements of the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement (CBIT), with a budget of $1.65m.
However, Joint-secretary Dhakal stated that while Nepal entered into these agreements during COP29, they are not direct outcomes of the conference. “We would have signed these even if there had been no COP.” He added that Nepal’s key outcome from COP29 is the potential to receive three times the benefit in climate finance, the opportunity to extensively work on carbon trading, and the ability to focus on and enhance capacity development, drawing from the experience gained at large platforms like COP.
Experts also emphasized the importance of increasing Nepal’s qualitative and strategic participation, rather than focusing solely on quantity. The Nepali delegation to COP29 was led by President Ramchandra Paudel, marking the fifth time Nepal has been represented at the head of state or government level at the UN Climate Change Conference.
At these high-level conferences, heads of state or government deliver country statements during the leaders’ or high-level segments and participate in other high-level events. President Paudel addressed the World Leaders Climate Action Summit. “These statements are important as they reflect a country’s political stance on climate change and provide guidance for the ongoing negotiations,” said Manjeet Dhakal. “Nepal’s continued leadership at these global forums underscores its commitment to addressing climate change and highlights its evolving role—not only as a vulnerable country but also as a frontline leader in climate action.”
Minister for Forests and Environment Ain Bahadur Shahi was also actively engaged in various bilateral and multilateral meetings under the common agenda of ‘Protecting the Himalayas is Protecting the Earth.’
It is clear that Nepal is being heard on the global stage. For example, in May 2024, Nepal hosted the International Expert Dialogue on Mountains, People, and Climate Change, with Azerbaijan, the host of COP29, sending a representative to the event. Additionally, Nepal was invited to the pre-COP29 ministerial meeting for the first time in 12 years.
Rana leaves for China amid loan vs grant debate
Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba departed for China on Thursday at the invitation of her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi. Her visit aims to set the tone for Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s upcoming trip to Beijing, scheduled for December 2.
Deuba is set to meet with Wang on Sunday (November 29) to finalize the agenda for Oli’s visit. Oli’s four-day visit has drawn attention to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which has become a focal point of national political discourse. The ruling coalition of CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress (NC) remain divided on how to approach the BRI, prompting behind-the-scenes negotiations to form a unified position ahead of the visit.
The extent of any consensus between the two parties remains unclear. A key point of contention lies in Beijing’s 2020 BRI Implementation Plan. The NC has expressed significant reservations about the document, and a task force has proposed revisions, including changes to its title. Whether Beijing will accept these modifications is uncertain. While all three major parties now agree that Nepal should not accept loans under the BRI, a critical question lingers: Does the BRI framework include provisions for grants?
Speaking with the media before her departure, Foreign Minister Deuba sought to downplay the perceived differences between the two coalition partners. “The media hype about disagreements is exaggerated. A joint task force is addressing the concerns, and much will depend on how the negotiations unfold,” she said. However, official documents suggest that grants are not part of the BRI framework. Research indicates that China has not provided grants for BRI projects, aligning with the initiative’s emphasis on shared development rather than international aid.
The BRI White Paper underscores its collaborative nature, stating that it prioritizes equal participation, voluntary engagement, and freedom from political or economic preconditions. It explicitly notes that the BRI is neither an aid program nor a geopolitical tool but a framework for joint development.
Kalyan Raj Sharma, chairperson of the Nepal-China Friendship Forum, criticized the ongoing debate over loans versus grants, calling it “inherently problematic.” He argued that the BRI is a corporate framework requiring Nepal to define its priorities. “We should focus on two aspects: small-scale project collaboration and long-term infrastructure development. Within this framework, modalities could include grants, concessional loans, or others. First, let’s finalize our vision before getting bogged down in loan-versus-grant debates,” he said.
UML leader and former Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali echoed this sentiment, stressing the need to align Nepal’s interests with the Chinese initiative. “Instead of determining where our priorities overlap with the BRI, our discussions have been reduced to a binary narrative of loans versus grants,” Gyawali remarked. He maintained that under the current economic climate, Nepal should avoid loans for large infrastructure projects.
