During the ongoing UN climate change conference in the German city of Bonn, just as Nepalese officials announced an initiative to form a group, the Mountain Alliance Initiative, two Central Asian nations and one from the Caucasus outsmarted them by notifying the UN that they were establishing a similar group.

Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan got together and wrote to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) saying they had agreed to establish the Group of Mountain Landlocked Developing Countries.

Landlocked Nepal’s officials say the group it has announced will be effective in getting mountainous countries heard in international forums like UN climate conference.

“This alliance has been initiated so that mountainous countries can raise their climate-related concerns and influence the UNFCCC’s decision-making process to our advantage,” said Nepal’s environment ministry secretary Ganesh Joshi.

The three rival countries have stated almost the same reason for their move.

In their letter to the UNFCCC, they wrote: “We have agreed to establish the Group of Mountain Landlocked Developing Countries for protecting and lobbying for the interests of this group of countries in the framework of the UNFCCC’s negotiation process.”

While Nepalese officials have prepared a calendar to hold workshops and meetings between mountainous countries before requesting the UNFCCC to officially recognise the MAI, the other three have already done that.

“We request to the secretariat to take note of the new group and include it in all its listings,” the letter from Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikstan read.

The UNFCCC has officially listed its member countries under several groups, including small island states, developing countries and least developed countries.

Nepalese officials think adequate attention has not been paid to the issues of mountainous countries in international climate negotiations.

“Our mountain ecology stands so vulnerable to climate change and we believe Nepal can ideally lead to bring that point to the fore,” said Madhab Karki, Deputy Director of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), which is helping Nepal in its bid.

Although judged susceptible to the impacts of climate change, the Himalayan region has seen very little scientific research.

The most talked-about impact has been the retreat of Himalayan glaciers due to temperature increases caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

That has triggered fears of lakes and rivers swelling to dangerous levels in the near term and running dry in the long run, spelling disaster for millions of people in the region who rely on the river systems.

Increasing floods, droughts and landslides, the northward movement of some plant and animal species, a drop in water availability and agricultural production have been some of the observed results many link to climate change, although these are yet to be established scientifically.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has called the Himalayas a white spot, meaning there is a big information gap in this region.

And there are concerns that nothing much is being done to find out what has been happening to the mountain ecology as climate changes.

That was why, Nepalese officials say, the country’s Prime Minister, Madhab Kumar Nepal, addressing the climate change summit in Copenhagen last December, had proposed forming a common platform of mountain countries.

But while the Nepalese administration took time to move on with the idea, officials from Kyrgyzstan were already taking the lead.

“We had last year even before the Copenhagen conference floated the idea of bringing the mountainous countries together,” says Ysmail Dairov, who heads the Regional Mountain Centre of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan’s capital, Bishkek..

But he said several countries, particularly from South Asia, had not responded to the idea.

“At first they said this was something that would have to be done at the foreign ministry level. And even when we managed to send a letter from the Kyrgyz foreign ministry to the foreign ministries of these countries, there was no response.”

Nepalese officials say even they were approached by the Kyrgyz officials to join the Group of Mountain Landlocked Developing Countries.

“We don’t need to do that as we have support from many mountainous countries, including those in Latin America,” said Nepal’s environment secretary Joshi.

“Moreover, we are not just bringing together landlocked mountainous countries; our support base is quite a bit wider.”

That remains to be seen. But for now, the competition between Nepal and its rivals has left some mountainous countries bewildered.

“We don’t know what we do now,” says Abas Basir, Deputy Director of Afghanistan’s National Environmental Protection Agency.

“But what we do know is that if they remain divided like this, the whole effort of amplifying the voice of mountainous countries will collapse.”

adaptation mixed

navinmakune

Ten days of negotiations and participants in the biggest climate conference were still asking how should the meeting be proceeded.

It is, many scientists believe, the world’s most important meeting after the second world war.

