Home

 Yana Wengel, Hainan University,

 Adele Doran, Sheffield Hallam University,

 Michal Apollo, University of Silesia in Katowice
Mountains – their height, their mass, their climates and ecosystems – have fascinated humans for thousands of years. But there is one that holds extra-special meaning for many – Mount Everest, or Chomolungma as the Nepalese Sherpa people call it. 

A sacred mountain for some, for others the world’s highest peak represents a challenge and a lifelong dream. Seventy years ago, on May 29, 1953, that challenge and dream became reality for two members of a British expedition: New Zealander Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay became the first people to reach the 8,848.86-metre summit. 

Their achievement was a testament to endurance and determination. It was also the crowning glory of the British expedition’s nationalistic motivations on the eve of the young Queen Elizabeth’s coronation. 

From our vantage in the present, it also represents a high point, not just in climbing terms, but in what we now think of as the modern era of mountaineering. Since then, mountaineering has become massively popular and commercial – with serious implications for the cultures and environments that sustain it.

Scaling the heights

The early mountaineering era began in 1786 when Jaques Balmat and Michel Paccard reached the summit of Mont Blanc, the highest peak in the European Alps at 4,808 metres. From 1854 to 1899 (known as the classic mountaineering period), advances in climbing technology saw ascending peaks by challenging routes become possible and popular. 

During the modern era from 1900 to 1963, mountaineers pushed further into the Andes cordillera in South America, explored polar mountains and began high-altitude climbing in Central Asia.

Shishapangma, the last of the world’s 8,000-metre peaks to be climbed, was scaled in 1964, marking the start of contemporary mountaineering. Since then, all of the world’s 8,000-metre peaks have been climbed in winter, culminating in the historic winter scaling of the 8,611-metre K2 by a Nepalese expedition in 2021. 

The record-setting assault on the world’s 14 highest peaks by Nirmal Puja in 2019 set the stage for a new period of commercial mass mountaineering – involving expectations and conditions that would have stunned the likes of Hillary and Norgey.

Mass mountaineering

The relatively recent influx of what some call novice mountaineers, who may expect luxury packages and a guarantee of summiting, can have dangerous consequences.

Sleeping in heated tents, not preparing their own food or helping to move equipment, does not test mental and physical fitness in such challenging environments. Pushing to the summit may put their own lives, and the lives of other climbers and rescue teams, at risk.

And yet the number of people attempting to climb famous peaks such as Kilimanjaro in Tanzania or Aconcagua in Argentina has increased dramatically. In 2019, there were 878 successful summits on Everest alone.

The days when true mountaineers were looking for new routes and climbing with minimum support have almost disappeared from commercial peaks like Everest. And many of these commercial climbers would not have a chance without professional support. 

In 1992, for example, when the first commercial mountaineering expeditions on Everest began, 22 Sherpas and 65 paying mountaineers summited – one Sherpa for three clients. Nowadays, two or even three Sherpas for each member of a commercial expedition is common.

But the romance and achievements of past mountaineers, combined with social media images and an “all-inclusive” adventure tourism industry, can lull inexperienced climbers into a false sense of security. On Everest, this has led to overcrowding, environmental degradation and increased risks for all climbers.

During the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, Nepal’s Khumbu region – where Everest sits – was effectively shut for climbing. This year, however, some estimate a record of more than 1,000 people could reach the summit.

The next challenge

Experienced mountaineers are responding to the challenges of overcrowding, pollution and socio-cultural impacts on mountain communities by advocating for more responsible and sustainable mountaineering practices. 

They want stricter regulations and better training to protect the fragile ecosystems of the Himalayas and other mountain ranges worldwide. 

This will require many stakeholders to play their part, including governments, mountaineering organisations, tourism operators and local communities. Ultimately, the future of mountaineering depends on preserving these unique mountain environments in the first place. 

Finally, maybe it’s time to introduce minimum skill requirements for climbing the world’s highest peak.

As we mark the 70th anniversary of the first ascent of Everest, we need to reflect on the changes that have taken place in mountaineering since. Paradoxically, while it has become more accessible and popular, it has also become more challenging and complex. 

Meeting those challenges and solving the problems will be the best way to honour the extraordinary achievement of Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay.(From: The Conversation)

Omair Ahmad

Last year, Sri Lanka was plunged into economic crisis. As the country struggles in the aftermath of its sovereign debt default in April 2022, officials have said they are considering a debt-for-nature swap. If this happens, this would remove USD 1 billion from Sri Lanka’s outstanding USD 40 billion of debt.

With Ecuador having earlier this month completed the world’s biggest debt-for-nature swap to date, taking roughly USD 1.6 billion off its national debt, these deals look set to play a bigger role in dealing with both debt burdens and biodiversity conservation.

Being home to some of the world’s most important biodiversity hotspots, South Asian countries, several of which are struggling under the weight of their debt, could benefit from these innovative schemes.

