A view from the Monkey Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Image: Flickr/nodogplease
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
KATHMANDU – Environmental resource conflict – or the potential for it – is never far away in the Himalayas.
In the west of the region, arguments between Pakistan and India over vital water resources in areas bordering the two countries continue. In the east tensions are rising as India expresses concerns about a spate of planned dam-building projects by China on rivers flowing into Indian territory, particularly on the mighty Brahmaputra. Meanwhile Nepal and the north Indian state of Bihar accuse each other of mismanaging water resources that straddle the border.
Regional cooperation is limited and, in many areas, non-existent. In some countries data on vital environmental factors, such as river flows and management, falls into the category of national security and is closely guarded.
The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, founded in the early 1980s and based in Kathmandu, Nepal's capital, is the only intergovernmental body gathering cross-border environmental information and monitoring climate change across a region stretching from the mountains of the Hindu Kush and Afghanistan in the west to Yunnan in southwest China in the east.
It's an area described as a climate "hot spot," with temperatures in many parts rising faster than the global average.
In an ambitious project, the center has been gathering information on communities' attitudes and responses to climate change and socio-economic factors affecting their livelihoods. More than 6,000 households – mainly in mountain areas – have responded to a detailed questionnaire.
Results are still being analyzed and documented, says Valdemar Holmgren, a climate change adaptation specialist at the center. "But early indications from one area in Nepal clearly show people are fully aware of changes in climate patterns."
The survey indicates that more than 80 percent of households in the Koshi River basin in the east of Nepal notice a change in temperature, while about 90 percent note changes in rainfall.
"Seasonality is not the same as it used to be", says Holmgren. "In many areas farmers are changing crops in order to adapt to changing climate conditions. But for many it is very hard."
Often, say specialists, climate is not the sole reason or the driving factor in people altering their way of life.
"In many mountain communities climate change might not be, at present, the central problem," says Holmgren. "Outward migration of the men in search of work is a big issue, with women left to do the work and manage the family finances. Changes in climate become an additional pressure on communities struggling to cope."
"The climate is increasingly erratic. In between days of rainfall there are long, dry periods."
Exactly how much climate change is occurring in the Himalayan region is a matter of considerable debate. The gathering of data across such a vast and inaccessible region is a complex business, made more difficult by regional suspicions and rivalries.
A recent report by the United Nations Environment Programme said that between 1982 and 2006, the average annual mean temperature in the region increased by 1.5˚C, with an average increase of 0.06˚C per year although, said the report, "the rate of warming varies across seasons and ecoregions."
Dhrupad Choudhury, program manager at the Integrated Mountain Development Center, says that within Nepal change is evident, though it manifests itself differently in various parts of the country.
Communities clearly see a reduction in the duration of rainfall. The monsoon is arriving later in the west of the country, while in the east it is completing earlier. This means that in some areas crops wilt and production falls.
"The climate is increasingly erratic," Choudhury said. "In between days of rainfall there are long, dry periods – overall the perception is that production has gone down across the region."
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentWow, whats with deleting all the comments on these articles? If the conversation is getting out of hand, the moderator that's making these decisions needs to speak up as tell us what we're doing wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissault. On this we agree. Much as I might disagree with you, I would never wish to deny you the right to comment. It seems to me that the authors are having a rush of blood to the head & really do not want free & robust discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault and Carlyle, LOL! Do y'all mind if I print out and save those two comments? Full agreement here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissault, Carlyle & Postman1. I image your comments are deleted because they are usually highly biased against the reality of science and climate change. Since this report is discussing something you believe isn't real your comments are probably a little silly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe my guest. Just shows, there is a first time for everything :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey if they are deleting all the ridiculous climate change denialist comments I support them 100%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest mistake science minded folk ever made was assuming that logic and reason would win the day.
With that in mind they engaged the denialists in discussion, and the result was their worst nightmare.
No amount of logic or reasonable discussion or rational explanations of why they were misunderstanding the data made a difference.
All facts were dismissed as scientists with an agenda who were just using climate change as a way to gain access to an endless flow of gubment funding.
Yet respected scientists persisted, and the ultimate result was to lend the denialists credibility they simply did NOT have in the eyes of the public, because hey if they didn't have a point or they didn't have a clue about what they were talking about, then why would REAL scientists be talking with them.
The solution much too late in coming was the one they should have used in the beginning, and that is refuse to engage in a conversation or host comments rooted in obvious ignorance that doubt the science in question or the integrity of the profession based on nothing but paranoid suspicion of our government or systems.
You cannot have a rational and logical discussion with people who have no idea what they or you are talking about.
Dismissing them from the discussion is the right choice, and if deleting their comments is the method this column chooses they are doing the absolute right thing.
A science website is NOT the place to host such stupidity. By allowing it, a science website lends it credibility.
By treating it with contempt Science will slowly regain the respect it deserves. Respect lost, because the respect that was given to the denialists was used to aggressively attack science in general but science as a profession and its motivations.
It isn't smug pretension it's logical, rational and justified to say someone with a PhD in whatever subject DOES know what he or she is talking about vs a vs. the average person on the street who knows a topic from personal research no matter how deep.
It's high time for those people with PhD's to stop entertaining fools and wasting the time of the public who really do care and want to understand the topics they research.
If you want to write endless comments questioning the science or the integrity of the researchers go to Fox news or go to a personal blog.
Scientific American does science and itself a great disservice by hosting groundless, ignorant comments rooted not in ideology.
Having just finished the articles on Siberia and the Red Sea - Dead Sea canal (better red than dead?) I thank you for another insightful article. The Nepalese are adapting let us hope the 3 major powers in the area (China, India, and Pakistan) can learn to adapt and co operate or the result will be bloody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with your comments. However I believe the reason that some of the public still have no faith in science has to do with the power (money) of the vested interests. I know in Australia the mainstream media is very much owned and controlled by interests that have large exposure to profits from coal and other polluting industries. This controlled media spills volumes of blatant lies, distortions and cherry picked data out onto the public that wash away any truths that science can diseminate via less popular media. Untill there is unbiased information available via the mainstream media the 'ignorant' and easly lead will believe the tripe they are being feed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInterestingly the science that is being challenged is mostly only to do with climate change.....I wonder why. Most people who challenge climate science are perfectly happy to get their kids vaccinated!