They say so because they think it can save the planet Earth from irreversible catastrophes of climate change mainly because of human-induced rise in global temperature.

But tackling global warming, this summit has shown, first needs warming of relations between human societies.

But you still see and feel it being so chilling cold here.

Here are some snapshots: Almost 11 pm on Wednesday, a representative from Tuvalu was asking the chair at the meeting: How can we move ahead from this stalemate now?

The meeting was told that the president of the Conference of Parties (COP15) – the name of this summit under the UN climate regime – - had been consulting how to move ahead.

A Bangladeshi negotiator then asked: Who is he consulting with?

The Tuvalu delegate quickly added: We can provide the president with our telephone numbers for consultation with us.

And then the meeting was told that the COP president, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the prime minister of the host country Denmark, was consulting how he should do the consultation.

A great howl of laughter fell from the ceiling.

Earlier in the day, the same hall was simmering with tensions.

The COP president Rasmussen looked quite stressed and a bit angry when he said, “We have had enough talk about procedures, procedures, procedures, it’s time to move ahead now.”

No sooner he had finished, a Chinese negotiator struck back with this rebuttal: It’s not just procedures, procedures, procedures, it’s about substance.

Did you notice the choice of words both the sides chose to hit each other?

Such is level of the brawl and distrust between the developed and developing countries.

Until earlier this week, the fight was about which of the two tracks under the United Nations climate negotiations should get the priority.

The least developed and developing countries’ grouping have been pushing for the Kyoto Protocol track because the treaty signed in 1997 allows them to emit greenhouse gases while it requires mandatory cuts by developed countries.

The developed worlds, in this case led by the US, have rejected Kyoto type climate agreement and are therefore favouring another track – the Long Term Cooperative Action – for negotiations.

But even under that process, the paper presented was almost rejected by Americans on Wednesday as they pointed out the binding emission reduction figures for developed countries and it was provisioned that they should be measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV).

The MRV is something major economies like China and India don’t even want to hear about.

They and other developing countries have been demanding up to 40 percent carbon cuts by the developed ones.

US president Barrack Obama last month announced a 17 percent cut from 2005 levels by 2020.

Since Kyoto has 1990 as the baseline to cut down emissions, developing countries say the US announcement actually means a four percent cut.

While the US had a problem in the text presented under the LCA track, developing countries are still crying foul that the Kyoto process has been largely ignored.

Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and South African had one voice in a meeting chaired by the COP president: They were not happy with the basis of the negotiations.

Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said Thursday morning: The process adopted here is deeply flawed and the trust deficit has accumulated.

“Till this morning we have no idea what text will be presented to the heads of the state tomorrow.”

Grape vine is abuzz that there is a text prepared by Denmark in collaboration with some European and the US and that it will be presented soon.

“If that happens, the talks will be as good as collapsed.”

American delegates have repeatedly said they cannot imagine of signing a treaty that is even near to Kyoto.

European and Japanese delegates have been insisting that COP member countries needed to get over Kyoto.

So you can see all these days what was actually being discussed was how this circus should be held.

And there is a rock solid reason behind this mess: Rather than the well being of the Earth, it has become more about the well being of materialistic world.

Rich countries do not want to give up their status wealth-wise and at their footsteps are major developing countries, with swarming population like China and India who would like to live the American dream.

And so the quest now is how to use climate as the medium to be richer and more powerful. As one observer put it: This is all about climate colonization – after the military and economic colonization.

An investigation I have done for the BBC here kind of confirms that. As scenes of super power, powers to reckon with and emerging powers arm twisting to secure atmospheric space for carbon emission are being transmitted in the conference hall, behind the scenes, it’s a totally different agenda.

And there is a rock solid reason behind this mess: Rather than the well being of the Earth, it has become more about the well being of materialistic world, and shrewd negotiators are burning midnight lamp haggling over who should get to control the climate funds that would have billions of dollars.