Former Foreign Secretary Madhu Ram Acharya was more critical, describing Nepal’s engagement with the BRI as a “classic case of how not to negotiate.” He highlighted rushed, top-down negotiations and excessive politicization. “The BRI Implementation Plan formalizes the ‘strategic partnership’ agreed upon during President Xi Jinping’s visit in 2019. Such a comprehensive agreement should not be signed hastily or without safeguarding Nepal’s national interests,” Acharya argued.
As Oli’s visit to China approaches, the BRI remains a complex issue at the intersection of domestic politics and international diplomacy. Nepal faces the delicate task of navigating its priorities while ensuring that the collaboration benefits its development goals. Whether the visit will yield clarity on the BRI and its modalities remains to be seen, but it is clear that the framework offers opportunities—if Nepal can negotiate effectively.
Editorial: Strong as mountains, dynamic as rivers
Rivers and mountains have been and will continue to be an enduring feature of Nepal-China friendship. Rugged terrains and rare rough patches in bilateral relationship notwithstanding, people-to-people exchanges between the two countries have thrived and will, in all likelihood, continue to thrive in the coming days, years and ages. The visit of Faxian to Lumbini, the birthplace of Gautam Buddha, in the fifth century, the visit of Xuanzang in the seventh century, the marriage of Nepali Princess Vrikuti with King Songtsen Gampo in the seventh century and the visit of Nepali monk Buddhabhadra, the first Nepali monk to visit China, in the fifth century and the contributions of Nepali artist Arniko in China, including the construction of the White Pagoda, are among the key highlights of these exchanges.
Nepali people, including those living in the Himalayan region, have thriving relations with the Chinese people. They get their supplies from nearby Chinese markets, graze their cattle in pastures across the border in accordance with mutual arrangements, sell their products across the border and often find their soulmates there.
About 70 years ago, our two ancient countries established (updated, rather) their diplomatic relations. These years have also been marked by peace and amity between the two neighbors, with no major dispute, border or otherwise. This relationship achieved a key milestone during this time with the construction of the Kodari highway that has played a key role in improving connectivity between our two countries. Yet another highlight of this relationship is increasing Chinese investment in infrastructure projects.
Against this backdrop, recent times have seen a disturbing tendency of dragging China’s flagship BRI project into controversy. They are as strong as the soaring mountains and as dynamic as the rivers born there.
China can help Nepal tap the potential of her rivers for injecting life into her economy by investing in or providing assistance for the construction of multipurpose projects with hydropower, irrigation, navigation, fisheries and drinking water as components. There is also a huge scope for transformation of fossil fuel-run transport systems into green energy-run systems. It can also help make sure that Gautam Buddha International Airport and Pokhara International Airport take off in a real sense.
On its part, Nepal will continue to be sensitive toward Chinese security concerns and abide by the principle of Panchsheel.
In summary, Nepal-China relationship has a huge scope. Let’s hope that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s upcoming visit to China will be yet another step in realizing that scope.
Of life and friendship
When I first learned about H through a mutual friend, I had a strange intuition that he wouldn’t stay in Nepal for long. He seemed like someone just passing through—a fleeting presence. It was only a matter of time, I thought. Our first meeting happened on the quiet streets of Ratna Chowk. After hours of staring at a screen, I had stepped out for a break, craving a change of scenery. That’s when I met H. I introduced myself, and he did the same. At the time, the introductions felt like a mere formality, even unnecessary.
Now, years later, when I look back on that moment, it fills me with a deep sense of sadness for H. The confidence with which he said he was planning to go to Australia was sublime. Now I find it amusing to have assumed that the first encounter with H was also going to be the last. Over the years, H and I have celebrated countless birthdays together, made plans for weekends, and even acted as hosts, inviting our friends over to the nightclubs in Lakeside. So much has changed between the day we met and today—from his dream country to the paths I’ve chosen in my education. I don’t know why, but despite so many differences, we are similar in some ways.
In 2018, the year we met, I was doing my bachelor’s in IT, and H was taking IELTS classes. H’s room was just a five-minute walk from the flat where I stayed. One day, when we met for a walk in the evening, H proposed that I go to his room after finishing our usual rounds. There was no harm, I thought, and followed him into the narrow alley. Little did I know that the dark streets leading to his room were ominous.
