As the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31) approaches, seminars, roundtables and consultations are taking place in Dhaka on climate finance, adaptation, loss and damage, and climate justice. Government officials, civil society organisations, researchers and development practitioners are preparing for another round of global climate negotiations.
I have been attending some of these discussions, and one question keeps coming back to me: How much of what we discuss here will actually influence global decisions? And how much of what is agreed globally will make a difference to people living with climate impacts in Bangladesh?
There are good reasons for Bangladesh to keep pushing for climate finance. The impacts are real, the needs are enormous, and the responsibility for addressing the climate crisis is not shared equally. This year, discussions around the Global Goal on Adaptation and the Baku to Belém Roadmap to mobilise USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035 are among the issues that matter. But beyond the negotiations, I wonder how we connect these global discussions with what is happening in communities.
Having known Satkhira since 2007, I thought I was familiar with its climate challenges. Yet, a recent experience there offered me a different perspective.
Satkhira is among Bangladesh's climate-vulnerable districts, having experienced devastating cyclones and recurring challenges associated with salinity, water insecurity and damaged infrastructure. Over the years, the district has received considerable development attention. Yet, during a recent visit, what caught my attention was not another project or funding announcement, but the initiative of local children.
They volunteered their time for small community repairs and playground development, and had planted trees using their own money. These actions were modest compared with the scale of the climate challenges facing their community. But they prompted me to reflect on the distance between the climate conversations we have and the realities we seek to change.
While we discuss climate vulnerability in seminars and prepare evidence for international platforms, people in places like Satkhira are already responding to the challenges they face. They are identifying needs, mobilising what little they have and asking local institutions to act.
Their efforts do not reduce the responsibility of governments to invest in adaptation, nor do they diminish the obligation of the international community to provide adequate climate finance. Local initiative cannot substitute for the resources required to address systemic climate risks. Rather, it reminds us what our broader efforts are ultimately meant to support.
This brings me back to the two questions with which I started. Our discussions need to travel in both directions: from Bangladesh to the global negotiating table, and from global commitments back to the communities whose experiences inform our advocacy.
We need stronger commitments, more predictable and accessible climate finance, and accountability for delivery. We also need to see how these commitments shape national policies, funding decisions and public investment. Communities should have a say in setting priorities, and local institutions need the resources and capacity to respond.
But this connection will not happen on its own. It requires follow-up, coordination and transparency. We need to look beyond what is agreed internationally and ask what it means in practice for Helvetas Bangladesh 2 national climate plans, local government budgets and organisations working with climate-affected communities.
As Bangladesh prepares for another COP, perhaps we should look beyond the familiar cycle of seminars, presentations and delegation preparations. We should ask what evidence from these discussions will inform our negotiating positions, what commitments we will pursue, and how we will track progress once the negotiations conclude.
Equally, we should ask whether the priorities emerging from communities such as those in Satkhira are finding their way into our national and international conversations. Are we creating a genuine connection between the realities we present, the decisions we advocate for and the outcomes we expect?
COP remains an important space for climate diplomacy, and Bangladesh must continue to push for fairer climate finance and stronger commitments. But we also need to pay attention to what happens after the negotiations. How do international commitments shape our national priorities and local investments? And how do we know whether they are making a difference to the communities whose experiences we present on the global stage?
As COP season unfolds, I hope we will look beyond the number of events, delegates and commitments. We need to ask whether our conversations are influencing global decisions–and whether those decisions are making a difference at home.