Now who would you blame? Those who set the example of consumerism threatening life’s existence on the planet or those who follow that lifestyle blindly and are proud of it?

It is something worth asking whether there is a deal or not on Friday.

So far there has been no agreement regarding how this money should be managed and where it should be channelled as negotiating bodies from the developed and developing worlds hold fast to their polarised positions.

“So far, we have no agreement on the new climate fund or the body that will oversee it” Jukka Uosukainen, a co-facilitator representing the developed countries in the financial negotiations told the BBC.

“But if we have an overall agreement in this summit, I think we can still reach into an agreement.”

Shaping the fund

US negotiators are backing the idea of a new climate fund which, insiders say, would have the Washington-based World Bank as its trustee.

However, the developing world groupings at Copenhagen want a new body to control the fund which would be under the direct control of the Conference of Parties. The COP brings together all 192 countries that have signed the United Nations Convention Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“We have made it clear that we want the COP to have the authority over the new body that will control finance,” said Farrukh Khan of Pakistan, a co-chair representing developing countries in the financial negotiations.

But the word around Copenhagen is that the developed world doesn’t like this idea and is suggesting that the COP provide guidance to the new body.

It certainly is a big power game … the fund will run into billions and getting to control it will mean you will be powerful in the world order Senior European Representative

Meanwhile, it’s understood that the EU is insisting that existing institutions should be allowed to do the job as it believes that creating new ones will only cause delay, as has happened with the Climate Adaptation Fund that was formed two years ago to help developing countries adapt, but has yet to come online.

Sources say there is a difference of opinion within the European bloc as some member countries want to continue providing climate change funds through bilateral channels.

Accessing the fund

Developing countries are stressing that they need to have direct access to the fund as, they argue, their experience to date of trying to access funds from existing agencies has not been a pleasant one.

The Global Environment Facility in Washington comes in for particular criticism. It handles the Least Developed Countries Fund for Climate Adaptation and the Special Climate Change Fund.

Saleemul Huq, adaptation expert with the International Institute for Environment & Development says, “The tradition has been that funds like the LDCF have never had adequate money and they have remained under the control of donors and that has often delayed the process of accessing the money.”

NGOs protest at the lack of progress in climate talks

But insiders here at Copenhagen say the developed world is in no mood to give up this kind of “control”. An expert observer tells me that at a recent meeting a Western politician said that his parliament would not allow him to give away money just like that, without knowing how much is being spent, who is getting it and what is it being used for.

The expert went on to tell me that as “it also involves the issue of legislation, they would prefer either a bilateral aid mechanism or their preferred international institutions to channel their money.”

But Farrukh Khan says that the problem is that financing the fight against climate change is being viewed by the developed world as overseas development assistance as usual.

“It is not like giving aid to poor countries, it is basically compensating the poor for making them so vulnerable and exposed to the impacts of climate change,” Mr Khan told the BBC. “It’s a completely different issue.”

Another issue many donor countries raise is the “absorptive” capacity of the developing world. They say that they are not always able to use all the funds allocated to certain projects within a stipulated time-frame. They also draw attention to the issue of rampant corruption throughout the developing world.

Controlling the fund

However, those closely following the financial negotiations say that the big game is all about controlling resources and securing power.

“It certainly is a big power game,” said a senior European representative actively involved in negotiations. “The fund will run into billions and getting to control it will mean you will be powerful in the world order.”

Given the high stakes and the conflicting positions and passions involved, devising a mechanism, to which all parties agree, to manage and channel the new climate fund is surely the hardest task of all.

prime minister interview

More than one hundred heads of states and governments, including US president Barrack Obama, are reaching here within a couple of days.

And many believe only then the ball will start rolling. But will it?

It’s a political question that begs a technical explanation.

It takes us back to 1997 when the first treaty to curb emission of  greenhouse gases, blamed for warming the Earth’s atmosphere, was signed.

The Kyoto Protocol, as it is known, was ratified by almost all developing countries and most developed ones then.