‘Hell’ was the first word that came to my mind upon seeing the room that housed as many as four other boys—three of whom I already knew from playing cricket. If I weren’t visiting his room for the first time, I would’ve immediately labeled their accommodation as ‘hell.’ Coughing and dodging the smoke emanating from the thin sticks of cigarettes, I reached the far corner of the room, where a table and a plastic chair were lined up against the peeling wall. When I looked at H, he flashed me a rabbit-like smile, a gesture kindly coaxing me to hold a cigarette.
“I don’t smoke,” I said loudly enough to startle everyone. Only H seemed disappointed at my revelation, and at the time, I couldn’t make out why there were deep folds between his brows. Later, when someone lying in the bed informed me that H was a chain smoker, he got provoked by the statement and pulled out a stick from the packet of Surya, the rabbit smile once again restored on his big, round face. I had accustomed myself to the raw smell of smoke, though my nose was already burning. When I looked out the window, I realized I had stayed longer than I had meant to. But the boys in the room, along with H, had assumed I would be staying for the night. So, when I told them I was leaving, their faces fell, and I ended up staying for the sake of my new friendship.
There were enough beds, so I guessed no one had to sleep on the cold, hard floor. But I still remember that no one slept that night—not even in the beds. Talks about life ensued. I bought my favorite wine for myself, and the boys got their own drinks. The landlord who lived upstairs either had to be deaf or lenient, for he didn’t interfere even when the voices boomed deafeningly loud. It’s not in me to open up so easily, but that night, I ended up saying so many things I thought I would never share with anyone.
When it was H’s turn, he looked around at everyone, searching their faces, but no one seemed attentive at all. Then his eyes locked with mine. A friend sitting next to me glanced at me and remarked, “You are today’s victim. H is going to recount the same story for like a hundredth time.”
In a high-pitched voice that didn’t sound the slightest bit gentle, H blabbered on about what he thought was the worst story of his life—a breakup with his girlfriend, who had cheated on him with someone else. The others had started finding the story funny because of the repetition, but I genuinely felt bad for H that night. As for me, I didn’t share stories of my love affairs or childhood but something deeper: life, its complexities, and how time treats it. Unlike H’s story, everyone listened to my wisdom, perhaps because it was being delivered for the first time. I knew that, just like H’s story, my wisdom would also suffer from a lack of audience someday.
Now, it has been eight years since that sleepless night. H has most probably faced eight rejections from the foreign embassy. And with how he goes about his life, I’m not surprised at all. He is still trying to flee abroad, his every attempt futile, feeble, to the point that no one takes him seriously these days. At first, it was Australia, then the UK, then Malta, Croatia...
On the other hand, I have upgraded from bachelor’s to master’s, but now if someone asks me what subjects I studied in my bachelor’s, I certainly can’t name them. I don’t even know their applications. I studied, worked hard for the exams, even passed with flying colors. But the results, the theories I studied in my bachelor’s degree have never once come to use. And I’m not the only one bearing the brunt of disillusionment. There are regrets. If only my college had connected me to the industry! If only I had chosen some other subjects! But then, everyone lives with their own regrets; I’m no exception.
Even today, I go to university aimlessly, just to listen to the graying professors, hopeful that their monologues might morph me into a slightly better human, an informed professional. The odds are low, the uselessness of my degree apparent, even translucent. Even H mocked me for diverging from a technical background to a business degree.
“MBA is the most reputed degree, and it’s good for people coming from a technical background,” I tried to sound sensible, but he just showed his teeth. Even he knew I wasn’t convinced by my own statement.
Talking about H, I don’t know what country he is eyeing now, because I have lost interest in keeping track of it. Even though we meet regularly, I have stopped asking about his process, which is always underway. Nevertheless, for the last eight years, we often go out at night on weekends, and sometimes it’s just us—H and me.
H said in our last meeting that he will be gone to Chitwan for over a month, so we have been drafting a plan to celebrate his farewell—a farewell so trifling that it doesn’t even deserve to be celebrated. But all we need is an excuse.
Next week, in the quiet of Lakeside, at some rooftop café, we will be toasting for the umpteenth time—me sipping my favorite wine and H his usual drinks. In between our sips, we will ceremoniously talk about the first night we drank together. About the absurd ideas, the revelations, and the friends—some already in foreign lands, some married, and one other dead who hung himself in a hotel room.
