I, Rachitaa Guptas, disclose that I have no ties to the fossil fuel industry any other polluting industries, any zionist or apartheid entities and no conflicts of interests.

I don’t think anyone would be suprised by my answer. Otherwise we all would not be here.  It is a BIG ROUND ZERO.

The UNFCCC has no real policy to address conflict of interest. And let’s be clear—this isn’t some innocent gap in the process. It’s a political choice to allow vested interests to shape climate negotiations without scrutiny.

The only token gesture came two years ago when the UNFCCC finally introduced a basic disclosure requirement. Participants are now asked to state who they represent. That’s it. No review, no oversight, no consequences—just a checkbox. And somehow, this was framed as a milestone. But if it takes over 30 years to reach this bare minimum level of transparency, we shouldn’t be clapping. We should be deeply concerned.

Because disclosure is not regulation. It doesn’t protect the process. It doesn’t reduce influence. It certainly doesn’t prevent conflicts of interest. It’s like putting a “Fragile: Handle with Care” sticker on a ticking time bomb and pretending that makes it safe.

And this kind of non-policy is out of step with how most international institutions operate. The World Health Organization has embedded conflict of interest protections into major agreements, like the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and created systems for managing how non-state actors can engage. The OECD, UNDP, and many other UN agencies have frameworks in place that at least recognize the basic principle: that conflicts of interest exist and should be addressed.

But the UNFCCC? Not even a definition of what a conflict of interest is. That’s right—after decades of climate negotiations, there is still no official recognition of what constitutes undue influence. And we’re told, politely, that the parties would need to agree on one. As if conflict of interest is some kind of new philosophical dilemma. It’s not. It’s a legally and politically established concept, recognized across jurisdictions. There’s no need to reinvent it like some kind of bureaucratic party trick.

The result? A process where vested interests continue to shape outcomes, unchecked and unchallenged. And the lack of regulation doesn’t just raise concerns about who has influence—it also forces us to question who is failing to act, and why.

Let’s stop pretending this is about technical complexity. The problem is simple. The solutions are known. The precedent exists. Institutions around the world have taken steps to limit influence and protect integrity. The UNFCCC has chosen not to. Over and over again.

And that failure is not without consequence. It’s one of the core reasons this process has stagnated for more than 30 years. Because when powerful actors are allowed to shape the rules of accountability, there is no accountability.

So yes, it’s time to ask: Whose interests are really being protected here? Because it’s not the people on the frontlines of this crisis. And it’s certainly not the planet we’re all supposed to be saving.