Rolwaling e-conference: postscript

Professor John M. Reynolds

Seth has asked me for a few comments as a postscript to the e-conference. There have been three principal contributions, from Professor Jack Ives, Dr Janice Sacherer and myself. It is not my intention to regurgitate the arguments from these presentations. However, I feel that a number of issues have been raised that would be good to highlight. These are a personal perspective and others may feel that a different emphasis should be made. So be it. Furthermore some issues have been raised that I do not feel competent to comment on other than as an informed lay person, such as the Bhutanese refugee crisis, as these lie outside of the main focus for this e-conference. They are no less important within a broader political debate.

In order to keep this postscript succinct, I will make comments in note form:-

• Prof. Ives and I have discussed the relevance of the term ‘jökulhlaup’ in relation to Glacier Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs). The glaciological preference is to restrict the use of ‘jökulhlaup’ to glacier outbursts arising from sub-glacial hydrological jacking, as occurs commonly but not exclusively in Iceland, and to not use the term synonymously for glacial lake outburst floods.

• Prof. Ives rightly states that a warming trend will reduce the hazard pertaining to ice-dammed lakes while increasing that resulting from moraine-dammed lakes. However, it cannot be assumed that once a lake has undergone a GLOF that it cannot be the source of a further event, and cited Dig Tsho as an example. However, historical evidence suggests that in some circumstances one lake can be involved in multiple GLOF-style events, such as occurred in 1951 at Artesanraju at Laguna Paròn, which suffered from two events a few months apart caused by ice avalanche activity. Dig Tsho is still potentially of concern due to the presence of a hanging glacier that could impact into the lake causing a displacement wave that would pass through the existing breach and cause a short-lived hiatus in the downstream river. The scale of a potential future event may have been reduced but a local hazard still exists. It is therefore important that the total hazard is considered in such cases and is monitored over time.

• Re-reading Prof. Ives’ original contribution I am not happy with his assertion that “two outside and neutral experts were invited [to the World Bank Paris meeting in 1995, regarding the situation with Arun III] to keep the party honest”. The inference is that other parties there were inherently dishonest, and as one of those parties, I strongly refute such a suggestion. Furthermore, Prof. Ives’ recollection of events at that meeting is prejudicially selective and pejorative. He also stated that "everyone present concluded that the GLOF hazard to the construction site was minimal and could be easily averted after construction had begun.". This was not so. I described in my article how I had stated at that meeting that no proper assessment of the hazard had been undertaken and that one was needed in order to make a judgement about likely impact on construction, etc. This was why the World Bank granted a sum of $500,000 to the Federal Institute of Geosciences (BGR), Hanover, Germany, to instigate a field investigation with my input. The German delegation indicated to me at the meeting their reluctance to finance a flawed project, so Prof. Ives’ suggestion that it was related principally to Watanabe’s paper on his work at Imja is not entirely accurate. Furthermore, that the reference to Imja Tsho was not considered relevant at the meeting has been justified by subsequent research undertaken by my team, which has demonstrated the lake not to be in imminent danger of breaching through the terminal moraine (as at 2004). While the ICIMOD/UNEP report states that Imja Tsho is one of the most dangerous lakes in Nepal, partly due to Watanabe’s work (although he did not study the hazard specifically, but the thermokarst processes within the moraine), their assertion is not backed by any scientific evidence. Just repeating this assertion does not make it correct. Imja Tsho, as I have said many times previously, should be monitored but is not a major hazard at present.

