Concluding third session: 1st Moderators note: Dr. Madan Koirala
Climate Himalaya
of the e-conference Climate Change and the Himalayan Glaciers
...
Posed questions
-Potential adaptation measures that could be adopted to tackle the
climate change impacts on glaciers, glacial lakes, glacier lakes
outburst flood and other associated hazards? (Adaptation)
-Technologies available to ensure sustainability of mountain natural
resources (in particular biodiversity, water resources, etc.)?
(Adaptation)
-Mitigation measures to reduce the impact of glaciers, glacial lakes
and glacier lakes outburst floods on downstream? (Mitigation)
-Sustainability tourism in the context of changing climate? (Adaptation)
-Setting future priorities for action, and
-Other issues raised by the discussants.
...
Comments by Moderator
1. There were almost 65 postings from 25 individuals during the week
long discussion. Many interesting issues were cross posted by the
relevant individuals and institutions. Out of the debated issues,
background paper posted for the e-conference and the biodiversity
extinction drew attraction of many professionals.
2. Tek Jung Mahat from Nepal floated the issue of loss of biodiversity
and indigenous people around the world most vulnerable to the dangers
of climate change, citing John Scott Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
3. Narpat S. Jodha, of ICIMOD, Kathmandu, insisted his views he had
raised from early 90s that global warming debate has created more
noise and scare rather than positive pathways. Though it was able to
mobilize resources to the research institutions. Adaptation to the
change needs better information and concentrated efforts.
4. Gian Nicolay, agreed with the idea Narpat S. Jodha posed about the
human adaptation capacity to the climate change. His emphasis remained
on the local capacity building and make concrete recommendations for
communities and policy makers.
5. Professor John M. Reynolds, along with reference to his review
article published in Mountain Research and Development in 2004
attempted to draw clarification on glacier inventory and hazard
mapping in the region.
5. Bhubaneswar Dhakal's posting was regarding "Nepal has paid too much
for Climate Change Mitigation". He had examples regarding the
controversial issue of climate change, pollution level of Nepal,
current cost, profit and loss in context to Nepal.
6. Queries made by Professor John M. Reynolds were attempted by the
background paper writers Samjwal Ratna Bajracharya and Pradeep Kumar
Mool for clarification. It was later joined by Rabin Sharma and M. R.
Dhital. A lively debate attracted the audience for almost a week. I
believe it has helped to clarify the participating scientists,
professionals and contributed to deepen the scientific endeavors in
developing world as well. Rakshan Roohi joined the debate with
technical matters such as limitation on availability of remote sensing
data. Basanta Shrestha later joined for the clarification of the
ICIMOD publication, considered as background paper of e-conference.
Professor John M. Reynolds has acknowledged Samjwal Ratna Bajracharya,
Pradeep Kumar Mool for adding an avenue of scientific work in Nepal
and Rakshan Roohi, for the work in Pakistan. Sharad Joshi, WECS,
Nepal, too joined the debate for clarification.
7. Parveen Chhetri, citing Bhubaneswor Dhakal added "An advance
testing tool (Dendrolimatology a part of Dendrochronology), the Tree
Ring Method shows no clear indication of it regarding the dating of
climate change.
8. Birendra Bajracharya added to the debate of ICIMOD publication on
GLOF Study. He encouraged the readers to have a look at the overlay of
the glacial lakes derived from the GLOF study by ICIMOD at
http://www.icimod-gis.net/google/HKH_GLOF.kmz. Rajiv Bhagat also
joined the debate with his comments. G.Philip and M.P.Sah, Wadia
Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun, India joined the debate
acknowledging the authors of the book Pradeep K. Mool whose team
initiated the task in limitation. Chu Duo and Tao CHE from China also
emphasized the limitation of the data and appreciated the work of the
book writers. hamm...@hotmail.com also has joined the conversation.
9. Sreedhar, raised the issue whether there were more dependable way
of predicting weather patterns in every cropping season and also
raised queries on the extreme events especially cloud-bursts,
hailstorms. He shared they practice revegatation in Uttarakhand in
India. Ngamindra Dahal, NTNC, Nepal had similar idea in drawing a line
between regular fluctuation of weather from climate change. He
expressed Perceptions of scientists and development practitioners in
the field of agriculture, forestry and water would help streamline the
discussions. Tek joined the conversation with a clipping of German
environment minister Sigmar Gabriel, who cited in G8 meeting that
about 150 species disappear every day. Sunita Narain's clipping
published in Down to Earth with the heading of "No more Kindergarten
approach to climate" forwarded by Tek has drawn the attraction of
general public. Vimal Khawas, was of the opinion that the human
dimension has inadequately looked after in context the debate of
climate change. Narpat S. Jodha, joined the Vimal's view with
adaptation practices done by humans in context to livelihood
strategies such as planting trees, which in turn has contributed
positively to the event of climate change. Tek proposes
Individual/national environmental happiness (or ecological) in this
context.
