COP30 outcome: “Finance without emission cuts is like treating symptoms without curing the disease”

ByTLO
Sheendan Walibik is an area in Afghanistan's Behsud Region that used to be a wetland and was a viable water source but now is bone dry and hardly sustainable. The community in the area believes this area ceased to be green about 30 years ago. Photo: OCHA/Liz Loh-Taylor
Sheendan Walibik is an area in Afghanistan’s Behsud Region that used to be a wetland and was a viable water source but now is bone dry and hardly sustainable. The community in the area believes this area ceased to be green about 30 years ago. Photo: OCHA/Liz Loh-Taylor

By Sayed Shoaib Sadaat 

(A climate activist and Project Manager at an Afghan non-governmental organization, The Liaison Office. Sadaat was the sole Afghan representative at COP30 in Belém).

The operationalization of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage and the pledge to triple adaptation finance by 2035 are significant milestones for vulnerable countries. 

For years, climate activists from the Global South have been advocating for recognition of the disproportionate burden borne by fragile states. 

These commitments signal that the global community acknowledges the urgency of addressing climate impacts beyond mitigation, by supporting adaptation and compensating for irreversible losses.

However, the lack of a binding roadmap to phase out fossil fuels undermines these gains. Finance without emission cuts is like treating symptoms without curing the disease.

 For activists, this gap is deeply frustrating because it perpetuates a cycle where vulnerable nations continue to suffer despite global pledges. The science is clear: without aggressive emission reductions, adaptation efforts will be overwhelmed by escalating climate shocks. 

As I see this, while the financial commitments are a step forward, the absence of strong mitigation measures leaves activists questioning whether the world is truly committed to keeping the 1.5°C target alive. 

Sayed Shoaib Sadaat (second from left) at an event organized by his NGO, The Liaison Office, with the support of Norway and the European Climate Research Alliance on Afghanistan – “Afghanistan’s climate struggles and voice from the ground.”

Actions needed to support fragile countries

To translate COP30 commitments into meaningful impact for countries like Afghanistan, several actions are critical:

  • Restore access to global climate finance: Afghanistan’s isolation from international financial mechanisms creates barriers to accessing funds such as the Green Climate Fund, Global Environment Facility, and Adaptation Fund due to political and governance challenges. By creating flexible mechanisms for fragile and conflict-affected states, avenues to engage in global climate finance could become available should there be opportunities to engage in the future. Perhaps these mechanisms could work with international NGOs to provide people the resources to adapt.
  • Localize resilience building: Finance should not remain at the macro level. It must trickle down to communities through localized, community-driven programmes. Empowering local non-governmental organizations to lead resilience initiatives ensures that interventions are culturally appropriate and sustainable.
  • Invest in nature-based solutions: Traditional systems such as watershed management can provide cost-effective resilience. Funding should prioritize these solutions alongside modern technologies.
  • Predictable and long-term funding: Short-term projects cannot address systemic vulnerabilities. Recognizing that support towards meeting immediate humanitarian needs falls dangerously short, donors should also commit to multi-year funding cycles for basic human needs that allow for comprehensive adaptation strategies.
  • Advocacy for climate justice: Global South activists must continue to highlight the inequities in climate impacts and financing. This includes lobbying for loss and damage finance to be accessible without bureaucratic delays.
Ahmad Darwish, a farmer in northern Idleb, Syria uses solar panels to extract water from wells and irrigate crops.
Ahmad Darwish, a farmer in northern Idleb, Syria uses solar panels as fuel is expensive, to extract water from wells and irrigate crops. Syria is also a fragile country that is extremely vulnerable to climate crisis. Photo: OCHA/ Bilal Al-Hammoud

Consensus on cutting emissions

Achieving consensus on phasing out fossil fuels is arguably the most contentious issue in climate negotiations. COP30 demonstrated how oil-producing nations can block progress, but there are pathways forward:

  • Strengthen coalitions of vulnerable nations: Countries most affected by climate change should form stronger alliances to demand a binding fossil fuel phase-out roadmap. The moral authority of these nations can exert pressure on major emitters.
  • Civil society mobilization: Global civil society, including activists from the Global South, must amplify the human cost of inaction. Stories from frontline communities, such as Afghan farmers displaced by drought, can make the issue tangible and urgent.
  • Link finance to transition: Climate finance discussions should be tied to energy transition commitments. For example, access to certain funds could be contingent on concrete steps toward reducing fossil fuel dependency.
  • Elevate indigenous and local voices: COP30’s focus on the Amazon and indigenous communities was a positive development. Similar approaches should be applied globally to highlight the cultural and ecological stakes of continued fossil fuel use.
  • Push for accountability mechanisms: Voluntary pledges are insufficient. The UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] process needs stronger compliance mechanisms to ensure countries meet their commitments.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations.

Similar Posts