• It is clear following the publication of the Stern report in 2006 on the economic effects of climate change and just recently the preliminary results from the fourth assessment by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that the anthropogenic influence on climate is now evidently identifiable. Suggestions that the situation regarding the demise of the ice cover on Mt Kilimanjaro is an illusion with the intent to deceive a gullible public beggars belief. I would refer readers to the considerable body of independent and objective research undertaken on tropical glaciers, including on Mt Kilimanjaro, by Georg Kaser’s group at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

• Prof. Ives apparently believes that because the area of some glaciers has not changed much (e.g. 5% between 1968 and 2004 for the Arikaree Glacier) over recent decades that climate change is not as important an issue as some would make out. Certain styles of glacier are relatively insensitive by area to changes in temperature but experience significant lowering of their surface (not necessarily obvious on 2-D satellite images or aerial photographs) with significant reductions in ice volume, which is extremely important when considering water resource issues, for instance. I have studied glaciers throughout the Himalayas, Kashmir, Hindu Kush, Tien Shan, Norway, Andes, Antarctica, Europe, etc., and the influence of climate change on the volume of ice within the cryosphere is dramatic, especially since the mid-1970s. Undoubtedly there have been exaggerations for effect in some quarters, for a variety of reasons, and such excesses are to be deplored, but so too are the protestations of the vociferous few who downplay the seriousness of the adverse effects of climate change, however it is caused.

• Discussions about the effects of climate change on World Heritage Sites, such as Sagamartha National Park, Nepal, and Huascarán National Park, Peru, among others, at UNESCO in Paris in March 2006 raised important issues about the effects of climate change on sensitive and important environments. By necessity some groups are focusing on issues considered to be too narrow by others, and set aside other, perhaps equally important issues. This does not mean that the narrow issue is less relevant or should be ignored. Rather, I think that approaches to consider aspects of environmental protection can be done effectively incrementally. To do nothing unless the whole picture is addressed is unrealistic. The debate at UNESCO, to which I was privileged to be party to, was balanced, well considered and extensive. Furthermore, the debate was constrained around the legal mechanisms within international agreements and the national responsibilities under the UNESCO mandate. This approach does not negate the necessity or urgency to address other areas of concern, such as those Prof. Ives rightly raises; neither does it negate the validity of the discussions at the UNESCO meeting. Perhaps by constructively addressing issues in parallel, the larger environmental concerns will eventually be dealt with.

• Prof. Ives rightly raised the issue of social and political problems. Dr Sacherer, also from her extensive work in Rolwaling, echoed these in her article. However, while there are some major political international issues, such as the Bhutanese refugee crisis, their inclusion within this e-conference serves to distract from the geographical focal point of our discussions. Work we commissioned in the Cordillera Blanca, Peru, on the social perception of local geohazards, threw up many surprises, including how little work has been done to research this subject and how important it is to local communities. Yet this is important in developing social strategies to manage geohazards and georisk.

• This leads on to the potential development of Rolwaling. There is a clear consensus that the future viability of Rolwaling communities is tied up with the reduction in hazard at Tsho Rolpa, and infrastructure development within the valley. This must be done sensitively with respect to both the physical and social environments, and should include the provision of electricity and other social benefits, as other contributors to the e-conference have also suggested.

• There are discussions ongoing with respect to the re-assessment of glacial hazards at Tsho Rolpa and separately the general issue of the management of glacial lakes in Nepal. Furthermore, there have been extremely significant changes since June 2006 in international policies regarding donor support for Disaster Risk Reduction. How these will translate into tangible and sustainable projects, only time will tell. As Dr Sacherer states in her article, unless Tsho Rolpa is remediated, the further development of Rolwaling will not happen and this is likely to lead to the demise of the communities within the valley.

• With respect to assessing glacial hazards, the technology and methodologies now exist to do this objectively and with good scientific basis, as I described in my article.

• So where to now? There needs to be an assessment of what the wishes are of the Rolwaling communities, those present permanently in the valley and those who have moved away but who might wish to return. This is perhaps something that can develop from this e-conference and the Mountain Legacy. The results of such work must be communicated to the responsible government agencies and the donor community so that development work within the valley is not done in isolation or in ignorance of the wishes of the local community. It must be done in partnership. Therein lies the challenge.

  To participate in this e-conference, please join the Mountain Legacy Google group. When posting, please include your full name, nationality, and pertinent organizations with which you are affiliated. The MountainLegacy Google group is moderated: you will not receive spam through it, and your email address will remain confidential.

  	MountainLegacy
  	Browse Archives at groups.google.com