10. Deo Raj Gurung, Department of Geology & Mines, Ministry of Trade &
Industry, Bhutan liked to share his limitation as co author regarding
the inventory of glacial lakes of Bhutan published from ICIMOD.
Vaivhav from India joined Gurung in appreciating the work as an added
contribution to Hindu Kush Himalaya region.
11. An article presented by Mr. Ngamindara Dahal entitled
"Implications of Climate Change on Biodiversity in Nepal: Some
Observations and Opportunities" contributes the debate in an interface
of taking part in carbon emission reduction and Clean Development
Mechanism.
12. The views expressed by the fellow participants were of great
value, encouraging joining the debate on the contemporary issues of
climate change, however, I couldn't have been able to incorporate all
those due to my limitation.
Regards,
...
Madan Koirala, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Central Dept of Environmental Science (Tribhuvan
University)
1st Vice President of the Environmentalists Association of Nepal
Presently,
Idaho State University, Pocatello, USA
narpat s jodha
CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON THE E- CONFERENCE (by Narpat S. Jodha)
Friends,
First of all congratulations to all of you for a successful and educative
E- Conference. However,this fact it self makes it difficult for me to
present coherent and all inclusive concluding remarks on our exchanges
during last three weeks. Despite initial hesitation, finally I had to yield
to the persuasion by the E-Conference organisers to undertake this
responsibility. My task is partly lightened by the moderators of different
sessions, who summed up the highlights of different contributions by you
people. Hence my comments are of more general nature.
1. To begin with I would say, this was one of the extremely low cost E-mail
based exercise, I have participated in.Besides some logistic support
from a few organisations, the E-conference was conducted through
voluntary time- contribution of the organisers, moderators etc. linked
through Environmentalists' Association of Nepal. There is a clear lesson
here, reconfirming the old saying , " Where there is Will there is a way" .
2. Quite related to the above is the impressive range and level of
participation in the E conference. Despite its low profile in terms of
patronage and publicity, around 150 people participated in the conference,
most of whom posted their views and responses. Out of this about one third
were from Nepal itself ( a very healthy indicator) , another one third from
other countries of HK-H region and rest of them from the rest of
the world, particularly North America and Europe ( they included many
originally from Nepal ).
3.In terms of substantive issues, though the planned central focus of
the E-conference was on glaciers as affected by climate change, the large
number of postings ( except during the third week) covered other aspects
ie.indicators, implications and adaptations to climate change etc. As per
my assessment, there were more postings on these issues compared to
glacier melting etc. Though the partially emotionally charged arguments
were focused more on the latter. To complement the participants' views ,
different back ground papers ( by different renowned workers in the field)
on varied themes of climate change were also posted, which enriched the
debate.
4.On the overall theme of climate change , there was visible though mild
divergence of the views. One group indicated the the inherent
uncertainties and information gaps, which tend to reduce the trust of many
in the indicated changes and projected consequencesof global warming. The
other group presented / quoted volumes of evidence with full recognition of
known limitations. Despite all this there was emerging consensus
for systematic enquiries, information gathering and its objective ,action
focused analysis.
( In my personal opinion an important issue is about quality control,
objectivity, comparability and sharing systems as parts of work on the
subject. One factor obstructing such happening is almost wild
multiplication of efforts with little care for the "RULES OF THE GAME"
.Work on climate change has become " a growth Industry" , with large money
chasing the work at times identified by the title mainly ??).
5. The postings on Glacier melting in Himalayas too were quite many.
However here again debate was not free from counter arguments and evidence
presented by different workers, research reviewers etc. There
were series of postings on data and methodological specificities, that
caused differences in the researchers' perceptions on the extent and causes
of snow melting and determination of "degree of dangerous status" of
particular glacial lakes. However, here again, situation got resolved
through agreeing on need for careful scientific work using modern
technologies and facilities, rather than reducing the scientific findings
to media-stories. Those focusing the need for long term , historical
perspectives ( on ice-formation-melting- cycle), warned against becoming '
victims of recent event illusion' .
6.There were significant number of postings on non-glacier related issues
vis a vis global warming. They included effects on
Himalayan bio-diversity, livelihoods and productive opportunities for the
mountain communities, positive impacts of climate change in some areas
etc.The arguments were full of both anecdotal and substantive information.
7. Having gone through major issues and arguments during the E Conference
, the final question needs attention. This relates to : what we learned
from this exercise for the future ? In my judgement broadly speaking:
( a). Debate on global warming ( glacier melting included) has diverse
views and perspectives. They help the process of reaching the better truth
and should be allowed.
(b). More scientific objectivity focused work in diverse situations needs
higher priority.
(c). Adaptation focused research addressed to specific contexts should also
get high priority
(d). The present E-conference has demonstrated the utility and need as
well as has imparted considerable confidence to the organisers to repeat
the E-mail based debate on other related subject.
Many thanks,
(Narpat S. Jodha)
1