Originally, this article was written towards the end of the first week. By that point, it did not even need to end to say this: COP30 is the worst climate COP of all time in terms of logistics. Especially after what transpired on 20 November, this is definitely not a statement of exaggeration or sensationalism.

COP30 has been branded, among many nicknames, as an “inclusive COP.” At the very least, it lived up to that part. Everyone, from developed countries and developing nations, from negotiators to community delegates, was included in the long list of issues surrounding the infrastructure of the Belém climate negotiations.

Murphy’s Law

Imagine you are in the shoes of a COP30 delegate from the Global South, outside of South America. You not only go through more than 24 hours of flights and layovers, you could end up missing the final leg of your flight to Belém or losing your luggage along the way, not because you booked poorly, but because aviation capacity is simply not enough to accommodate everyone heading to the same destination.

Imagine it is the first day of the conference. You are welcomed by the sight of ladders, the sounds of drills, and the smell of paint from many parts of the venue that are still under construction. A power outage occurs halfway through the day, forcing side events in pavilions to be postponed or cancelled.

Once you are lost looking for a meeting room or a pavilion, there are no large maps installed to guide you. Once you are hungry, there are long lines and even more limited options to choose from than in previous COPs. Once you are ready to go to the Blue Zone, the shuttle service can get delayed by up to 30 minutes, despite what the conference transport app tells you.

Imagine you are inside the venue, attending a side event, sitting in meeting rooms, engaging in the media center, or simply minding your own business. It is either too warm or too noisy, or both. If it rains, there is a chance the mattress-like ceiling will show signs of leaking.

Imagine card readers not working time and again, especially when you have little time for a cup of coffee or even a bite to eat before your next meeting. Door handles of a side event room being dislodged when you are just trying to get in normally. Multiple faulty sinks in the restrooms.

You do not have to imagine. These have all happened in just the first week.

Then came the fire that broke out in the Pavilions area on Thursday afternoon. Fortunately, no one was harmed, but the fire was serious enough to bring the entire proceedings to a complete stop, potentially delaying the end of the conference by another day or two. This incident further solidified the logistical side of COP30 as a disaster.

AIM-ing low

Logistical concerns have been a growing issue in climate COPs that have become more than just the negotiations themselves. Rising costs and shortages in available accommodations have been among the most frequent challenges in recent climate conferences.

But the sheer volume of logistical failures in such a short period of time is unprecedented, abysmal, and, in the case of the fire, threatening. At this point, the COP30 Presidency owes all delegates at least a formal apology for these mishaps that could have been avoided, or at least minimized.

Those working under the Arrangement for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM) workstream have their work cut out for them in this summit and the next, as expectations will be high to avoid these problems from happening again. Decision texts under this workstream must address these issues.

There also seems to be a lower sense of urgency around the venue, especially during the first week. While the second week is usually busier than the first for climate negotiations, this issue becomes even bigger for the supposedly milestone COP30. Part of this may be due to these infrastructural issues. Another factor is the conduct of parallel events like the People’s Summit and People’s COP, which seem to reflect the enthusiasm and urgency that are missing in the negotiations area.

Another factor was the previous move by Brazil not to have a cover decision. This has changed with the emergence of the draft Mutirão decision that focuses on finance, transparency, trade, and responding to the inadequacy of national climate plans.

Yet in the long run, these failures reflect the need to transform how climate COPs are conducted. It is not just the painfully slow decision-making process that must be changed, but also the inefficiency and inconvenience affecting many delegates.

Such changes must go hand in hand with modifications in how negotiations are conducted. Examples such as shifting to only a few workstreams every year, stronger safeguards for infrastructure, or a more implementation-oriented model would also dictate the logistical needs to properly conduct the event, including shorter days and lower costs for both the host country and the delegates.

Nonetheless, it cannot be emphasized enough that future changes in the logistics of climate COPs must not come at the expense of inclusivity.

Representatives of the most vulnerable groups and civil society partners must be enabled to actively participate in this process, not figuratively jump through hoops like dolphins being rewarded with bite-sized treats at the end of a show.

Most importantly, every participant must feel safe and secure at all times, for the entirety of the climate COP, from traveling to the host city to returning home.

To Türkiye, please do much better than this.