How do debt-for-nature swaps work?
A debt-for-nature swap can be multi-party or bilateral. The most common form of multi-party debt-for-nature deal is when a third-party institution – usually an international non-governmental organisation such as Conservation International – buys part of a country’s external debt from the institution that had bought it initially, often at a discount. That organisation then agrees to let the debtor country pay the debt off by investing a certain amount of local currency – usually significantly less than the face value of the original debt – in a biodiversity conservation plan.

In a bilateral deal, a country which owns some of another country’s debt agrees to discount it in exchange for the debtor country investing an agreed amount in a conservation plan. This frees the indebted country from having to pay off some of its debt in US dollars ­(which international debt is paid in), and it can instead invest its own resources to preserve its biodiversity.

The history of debt-for-nature swaps
The notion of debt-for-nature swaps was first mooted in 1984 by Thomas Lovejoy, the former vice-president for science at the World Wildlife Fund-US, in response to the Latin American debt crisis. The first debt-for-nature swap was a third-party deal facilitated by Conservation International. Finalised in 1987, it involved foreign creditors agreeing forgive USD 650,000 of Bolivia’s debt in exchange for the country setting aside 1.5 million hectares in the Amazon Basin for conservation efforts.

Initially, debt-for-nature swaps were largely offered to Latin American countries, and later to some African countries, Poland, and some countries in the Middle East. These included bilateral debt-for-nature deals accepted by the Paris Club – an informal group of creditor countries – in the 1990s. According to analysis published in October 2022 by the African Development Bank, the 140 debt-for-nature swaps that took place between 1987 and 2003 accounted for a total of USD 1 billion, with a median value of about USD 25 million each, with the most credit-for-nature swaps made in the 1990s.

How debt-for-nature swaps could help South Asia
The debt crisis currently facing the Global South has highlighted the need for new solutions. Debt-for-nature swaps are seen by many actors – from governments and financial institutions to conservation organisations – as an important part of this. This is because developing countries face two interlinked problems. First, they need to borrow from international creditors to finance their development plans. Second, they must insulate, or adapt, their development to deal with the increasing impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss.
The scale of the challenge is striking in South Asia. Sri Lanka is still dealing with the impact of its poor financial management. Pakistan’s deeply indebted economy is struggling to recover from the 2022 floods, the cost of which is estimated at over USD 30 billion. While donors had pledged over USD 8 billion in aid, much of this has yet to be received. The Maldives, Nepal and Bangladesh are all struggling with rising food and housing costs, while India’s growth has slowed significantly.

Meanwhile, with the US Federal Reserve hiking interest rates, investments are flowing back into the United States. Developing countries have to contend with a stronger dollar, meaning the cost of repaying debt has increased. Researchers have calculated that “creditors will need to forgive up to USD 520 billion of the USD 812 billion in debt some 61 countries need to have restructured”.

The future for debt-for-nature swaps
The scale of the global debt crisis as well as the need for environmentally sensitive development make debt-for-nature swaps increasingly attractive, but there are major challenges to implementing them. The case of Belize’s 2021 debt-for-nature swap is illuminating in terms of what a deal can, and cannot, do. As Belize looked at a possible debt default or a highly austere loan, it reached a complicated deal with the Belize Blue Investment Company (created by NGO The Nature Conservancy) and Credit Suisse, through which it was able to wipe off some of its debt and instead issue ‘blue bonds’ to preserve its marine ecosystems.

While the deal helped Belize to avoid a painful financial decision, and certainly achieved investment in conservation, it only wiped away 12% of the country’s debt, at a price of USD 85 million in long-term transaction costs. Belize was still left with huge debts. Since debt-for-nature swaps are not part of normal financial institutional systems, the costs of insuring such transactions are high. Furthermore, credit agencies still regard them essentially as defaults, meaning the country’s credit rating gets downgraded, if not as much as in a full default.
A 2022 International Monetary Fund article notes that grants offer a simpler way of dealing with debt, stating that, “a swap cannot restore solvency [to a debtor country] unless it involves a sufficiently large share of a country’s debt and substantial relief… So far, no swap has come close to achieving this.” Furthermore, it seems contrary that a country should have to be at the point of economic collapse before a debt-for-nature swap is put in place, especially considering that if the developed countries that hold the debt, such as the members of the Paris Club, paid what they had pledged to developing countries in terms of climate finance, the debtor country might not have to be pushed to the brink of bankruptcy in the first place.

Despite these problems, the debt-for-nature swap market appears to be growing – Bloomberg estimates that it will reach USD 800 billion. This would go a long way towards reaching the goal of USD 4.3 trillion in annual financial flows by 2030 that think tank the Climate Policy Initiative estimates will be needed to offset the worst impacts of climate change. Protecting the natural environment remains one of the best way to combat those impacts, and debt-for-nature swaps could enable developing countries to do this while giving them fiscal space to pursue their development goals.

This story was originally published in The Third Pole.

