As I write, multiple geopolitical crises and conflicts are unfolding around the world – in the Middle East, Sudan, Ukraine and the South China Sea. And the BRICS summit recently wrapped up with an alternative worldview vision emerging that is in contrast with the narrative that the West has been promoting since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biodiversity is taking place in Cali, Colombia, and I wish more people would pay more attention to it.

Unfortunately, the fragmented 'governance' of international negotiations governing this key area does not facilitate or make any attempt at focusing on biodiversity. Indeed, we are dealing with a complex system at the international level where, for example, species at risk of extinction, climate change and biodiversity loss are treated and discussed separately. In this way, we end up with three different COP processes, each with its own dynamics and complexities but, without any doubt, connected to each other.

Such artificial separations that suit so well the so-called 'silos' approach to dealing with complex themes, compounded by the crises going on around the world, are really making it hard to pay attention to the discussions in Cali. A simple internet search shows that very few news articles have been devoted to the role that Nepal should play while dealing with biodiversity-related negotiations.

Given the wealth of natural species it hosts, Nepal should be at the vanguard of the negotiations at Cali where the focus will be on implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework. Approved in 2022 at the previous COP that was co-hosted by China and Canada in what was a unique partnership, if implemented, the Framework will ensure nature's species survival, including ours as human beings.

Holding discussion on ways to achieve the Global Framework necessarily implies that the negotiators in Colombia will pay a lot of attention to finding the required resources that would allow the conservation of 30 per cent of land and sea, one of the key goals of the Framework.

Considering that Nepal has made huge strides in forest preservation in the past, the country is in a unique position to share its achievements and lessons learned. It could, therefore, leverage its work over the last few decades in the field of biodiversity preservation and try to gain some financial benefits. Nepal should be at the vanguard of any effort that the international community is going to undertake in the area of biodiversity preservation. In short, Nepal should have taken a leadership role in the previous months while the nitty-gritty details of the COP 16 were being negotiated.

The discussions are very technical and complex, but expertise within the Federal Government and within the civil society is widely available. However, this did not happen due to lack of leadership of the top politicians who have been busy in their political machinations. Nepal could be at risk of losing a lot, and perhaps this fact could awaken the leaders of the government because we are talking about big money to be made available.

Brazil hosts the biggest portion of the Amazon Forest, a forest that is in grave peril of losing its unique power of being the most powerful carbon sink that helps balance the emissions caused by humans. That's why the politicians and experts in the capital city of Brasilia have been pushing for innovative financial tools that would greatly extend the resources available to incentivise politicians and farmers to conserve forests rather than turning them around into farm.

Such new tools like the Tropical Forests Forever Facility or TFFF that Brazil, as chair of the G20 is proposing, could be a game changer that while, building on the experiences of grants-based schemes like REDD+, would bring in hundreds of millions to the nations preserving their forests. While it is true that Nepal and Brazil are very different topographically and their ecosystems are at the opposite spectrum of biodiversity, the former should also play a major role to advance financial innovations like the TFFF.

In order for Kathmandu to step up its game in this area, we need a new approach. To start with, we need political stability, and we need politicians in the government who truly understand the complex issues at stake. If expertise among politicians is lacking, then with their assent and full buy-in, civil servants and experts from the civil society and academia should be enabled to play a bigger role. Nepal might need a permanent round table where experts talk about biodiversity.

For example, who really heard of any consultations on the updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan that Nepal, like any other party to the Biodiversity Convention, should submit in Cali? Politicians should lead from the back, trusting those with the know-how needed for Nepal to be visible and active at these negotiations.

The federal government could also appoint a Biodiversity Global Envoy that actually, considering the connections between climate change and biodiversity loss, could be the official face at the upcoming COP 29 on climate that will start on November 11 in Azerbaijan.

Last but not the least, Nepal should empower its indigenous groups to take a big role in any internal and international level discussions. This is a priority being discussed in Cali over the next few days and should also be a priority in Kathmandu because business as usual on matters of biodiversity and climate won't make any difference.

The good news is that the discussions won't stop in Cali but will carry on in the months ahead. An opportunity that Nepal cannot miss.