The two-week-long negotiations were supposed to have ended on Friday evening with a decision on the kind of climate actions that countries could take in order to claim them as their “contribution” to the global fight against climate change.

These “contributions”, the magnitude of which is to be determined by the country itself, and hence called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, are to become the backbone of a new international legal architecture on climate change, which is supposed to be finalised at next year’s climate talks in Paris.

In Lima, the countries were also to suggest other features of this international legal architecture, giving them a year to negotiate and come to an agreement during the Paris conference. The architecture, if agreed in Paris, would come into effect in 2020.

But deep divisions in the positions of developed and developing countries blocked any progress on Friday, and by evening, countries had abandoned the formal processes to huddle in small informal groups and bilateral meetings in a desperate bid to forge an agreement.

The talks went into extra time, till the early hours of Saturday morning. But a new draft decision text, introduced at 2.30 in the morning, widened the rift further and gave rise to much distrust as a number of countries accused the head of negotiations of attempting to push unacceptable proposals down their throats as fait accompli.

As country after country got up to say that they had not been consulted in preparing the draft text and protested against the half an hour given to them to study it and make amendments, the head of negotiations was left with no option but to close the proceedings for the day and ask the delegates to reconvene on Saturday morning.

Venezuela’s representative said the way countries were being asked to approve the text, he was reminded of Copenhagen. At the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen, an agreement was thrust on the countries at the last minute, leading to much heartburn.

Christian Aid’s senior climate change advisor, Mohamed Adow, blamed the co-chairs of the working group that proposed the draft for a shoddy job and non-transparent manner of working. “The co-chairs have only themselves to blame for the shambles we now find ourselves in.

They have been ineffective and allowed governments to stall the progress. The latest text was left completely bare. By consulting with only the major powers like the US and China and ignoring African countries and other small developing nations, they have effectively redrawn the map of the world. What is offensive is that it is the countries that are suffering the most which have been sidelined from a process that should be helping them,” he said.

Among the deficiencies pointed out by developing countries in the draft text was the almost complete absence of any provision that would make developed countries commit funds to help poor and vulnerable nations deal with climate change. They also complained that the text almost erased the principle of ‘differentiation’ enshrined in the Framework Convention (UNFCCC) under which the negotiations are happening. This principle, enshrined as ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility’, or CBDR, makes a hard distinction between developed and developing countries and acknowledges very different expectations on climate action from these two groups.

Developing and developed countries differ on a number of other issues as well:

* ‘Contribution’ in INDCs

Only mitigation actions, say developed countries. Developing countries want the full range — adaptation, technology transfer, finance, capacity building.

Draft proposal: Mitigation must, may “consider” including adaptation.

* Climate finance

Developing countries want the developed world to provide money to poorer and vulnerable countries to adjust to climate change.

Draft proposal: Only “urges” developed countries to provide money, does not make it obligatory.

* Assessment of INDCs

India, US and many others not in favour of any assessment, EU strongly favours

Draft proposal: Weak provisions on assessment.

* CBDR

Developing countries strongly in favour of differentiation.

Draft proposal: No mention.

* Loss and damages

Developing countries want support for loss and damages arising out of any event attributable to climate change.

Draft proposal: No mention.

* Pre-2020 emission reduction

Developing countries want rich nations to enhance their emission reduction targets in the period before 2020.

Draft proposal: No mention.