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

The defeat of BJP-led Hindutva politics in Karnataka is cause for celebration and hope for India’s secular constitutional democracy. The people of Karnataka rejected divisive and bigoted politics under Mr. Narendra Modi’s leadership. His campaign focused on polarization, while the Congress Party led a positive campaign. The Congress Party successfully consolidated its votes and organization, countering Hindutva propaganda with its five ‘guarantees’ policy promises. These guarantees include providing 200 units of free electricity to every household through ‘Gruha Jyothi’, grant of Rs 2,000 to every woman heading a family through ‘Gruha Lakshmi’, 10 kg of rice per month to every member of BPL families through ‘Anna Bhagya’, sanctioning of Rs 3,000 to unemployed graduates and diploma holders (18-25 age group) for two years through ‘Yuva Nidhi’,’ and offering free travel for women through the ‘Shakti’ scheme. These alternative policies were crucial to the Congress Party’s victory.

In spite of electoral defeat, the Hindutva politics continues to enjoy significant support base in Karnataka. The BJP has secured 36% of the total votes, which shows that Hindutva is defeated but not down. The Hindutva forces led by BJP is going to be more reactionary to consolidate their higher caste Hindu vote bank after their electoral defeat. Therefore, it is imperative to move beyond electoral populism to deracinate Hindutva to ensure prosperity, peace and social harmony among all communities in the state.  The progressive and democratic governance along with educational and cultural interventions based on material history and science can shape popular culture to dismantle Hindutva project and its base.  

The decline in vote share of left parties in the Karnataka assembly election is a disturbing outcome. These parties lost elections in all their strongholds. Some lazy political analysis attributes this to weak trade union movements and identity politics. The left parties have engaged in internal conflicts and formed political alliances without a clear direction, prioritizing personal differences over ideological class positions. This decline in the left’s vote share is disastrous for the working people of the state and sends a negative signal to national politics. The political disunity among left parties is a clear example of missed opportunities in working-class politics and the promotion of radical political consciousness. Once again, the left parties have failed to effectively address the challenges posed by the capitalist onslaught led by Hindutva fascism in India.

The communist parties have failed to come to an understanding for an united left front based on issues of people. It sends a wrong signal to the masses that left parties lack basic understanding of their everyday issues and challenges in life. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) had its tactical alliance with the Janata Dal (Secular) and the Republican Party of India (Prakash Ambedkar faction) (RPI-K). The JD (S) has provided outside support to the alliance candidates in three seats only when RPI-K contested for ten seats and the CPI(M) contested four seats.The Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) [SUCI(C)] has fought in fourteen constituencies in ten districts. The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) and Liberation (CPI-ML) have contested in two seats. The CPI and CPI (M) candidates have fought against each other in the KGF seat where as the CPI-ML and CPI (M) have fought against each other in KR Puram (Bengaluru Urban district). The CPI (M) and SUCI (C) have contested against each other in the Gulbarga rural seat. The left parties have fought against each other and lost in several seats without forming any form of political understandings.Such a political trend in left politics only empowers reactionary political forces in the long run. The disunity of left weakens working people, citizenship rights, and their share in the democratic politics. The electoral defeats of the left political parties weaken the welfare and democratic state. 

Political Collaboration and Cooperation

Left politics is the moral compass and political anchor of the working people to uphold the economic interests of the masses for a progressive and democratic society. Left unity is central to the working-class political project in India. The political collaboration and cooperation among left wing political parties, groups and movements based on common objectives and shared values are crucial to achieve collective political progress and deepening of working-class politics. There is no doubt that the left encompasses a diverse range of ideologies and perspectives, the principle of left unity must encourage setting aside differences and focusing on shared values and goals. The significance of left unity in fostering social change, addressing common challenges, and promoting a more equitable and just society depends on the collective struggles of the left parties. The mass movements can overcome the ideological fragmentations by acknowledging the inherent strengths in diversity. 

The left unity challenges existing power structures and promotes dialogue, understanding, and the exchange of ideas. It encourages activists, organizations, and political parties to unite their efforts, pooling their resources, skills, and networks to create a more powerful force for change. By building bridges rather than walls, left unity amplifies the collective voice of the left, making it more effective in challenging existing power structures and advocating for progressive policies.  The left parties and their unity can only mobilise people against all forms of inequality and exploitation in the society by appealing to the wider society.  This wider collaboration enables the left to create coalitions that span various social, economic, and cultural divides. The united left can achieve greater influence and electoral success, translating its ideals into tangible policy changes for societal transformation. The left parties need to amplify the voices and interests of the working people by transcending ideological differences and focusing on shared goals, left unity can pave the way for significant social, economic, and environmental transformations.

Ultimately, the future of left-wing politics in India depends on the actions and strategies adopted by the parties involved, the ability to connect with the aspirations and concerns of the people, and the capacity to effectively navigate the changing political landscape.Left unity can provide foundations for progressive social, economic, cultural and environmental transformation by upholding interests of the working people. Left politics can only shape the future of a formidable mass movement capable of challenging all exploitative structures to create peaceful and egalitarian society. The forward march of the Left unity is not only the starting point but also the only available alternative to defeat the twin dangers of Hindutva fascism and capitalism in India.

(The author is Professor at the University for Creative Arts, UK. The views expressed here are his own – Ed.)