Dr Arvind Kumar*
*President, India Water Foundation, New Delhi.
The recent revelation that a claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that Himalayan glaciers would probably disappear altogether by 2035 was wrong has taken the climate scientists and glaciologists by surprise.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an environmental organization, has recently admitted that a report on the impacts of climate change on glaciers in India, China and Nepal, which it published in 2005, included an erroneous reference to a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology of the International Commission for Snow and Ice, indicating that it stated “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high.”1 In fact, nothing like this quote appears in the cited document and the magazine ‘New Scientist’ has reported that one of its articles from 1999 was the source. In mid-January this year the WWF issued a statement admitting that its report contained ‘erroneous’ information and also apologized for causing confusion.
In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.2 Syed Hasnain, a teacher in Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, was in 1999 chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice’s working group on Himalayan glaciology. According to New Scientist, he has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was “speculative.”3
Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas. Chapter 10 of the IPCC fourth assessment report inter alia said: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world.”4
The inclusion of this information annoyed many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India stating that there was no sign of “abnormal” retreat in Himalayan glaciers.5 India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being “alarmist”. However, the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as “voodoo science” lacking peer review. He added that “we have a very clear idea of what is happening” in the Himalayas.
It is interesting to note that the IPCC report sourced the prediction of melting of glaciers to a document published by the WWF in 2005; and this WWF document quoted the article published in the New Scientist in 1999 as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as “disturbing”, without specifically endorsing it.
However, the IPCC report went a step further, concluding without citing further evidence that the prediction was “very likely” – a term that it says means a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent. Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, says the 2035 date is extremely unlikely. “At current melting rates it might take up to 10 times longer,” he says.
However, the lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, has been cited by New Scientist as saying that he “outright rejected” the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers: “The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them. We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report. The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain’s assertion and not with the IPCC authors.”6
While dismissing this contention, Hasnain blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist: “The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures. It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers.”7
Dr. Andreas Schild, Director General of the International Centre for Integrated mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal has explained the seriousness of the impact of Climate Change in the Himalayan region for the whole of India. In his opinion, rising temperatures lead to less precipitation in the form of snow. This reduces the snow cap and also in a longer-term causes reduction in the size of glaciers. This in turn influences very seriously the discharge of water in the pre monsoon period. The rivers carry less water. More water in summer and less in winter has to be expected. The consequence in the mountains is increased vulnerabilities in the form of flash floods and landslides. Less water in the pre monsoon period will affect the availability of water for irrigation and will affect food security.8
According to remote sensing observation, it is estimated that above 90% of the glaciers are receding. This is also substantiated by some ground based monitoring. Some glaciers are expanding, particularly in the Karakorum, or at least the terminus positions are advancing. There is no systematic analysis of the ice mass (mass balance survey) of the glaciers. We do not know either, why certain glaciers are expanding. It is possible that this is due to intensified winter westerlies in the western Himalayas (part of changing precipitation patterns) or due to internal re-orientation of the glacier such as increased elasticity due to increased temperature.
According to Dr Schild, the most spectacular trends are the creation and growing of glacier lakes. They constitute a potential danger of lake outbursts (GLOF) particularly due to the receding of permafrost and the consequent weakening of the moraines, or due to some external triggers such as rock/ice avalanche into the lake. The growing number of lakes and their growing size is cause for concern. Conceptually, decreasing snow cover and glaciers could lead to a decline in the water discharge of the Himalayan rivers, especially during the lean seasons. However so far we have only rough estimates based on remote sensing, and trends in the river flow at basin scales have not been substantiated by data.
The changing precipitation patterns show an increasing number of dry days and a higher concentration of rainy days. The trends show some weakening in the western Himalayas and higher intensity in the east. How this trend will develop in future is not clear. It is possible that the higher temperatures at the higher altitudes, particularly in the Tibetan plateau, will influence the winds and therefore also the monsoon.
In the opinion of Dr Schild, even the best international conventions and agreements mean that climate change and the effects of atmospheric pollution will continue to affect the world during the coming years. The Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau as highly sensitive mountain systems will be particularly affected and will feel the consequences of climate change dramatically. In no mountain region of the world will the effects be as directly linked with livelihood systems as in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. Assuming that mitigation will have positive impacts only in the second half of the century, Dr Schild stresses on need to learn how to adapt to these changes from a mountain perspective.
In general we have to say that poverty, and lack of infrastructure and basic services to the rural population are so important that any adaptation agenda is very close to the traditional development agenda – a sustainable one. We can make the difference between short, medium and long-term measures.
In his considered opinion, we have to be aware that changing rainfall patterns, melting glaciers and droughts create new vulnerabilities. Early warning systems, risk mapping, creating awareness and capacity development are immediately required. Flood and flash flood risk mitigation, e.g. early warning systems, GLOF risk mitigation (lake lowering), improved infrastructure (embankments, river training), and not least improved management/governance of such infrastructures are important measures which can be planned now.
Adaptation in the mountains also means that we have to learn from the community-adopted and adapted practice: communities have learned to deal with hazards and we cannot expect that governments will be able to intervene everywhere. Often it can only create enabling policy, institutional and financial environments. Following are the condensed views of Dr Schild in this regard:
“A second set of facilities refer to the planning of infrastructure and productive structures in such a way that the new hazards are being considered. Watershed development, rain and snow/ice water harvesting and storage are becoming priority issues. This leads to very concrete programmes: how can we reduce the outflow of water when we have too much, to make it available when we need it most. Can glacial lakes considered a hazard become a potential source of water and power? Should we not be promoting water storage at high altitude? Conservation and management of wetlands are important. We should also scale up interesting regional experience of farm level water harvesting – e.g., water ponds.”
“Adaptation also means that the mountains validate their potentials. Hydropower generation, ecotourism, and the conservation and management of biodiversity are unique assets which contribute to strengthening resilience and adaptation. But we should move a step further: climate change and global warming on the one hand and economic development with the growing middle class on the other.”
“A higher percentage of the population is changing their way of living; and there is an increasing awareness among them about the importance and relevance of ecosystem services in the mountains. These services are partly considered as public goods and have no market currently. We have to create awareness for these services and to put a price tag on them. Sustainable mountain systems with a resilient population are in the interest of the nation and the region, but also globally.”
“Of course this is a long term vision for financing adaptation. We might have access also to carbon funds. But let us not forget about the low hanging fruit as well: remittances are four times as important as development cooperation funds in Nepal. Let us devise clever policies to tap these resources. If we have the energy for designing and implementing good policies for the use of remittances, especially targeting rural areas, and we do better foreign aid coordination, then we have already made a good start towards climate change adaptive development.”
In the wake of ongoing controversy over the melting of Himalayan glaciers, one can hope that this controversy leads to more and better research on understanding how climate change is affecting the world’s highest mountain range and what potential consequences there are for the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people who depend on them.
.
Notes
1. Bob Ward, “A Mistake over Himalayan Glaciers Should not Melt Our Priorities”, The Guardian, U.K., reproduced at http://www.countercurrents.org/ward220110.htm .
2. This information is available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html .
3. “Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim”, New Scientist, 11 January 2010, available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html.
4. For IPCC fourth assessment report’s chapter 10 see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html .
5. Vijay Raina’s paper is available at http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEFDiscussionPaper_him.pdf .
6. New Scientist, n. 3.
7. Cited in ibid.
8. Cited in Marianne de Nazareth, “Climate Change, The Himalayas and India”, 26 January 2010, available at http://www.countercurrents.org/nazareth260110.htm .
