The 30th edition of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30), the annual two-week climate talks beginning in Belem, Brazil, on Monday, is as much about restoring the credibility of this UN-mandated negotiating process as it is about saving global climate.It’s now been more than 30 years that countries have been getting together to deliberate on a coordinated global response to climate change. While thousands of climate-positive actions have been initiated as a result, these have so far had minimal impact on arresting the steady rise of global temperatures. Emissions of greenhouse gases, the primary driver of global warming, are still on the rise. And, at the current pace of climate action, the world cannot even pretend to get anywhere close to a 2030 target of reducing emissions by 43 per cent on 2019 levels.Developing countries have been extremely unhappy at their concerns not getting adequately addressed, particularly those relating to finance and technology that the developed countries are obligated to provide them. And the United States, the biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, has walked out of the Paris Agreement again, without facing any consequences.Read | Developed countries should become net-zero earlier than planned, aim for net-negative emissions: India at COP30“There is a disappointment with the process no doubt. And it is mainly because of the fact that the developed nations, particularly the US, have not been doing enough, certainly not as much as they are required to do — not just on emission reductions, but also on finance and technology. The US has now also walked out of Paris Agreement. When we say the negotiating process is in crisis, it is primarily because of this,” said Ravi Shankar Prasad, a former lead negotiator for India and now a distinguished fellow with the Delhi-based Council on Energy, Environment and Water.But Prasad said this was still the best forum to deliver results on a global scale and it would not be advisable for countries disappointed with the outcomes to follow the example of the US and leave the process.“Abandoning the ship, or dismantling this process, would be far worse for the global climate. Yes, the outcomes till now have not been commensurate with what is required, but if you look at the bigger picture, significant progress has been made. And if the overall objective is to restrict global rise in temperatures to within 2 degree Celsius, preferably within 1.5 degree Celsius, by the turn of the century, it is still attainable. Most countries still see the value of these negotiations, and want to work together, and that is a good thing,” he said.Brazil, which has the Presidency of the COP30 climate meeting by virtue of being the host country, has repeatedly said that its primary goal is to strengthen the trust of the countries in this multilateral process, so that more ambitious outcomes can be obtained. Earlier, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago told The Indian Express that the climate meetings have been very good at negotiation, but not so good at implementation, and Brazil wanted to change that. One way of achieving this is by expediting the effective implementation of the decisions that have been taken in the past, focusing on the delivery of promises rather than making new ones, he said.Story continues below this adCOP30 CEO Ana Toni recently told The Indian Express that of the nearly 600 different initiatives announced on the sidelines of these climate meetings since the 2015 Paris Agreement, only about 300 were surviving. The others had been completely forgotten and lost track of. These climate initiatives had not come out of the negotiation process but were launched on the sidelines by different groups of countries to build momentum for more ambitious climate action. Toni said Brazil was trying to follow up on these initiatives, and, with the help of other countries at COP30, would attempt to build a transparency framework for reporting and monitoring the outcomes from these initiatives.“These initiatives contain some very important climate actions, and if we are able to energise these, we can make some good progress on fighting climate change. It will also help in reinstating trust in this process,” she said.Unlike some previous climate meetings, there are no big-ticket headline items to be resolved, or agreed upon, at Belem. The conversations are likely to be mainly focused around strengthening multilateralism, increasing the effectiveness of implementation, and paying more attention to adaptation, which is one of the key concerns of the developing countries. Belem is hoping to get some meaningful outcomes on defining a Global Goal on Adaptation, a set of indicators to measure the progress on reducing vulnerabilities and increasing resilience of population groups, natural ecosystems and biodiversity.From India’s perspective, the main interest would be in the possible release of its NDC (Nationally-Determined Contributions) and NAP (National Adaptation Plan). Unlike many other countries, India is yet to announce its NDC, or climate action plan, for 2035, which is mandated under the Paris Agreement. Preparation and submission of a national adaptation plan is voluntary in nature. India has finalised its first NAP and is expected to release it soon. The submission of NDC and NAP are not linked to COP30 in any way. India may use the COP30 platform to release this.Story continues below this adCOP30 may also see fresh calls for reforming the negotiating process. Such calls have been coming from several quarters in the last couple of years. Some of the suggestions are radical, like shifting from consensus-based decision-making to majority decision-making, others more procedural like strengthening of transparency and accountability mechanisms.Brazil has proposed institutional reforms as well, calling for creation of a Climate Change Council associated with the UN General Assembly to monitor and facilitate implementation of decisions taken at these negotiations.None of these suggestions, however, have universal acceptance. Reforms too would have to be accepted by consensus, and it is difficult to get the agreement of all on any of these.