Expression»
The future is unclear
JUN 04 -
Based on tectonic theories of continental drift, the Himalayas began to form nearly 40 to 50 million years ago. A few geologists have analysed rocks from around the region and claimed that the Himalayas could be as old as 500 million years. Nevertheless, the Himalayas, believed to be rising more than one centimeter per year, are the youngest mountain range along with the Alps, the Andes, and the Nilgiris. In recent decades, the complexities of the Himalayan ecosystem are unexplored, misunderstood, or both. On top of that, global warming could be a major threat to the existence of the majestic peaks. It may be too late to retrospect the needs and deeds necessary to save the range.
The noise over the Himalayas was amplified after a cabinet meeting of mask-wearing ministers on December 4, 2009, at Kala Patthar—the base of Everest. A 10-points Kala Patthar declaration paved the way to the Copenhagen Climate Conference, but the summit itself failed miserably due to conflicts between developed and developing nations. Later on, the Government of Nepal (GoN) along with other South Asian countries reiterated their concerns about climate change and its consequences at the Thimphu SAARC Summit. However, from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, the GoN had reproduced dozens of reports with a long list of recommendations. The unsolved mystery is—how are national stakeholders comprehending Himalayan complexities? A perennial fear that global warming could be the new begging bowl of the corrupt politico-administrative set-up has already emerged.
There exists a fundamental problem on understanding the dynamics of cause and effect of rising global temperatures. A solo beating of the effect drum may not herald substantial change in the causes. Likewise, simply blaming others is nothing but a deceptive action. All citizens need to know how Nepal is prepared to address local causes of global warming. How will farmers adapt to the changing ecosystems?
It would only be pragmatic if all stakeholders can deal with both principal and accessory elements that stimulate the release of greenhouse gases. Let’s examine some of the anomalies.
First, the roles and responsibilities of GoN on environment conservation vis-à-vis sustainability are always substandard because of weak institutions and a corrupt leadership. Besides, piecemeal approaches rarely touch the root of problems. For example, how can a typical farmer arrest the release of greenhouse gases and check a further deterioration of the local watershed? At a local level, are there any implementing agencies?
All so-called environmental conservation efforts by Nepal are nothing but paper tigers because of the lack of local governments for more than a decade. Hence, a partial recycling of the centre’s piecemeal policies would hardly herald a wishful outcome at the local level.
Second, there is no doubt that the majority of the peaks are open to climbing expeditions, but almost all of them could have crossed their carrying capacity. Does any public and private agency bother about it? Probably not; both agents are simply driven by a wish to maximise their ‘mountain dollars’. Why would third parties be required to clean up the junk accumulated over the timberline?
Third, the Himalayas could be the next victims of a ‘resource curse’. As we all know, rent-seekers of Nepal’s natural capital have almost exhausted both forests and rivers. In the future, the forest and river mafia may even build a motley relation with the politico-bureaucracy and may not lag behind to claim ownership over a mountain peak.
Fourth, Himalayan conservation efforts are further maligned by a chronic syndrome of the environmentalist—worrying about everything but doing nothing. A bandwagon of public stunts as well as wishful thinking expressed at national and international seminars are nothing but a laughing stock. Everybody loves to advise everyone. Don’t we know that tree plantation could be far more effective than recycling a seminar anywhere?
Fifth, different stakeholders such as socio-cultural communities, economic agents, public agencies, and international organisations have conflicting values about the Himalayas. But their bottom-line would be to avoid the ‘tragedy of commons’. For example, what if the snow-capped peaks turn into debris in the coming decades? Does Nepal have a clue to reverse the tragedy?
The Himalayas are a global capital that deserve to be sustained in natural ways for generations to come. The so-called pride in conquering them is nothing but self- gloating and violation of nature’s law. If there is a continuation of defying nature, we expect its curse, not its blessing.
Posted on: 2010-06-05 08:52
Headlines
Advertisements
