Commentary on keynote

A Few Discussion Points

posted by Kumar P. Mainali, editor, Himalayan Journal of Sciences

Dr. Ives' keynote covers so much ground that I suspect I may not be alone in requiring some time and thought to process it all. To facilitate discusion, I have compiled a short list of the specific conclusions and implications of his paper.

1. Current conventional wisdom holds that global warming has greatly increased the danger of glacial lack outburst floods (GLOFs). Ives points out several indications that the magnitude of the risk has been exaggerated.

1. Long term records of Icelandic GLOFs (or jökulhlaups) resulting from ice-damming reveal a reduction of GLOF magnitude and frequency in warmer periods, due apparently to the tendency of thinning glaciers to impound less water and also to drain more frequency.

2. Moraine-dammed lakes, on the other hand, may present an increased likelihood of outburst flood; however, the morainal breach resulting from such an occurrence would likely prevent subsequent accumulation of additional water. In other words, there would be little risk of repeated GLOFs from the same site.

2. The response to GLOF threats has been politicized to the point that it is largely unrelated to actual risk.

1. For more than a decade (until GLOFs became a "hot topic" in the mid-90s), both ICIMOD and the government of Nepal ignored Ives' recommendations that basic research and also hazard mapping be undertaken in order to clarify the local and regional risks attendant on potential GLOF sites.

2. The World Bank and developers of the Arun III project solicited advice about the threat posed to the project by GLOFs, while suppressing objections relating to other aspects of the project. The project was eventually derailed by the possibility that media attention and political fall-out from a likely GLOF in the neighboring Khumbu valley might derail development (despite the fact that it would have no direct impact on Arun III).

3. Prognostications of billions of dollars of damage and hundreds of millions of casualties due to 21st century GLOFs (and subsequent drought) are unsupported by logic or evidence; Ives compares such Cassandra-ism to early predictions of catastrophic deforestation of the Nepal Himalaya.

3. The widespread glacial recession to which the impending GLOF hazard is attributed is itself exaggerated.

1. Certain "evidence" of glacial recession entails fallacious comparisons of unrepresentative photographs.

2. Ives strongly suggests that exaggerated predictions are in some cases the result of dishonesty and self-interest.

3. The misdirected clamor is diverting needed attention from well-based but more restrained recommendations such as Alton Byers' call for protection of the upper treeline-alpine meadow belt from damage caused by both tourists (including mountaineers) and local residents.

4. The politically-acceptable enthusiasm for prognotistications of disasters spawned by global warming has eclipsed attention to ongoing cultural disasters such as Bhutan's crimes against humanity. Mountain Forum, which has the responsibility to facilitate exchange of information of practical importance to researchers and planners, has a policy of suppressing politically sensitive postings, thereby increasing the likelihood of a cultural "meltdown" with regional consequences out-weighing those of natural hazards.

5. The potential of mountain tourism to benefit the people and landscape of remote mountainous destinations has been vitiated by government strategies that aim first of all to maximize short-term profits rather than sustainable development.

A fuller (and more nuanced) discussion of these points is to be found in Chapters 6, 7, 8, and particularly 10 (pdf) of Ives' Himalayan Perceptions (2nd edition, Himalayan Association for the Advancement of Science, Kathmandu, July 2006).

	MountainLegacy
	Browse Archives at groups.google.com