The United States of America stayed out arguing that the treaty allowed emerging economies to carry on emitting carbon dioxide while developed worlds had to make mandatory emission cuts at the cost of their economies.

More than a decade since, Americans have not budged from that stand and they are making it louder and clearer in the climate negotiations here.

The difference this time round is that almost all developed countries have rallied behind the US, antagonising developing ones.

Major economies like China and India, that have lead role in the grouping of least and developing countries, want the Kyoto protocol to continue as it will keep them from making any binding commitments on carbon cuts.

But developed worlds point at the steadily rising carbon emissions of major economies like China and India and say without them onboard there can be no international climate treaty.

This fundamental difference has been mirrored by this United Nations climate conference as both sides have embraced two separate negotiating tracks that favour their respective positions.

Result: The main agenda of this summit – cutting carbon emissions to mitigate climate change — has not moved anywhere.

Formal negotiations even got suspended on Monday.

“So far the uphill climb has been very treacherous,” said Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Once political leaders begin to meet, it will be as if we have reached cable cars atop mountains and it will then be far smoother and relaxing.”

Many negotiators and delegates here share that optimism. They believe that politicians will have the authority to be flexible and so they can make some progress.

They add that heads of states and governments will have an even bigger  say to break the deadlock.

They may well have that mandate but would they like to use it? Or rather “abuse” it given their national interests?

All these days here and all these years in the run up to this much awaited summit, their technocrats, bureaucrats, and negotiators did not while away their time driving hard bargain, arm twisting, and consolidating their positions.

All that because climate change for many of them has never been just an ecological issue.

For some, it has also been an effective tool to advance their business interests while for others it has been a ladder to climb to the upper strata of the world order.

Remember the recent rejoinder of Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh to the leak that he was shifting India’s climate position by planning to agree to binding carbon cut commitments?

In it, he had said that the idea had basically to do with securing a seat at the UN Security Council.

So you can see what can be at stake even when politicians reach here to  rescue out these “stalled” negotiations.

And then political leaders would not at all like to be seen making unpopular decisions back home. Particularly, because their negotiators can always argue that they did the “dirty job” for the sake of national interest and their political masters just blew all their efforts off for populism on the global stage.

Politicians are certainly feeling the pressure already. British climate change minister Ed Miliband said on Monday: “Negotiators and ministers should not be leaving things for their leaders, they can also play important role.”

But with negotiators still playing the musical chair, politicians will certainly face the music.

Of course there have been talks about a political agreement – and not a legally binding one – as an outcome.

But given the turbulent weather the negotiations are going by, even that emergency approach of the runway remains invisible.

If there is no safe landing, there will be no deal either.

And yet, if they show one, it will be an eye-wash.

European Union officials have dismissed that and said disagreements already exist in the G77 plus China block.

“There have been some efforts to deliberately divide us,” one of the senior Chinese negotiators, Qingtai Yu told the BBC. “We have seen such moves here and this is nothing new.

“We have been their target in the past as well but we have been able to withstand it,” he said referring to the developed world. He however did not elaborate how such “divisions” were being created.

An Indian negotiator echoed the same message, adding, “In fact some of the poor countries have been threatened (by some developed countries not to toe the line of the G77) and we know there will be many such efforts.”

The G77 plus China has demanded that negotiations should take place under the United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change and the Kyoto process.

Signed in 1997 and expiring in two years and therefore warranting a new treaty, the Kyoto Protocol requires almost all developed countries to cut their carbon emissions compulsorily while developing countries are exempted from that provision.

Citing that very reason, the United States of America rejected it and most developed countries now want to get out of the Kyoto process.

They want emerging economies like China and India to make mandatory and verifiable carbon cut commitments as these major economies’ shares in global emission has been increasing significantly.

As the two sides have stuck to their guns, some small island states and least developed countries that are under the G77 banner have demanded that there has to be a legally binding treaty tougher than Kyoto.

