By Sheraz Ahmad Choudhary
“The storm arrived without warning”
A date farmer outside Khairpur saw the afternoon sky change to an unpleasant condition, substantial grey and unknown skies. He had survived the 2022 floods. He had defied the resultant drought. Not water or even heat is now his worst fear, but uncertainty. Rain could destroy him. All seasons are the dice throw, and climate change is the gambler and the dealer.
On the other side of the planet, in Belem, Brazil, world leaders spent a week discussing the future of the world at COP30. During the humidity of the Amazon, the negotiators were negotiating emissions, finance and schedules, as a fire caught fire in the Blue Zone, and it needed to be evacuated, and in numerous ways, this encapsulated the state of global climate politics, a world attempting to write a solution in a burning building.
The fight by the Pakistani farmer and the drama at COP30 are by no means parallel stories. They are the one and the other versions of the same tale, one in diplomatic language, the other one on reality. The Summit that Gave Promises of Leadership and Caution.
COP30 held immense symbolism. It took place in the Amazon, the core of the planet’s sustainability, and was expected to mark a historic shift in climate ambition. Instead, it revealed a troubling reality: the world remains divided on the most urgent climate issues. Over 80 nations pushed for a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, but the effort was blocked by major oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Russia. The initial draft of the agreement from Belem lacks a binding commitment to phase out fossil fuels. This isn’t a lost opportunity for climate scientists, but a dangerous compromise. Developing countries also demanded that wealthy nations triple global adaptation funding to a maximum of USD 120 billion per year by 2030, arguing that vulnerable nations cannot build climate resilience without predictable, grant-based support.
In finance, there was no less controversy. Third world countries required unconditioned grants-based adaptation funds, rather than loans, repackaged promises or creative accounting. Rich nations were reluctant and rather gave innovative means of financing. That is, intelligent thoughts, but not much confidence.
There were successes. Creation of the USD 125 billion Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) may transform the way forest countries put a price on conservation. Even this accomplishment is questionable. Are we saving the lungs of the world with money only, without more serious promises to stop deforestation?
The Tropical Forest Finance Facility (TFFF) that is currently under discussion in Belem has the potential to fundamentally change the nature of country access to nature-based financing, according to the COP30 business briefing. The proposal supported by BRICS, the UK, and Norway aims to allocate USD 4 billion a year, 80 percent of it to national forest policy and 20 percent to Indigenous and local populations. Once it is completed, it will bring about new international requirements on ESG funds, deforestation-free supply chains, and nature-based carbon credits. In the case of Pakistan, which has some of the fastest-growing mangrove systems and potential to do more reforestation, the TFFF can become a chance to transform natural ecosystems into a climate-finance asset; however, with the governance structures ready to fulfil the transparency and accountability requirements inherent in this emerging global mechanism. These are the global outcomes that are not abstract. They influence the future of the climate in Pakistan directly.
In the case of Pakistan, the effect of indecision is short-term. Climate change is not something we are watching it do, but it is being put to the test on us. We cannot bargain over the effects of climate; we only suffer. Pakistan is in need of adaptation finance more than anything. Infrastructure that is resistant to floods, heat management, water security, and early warning do not belong to the future priorities but is our current emergency. Failure of COP30 to raise large and predictable sums of adaptation funds exposes Pakistan. The world is arguing over terminology, and we are the ones getting weaker.
As Pakistan lacks the Amazon, it has instead one of the most rapidly developing mangrove systems globally, a large potential for reforestation, and the ability to sequester carbon in large quantities. With a strategic move, Pakistan can set itself in a position to enjoy the benefits of the nature-finance systems such as the TFFF, but this will take political goodwill, openness and a long-term perspective, which we seem to lack with our climate governance.
The reason is that a poor global commitment to the phasing out of fossil fuels implies that Pakistan will experience stronger climate shocks: melting glaciers faster, heatwaves, and deteriorating food insecurity all testify to how the cost of global reluctance is transferred to the global South. Pakistan should be a leader and not a follower, as Brazil was in COP30, as an alliance-maker with other high-risk countries, bold in talking about adaptation finance, climate justice, and positioning Pakistan as a center of nature-based climate solutions.
Climate diplomacy is not one of the luxuries for us; it is our survival strategy. The slow pace of the world is the only thing that has given Pakistan the option of acting better than the world is bargaining. The Pakistani farmer looking at a fearful sky cannot afford other meet and neither can the nation. COP30 shows that world climate politics will remain tentative despite the accelerating climate change, and hence Pakistan needs to be strengthened to survive sooner than we still discuss the world that the rest of the world is about to enter.
