Himanshu Thakkar

INDIA’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, released a controversial report on 9 November, 2009, saying it would “challenge the conventional wisdom” about melting ice in the mountains.Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned the Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner.”

But the minister denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers,” he retorted. The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”. While the IPCC report’s deadline for glaciers is clearly wrong considering the current state of glaciers and their melting, the MoEF paper’s conclusion is also unwarranted, considering the reality of increasing global and even higher Himalayan temperatures.

However, the conclusions of the (not peer reviewed) discussion paper from the MoEF, titled Himalayan Glaciers: A State-of-Art Review of Glacier Studies, Glacier Retreat and Climate Change, authored by VK Raina, former Deputy Director General of Geological Survey of India (GSI) is based on very thin evidence.

First, the study is based on GSI observations of just 20 glaciers out of the total of 9,575 glaciers within the Indian Himalayan territory and none from the over 46,000 glaciers in the Tibet and Hindukush Himalayan region. Secondly, the study provides no data as to what has been the trend of snowfall over these regions, since snowfall is as much a factor that decides if glaciers advance or retreat as temperature and how climate change affects snowfall. The discussion paper in fact notes: “Studies have revealed that the major factor for the negative regimen of glaciers in the Himalayas is the relatively less snow precipitation during the winter than enhanced glacier melting in summer… Hardly any information is available regarding winter precipitation / accumulation.”

The paper accepts, “Glacier Monitoring in the Indian Himalayas started in the early 20th century, when 20 odd glaciers in the Himalayas began to be monitored by the Geological Survey of India… The analysis showed that most glaciers were retreating or showing degenerated conditions along the glacier front. The average annual retreat was around 5 m, although a few glaciers were observed to have higher retreat, such as the Pindari glacier in the Central Himalayas which was observed to have an annual retreat of 8-10 m… There was an enhanced focus on glacier snout monitoring in the Himalayas beginning from the mid 1950s... This activity was extended - rather intermittently - till the 1970s… All these (20) glaciers exhibited continuous retreat as compared to their earlier positions, as well as considerable vertical shrinkage.” The paper notes that there have been some further studies during the last three decades of the 20th century, which conclude, “All the glaciers under observation, during the last three decades of the 20th century have shown cumulative negative mass balance.”

The paper says that the Gangotri glacier was believed to have once extended to Jhala - about 47 km downstream of its present position. The Gangotri glacier, which had hitherto been showing a rather rapid retreat, along its glacier front, at an average of around 20 m per year till up to 2000 AD, has since slowed down considerably, and between September 2007 and June 2009 is practically at a standstill, the paper claims. However, Raina forgets to mention that the Gangotri glacier has retreated by 2.29 km in 117 years but the highest rate was recorded between 1977 and 1997 when it retreated by 92 metres a year. This has now been confirmed by the observations of Indian Space Research Organisation.

There is no doubt that globally, temperatures are increasing due to climate change. There is also evidence that the temperature increase in the Himalayas is significantly higher than the increase in global averages. Under the circumstances, if other factors remain the same, the Himalayan glaciers will retreat, as the temperature goes up. To make a contrary claim cannot be very convincing.

But we have very little data about one of the most important ‘other factor’ that decides the fate of the glaciers, namely snowfall. Our water resources establishment has little data by way of sub basin wise or basin wise snowfall data over the years. Unless this crucial piece of evidence is factored in, any claim of glaciers retreating due to climate change or not cannot be accepted as credible claim.

There is a third factor affecting the fate of the glaciers that expectedly, the MoEF discussion paper and the environment minister are mostly silent about. The mad rate at which the Indian government is pushing and building hydropower projects and related blasting, mining, deforestation, building of roads, townships, tunnels, drying up the river and so on, all close to the glaciers, is also accelerating the melting and retreating of glaciers. The minister did not say anything on this, even as this goes against the objectives of the Himalayan
Ecosystem Mission under the Government of India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change.

The MoEF paper does say, however, “The regional and the local geomorphic features have been observed to have as much influence in the glacier snout fluctuations as the climatic parameters.”

Some of the most significant data about glacier melt for the Chenab, Parbati and Baspa basins come from a satellite based study by the Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad. It is interesting to note that while the glaciers in all the three basins have experienced area and volume reduction between 1962 and 2001-2004, the percentage volume reduction in all cases is higher than percentage area reduction. Volume reduction indicates reduction in volume of water held.

This study shows that area reduction percentage does not give the full picture of the loss due to glacier melt. The disintegrated analysis across various area sizes of glaciers in Chenab basin indicates that glaciers in all sizes have experienced reduction in area. However, percentage reduction in area is the highest for the smallest size and lowest for the highest size glaciers. The study says that 80 per cent of glaciers are smaller than 5 sq km and only 7 per cent have an area larger than 10 sq km.

It is very important to note here that more than the length or area of the glaciers, it is the volume of the glaciers that is crucial for downstream river flows. And hence an analysis of how the volume of the glaciers is doing in the climate change context would be most important, but the paper says nothing about this!

This controversy also reflects how poor our baseline knowledge is of the state of India's glaciers on which so many people's water security depends. Some studies show that about 70 per cent of the non monsoon flow of Himalayan glacier fed rivers is contributed by the glacier melt, as measured at the point where these rivers enter the plains.

A study by the Stockholm Environment Institute, presented at an International Water Management Institute workshop in early December 2009 showed that on an average, 17 per cent of the annual average water flow in the Ganga River at Farakka or about 68 billion cubic meters comes from glacier melt. This quantity of water is equal to the live storage capacity of 11 Sardar Sarovar Projects. The importance of glacier melt to our rivers should be obvious from these figures. But there is little systematic data in this regard and whatever little data exists, is all state secret!

It is good that the Dept of Science and Technology, Government of India, has now initiated action to create an institute exclusively for research on glaciers in the Himalayas.

Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Newsvine

del.icio.us

Want to give feedback on this article

Name Email Comment on this article (Not more than 250 character) Security Image Write the characters in the Security Image in the box, ( Case Sensitive )

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.