They have insisted on an average global temperature rise below 1.5 degree Celsius compared to pre-industrial time that began in the 18^th century and want carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere to be limited to 350 parts per million, meaning 350 litres of the greenhouse gas in every million litres of air.

Major economies like China, India and Brazil earlier this year had reached into an understanding with developed worlds to keep global warming under two degrees and the greenhouse gas concentration within 450 ppm.

Some negotiators from developed world point at that division within the G77 plus China grouping.

“The allegation that we are trying to divide them is baseless and incomprehensible,” said Karl Falkenberg, a representative of the European Commission. “You can see how divided they are on issues like average temperature rise and blaming us for that state  does no good.”

Amidst all this, European leaders announced that they would pay a little above seven billion Euros over three years to poorer countries to help them cope with climate change.

The 7.2 billion Euros European aid is under the proposed package of 10 billion dollars a year designed to help Africa, island nations and other vulnerable nations from next year until 2012.

Chairman of the Least Developed Countries bloc, Bruno Tseliso Sekoli said that the money pledged was not enough.

“Any money that would flow from the developed to developing worlds would be welcome but these numbers are very, very low,” he told the BBC.

Lumumba Di-Aping, a diplomat of Sudan that chairs the G77 plus China, was even more critical about the 10 billion dollars aid. “The money will not even be enough to buy coffins (for those who will die because of climate change impacts),” he said at a press meet earlier this week.

A solid indication that the distrust between developed worlds and developing ones had been deepening.

The latest allegations by major economies like China and India that the  developing and least developed countries’ grouping is being divided by developed worlds – whether it is true or not – shows that things are only getting worse.

Deepening distrust between developed and developing worlds gives Copenhagen climate summit a very bumpy beginning. A leaked proposal said to be prepared by the Danish government has angered the bloc of developing countries who believe it is basically a plot to scuttle the Kyoto process which many developed countries wish to get rid of. (Radio report in Nepalese)

One of the world’s leading climate change experts has said that South Asian countries and China are not doing enough to address the possible water scarcity that global environmental problems could create. Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, said this region will be worst affected in terms of drastically decreased water supply because of climate change. Some representatives of South Asian governments have admitted that there has been no regional approach to address the issue. Back from a UN climate change conference in Poland, BBC’s Navin Singh Khadka reports.

The IPCC is the most authoritative body to have studied climate change globally. Its chairman, Mr Pachauri, said five hundred million people in South Asia and half of the people in China will be directly affected by water scarcity as a result of retreating Himalayan glaciers due to global warming. During the course of the climate change conference last week, he told the BBC that nothing was being done to tackle the potential crisis.

“We are not doing enough and I think we really need to start moving in the direction of using our water resources more efficiently and then looking for solutions by which we can manage this problem in the future. I don’t think there is enough action at all in these areas.”

The IPCC, in one of its latest reports, has stated that the poor would be hit hardest by climate change. South Asia is home to around 40 per cent of the world’s poor. Already one of the world’s most populous and unstable regions, concerns have mounted that it could become even more conflict-ridden because of water wars. One of the participants in the conference, the Nepalese environment minister Ganesh Shah, said South Asian countries were not yet organised to face the challenge.

“There has been nothing, no organised meetings on this. The glaciers in our mountains are melting, and if you don’t give attention to this, I think it will be a big injustice for the people who are living on the mountains and the Hindu Kush Himalayan region.”

Experts say there is an immediate danger of flooding from rapidly melting glaciers. But they have warned that, in the long run, rivers will run dry because glaciers will have retreated completely due to global warming. Major rivers in South Asia and China originate from Himalayan glaciers and are lifelines for millions of people. The Chinese government recently stated that it had plans to divert several rivers to help areas with water shortages. In its climate change action plan, India said it would adopt a regional approach to deal with the impacts. If these major regional players translated their words into action, perhaps experts like Mr. Pachauri might change their opinion.