Every day, 2000 trucks have been exporting sand and stone to India from Kanchanpur to Maorang. Nowadays, by the side of the southern boarder of Nepal, government of India is constructing highway. Stone and sand are cheap in Nepal, so Indian contractors are buying it materials from Nepal. Export will certainly help to Nepali economy. However, it will increase desertification of Terai.
One truck can carry 20 cubic feet, in average, construction materials. Hence, everyday, 40 thousand cubic feet materials have been exporting India. Nepali exporters are earning Rs 21,500 profit per truck. Therefore, this is very attractive dealing for Nepali. Export permission is granted by District Development Committee, Forest Office and Customs office. All government agencies are concentrating only from economic perspective. Nobody is focusing impact of export on environment of Chure and Terai region.
Level of river is deepening in some areas of Terai region. Irrigation system is not working in Butwal areas due to low level of water in some river. Next year, these problems will be increased rapidly in other parts also. In addition, breadth of river is increasing in Terai region.
Chure area is fragile from the point of geological point of view. Its structure is weak. Nowadays, people started to take out stone from this reason. During rainy season, rivers which are flowing from these areas may leave soil and other debris in terai region. Agriculture land will be filled with such a unnecessary materials. In the end livelihood of farmer of terai region will be very much painful.
Government has made plan to implement Integrated Watershed Programme in Chure area. It has purpose Chure-Terai development programme. On the other hand, National Park and Wildlife Act and Regulation mentioned that only local people can use forest resources for their use only, not for commercial purpose. According to act, wood, stone are forest resources. People can not take these resources outside that area. It clearly shows that act has not given permission to use forest resources for commercial purpose.
It is time to study the situation of Chure-Terai region and find some area and quantity which can be taken or extracted. However, it would affect less for environment. On the other hand, revenue should be increased by making competition among buyers. Nevertheless, sustainable development should be prime concern.
बुधवार, 3 सितंबर 2008
INTERVIEW WITH DIPAK GYAWALI
Gyawali spoke with Puran P Bista and Ghanashyam Ojha.
Excerpts
Q: Why did the Koshi breach its embankment? Who was responsible for the repair work-- India or Nepal?
DipakG: It is important to step back a bit to realize that this catastrophe happened because of the unholy confluence of three things: wrong technological choice for this kind of a hydro-ecological regime, wrong institutional arrangements resulting from the Koshi Treaty that are not right for managing this kind of a trans-boundary river system, and wrong conduct in public service over the last half-century, which includes aspects of corruption as well as what people in Delhi like to deride as “Bihari politics”, but has been an intrinsic part of Independent India. After all, when the British left India, Bihar was one of the most advanced states of India, Patna University one of the top universities (which helped found Tribhuwan University), and when my grandmother was ill in Taulihawa, my father and grandfather took her, not to Lucknow nearby or Delhi but to Patna for treatment because the hospital there was the best. Today can we say the same for Independent India's Bihar? I argue that this decline in Bihar's prosperity absolutely matches the rise in “Bihari politics” brought about in no small measure by the Koshi project.
But let us start with the technological aspect, when the lateral, left-bank embankment (not the barrage across the river) collapsed on 18th August: it was not a natural disaster, but a man-made tragedy. The river flow at the time was lower than the minimum average flow for the month of August, and hence not even close to a normal flood, which had not even begun during this monsoon. In the Koshi, it generally occurs from mid-August to mid-September, and when this natural stress is added to a man-made tragedy, together they have all the potential to become a major calamity of a generation.
Q: Why is this project the wrong technological choice?
DipakG: Koshi is one of the most violent rivers in the world because it is not just a river with water in it but also a massive conveyor belt of sediment from the Himalaya to the Bay of Bengal. This is a natural geological process that is responsible for creating not just Bangladesh but also much of Bihar out of the ancient Tethys Sea. Some one hundred million cubic meters of gravel, sand and mud flow out of Chatara every year. Lest we forget, all the collected water and matter brought by Tamor, Arun and Sun Kosi rivers, all the way from Kanchenjunga in the east, through Makalu and Everest to Langtang in the west have to pass through this one gorge at Chatara. And as the river slows down in the flat Tarai plains, the sediment settles down raising the river bed and forcing the river to overflow its bank before finding a new course.
This process has essentially created the inland delta over which the Koshi has swung from Supaul in the west to Katihar in the east, like a pendulum suspended at Chatara. In the last half century, this process has been arrested by “jacketing” the Koshi within embankments at the western extreme of the delta; but this has only forced the river to deposit all the sediment within this narrow “jacket”, raised the river bed, perching the river some four meters above the surrounding land. It was a recipe ripe for this kind of catastrophe to eventually happen, as it has now.
You have to be extremely careful when you start fooling around with such awesome forces of nature. What happens when you do so without proper understanding can be easily studied on the Tinau, south of Butwal: in 1961, India built the Hattisunde barrage on the Tinau's inland delta to supply irrigation water to Marchawar in the south, but the river changed course in the following year and the barrage has been standing high and dry since then, a tribute to man's stupidity, and an equally great tribute to his incapacity to learn from mistakes. You don't build such hydro-technical structures on an unstable delta fan, and the Koshi today is just Tinau repeated at a more massive scale.
Q: What do we know of the science behind these things?
DipakG: We have been studying the Tinau and its problems since the mid-1990s, which is just the same as the Koshi except at a much smaller scale. For the Koshi, the best example is the comparison of current river flow conditions of the lower Ganga with the map prepared in 1779 by Colonel Rennel for Governor General Warren Hastings. His map shows us that the Koshi actually joined the Mechi-Mahananda, which joined the Teesta. While the Koshi has swung west, the Teesta itself has swung east to meet the Brahmaputra, while the Brahmaputra has swung from meeting the Megna to meeting the Ganga. This shows how extremely volatile the dynamically shifting pattern of this region's hydro-ecological is.
This disaster was waiting to happen because the intervention into the natural regime through the Koshi project was bad science that ignored the problem of sediment in the river. As regards science, we should also remember that deforestation has really no significant linkage with Koshi sedimentation: we have more forest cover in the Koshi catchment today, thanks also to community forestry, than we ever did in our past history; and the Myth of Himalayan Degradation (that floods in Bangladesh are due to poor farmers in Nepal cutting trees) has been scientifically debunked over two decades ago. It is Himalayan geo-tectonics coupled with the monsoon regime that is the cause of Koshi sedimentation and floods, and that cannot be battled against with bad science and even worse policy prescriptions of indiscriminate embankment building following from such bad science.
Q: Can we repair the breach once the monsoon is over?
DipakG: I doubt it, simply because the breach now is no longer a rupture in the side embankment that can be plugged once the water level goes down and the Koshi starts flowing along its original main channel. What we are seeing is the main stem of the river itself flowing through it, capturing centuries' old channel and changing its course. To change it back is like damming the Koshi anew with a new barrage, in addition to making the river do a “high jump” of at least four meters to flow along its recently abandoned bed. Believe me, it won't be too happy doing that now or in the coming years, and will find some way to continuously breach the embankment in other weak spots, and no engineer can guarantee that this won't happen, although they will have lots of fun playing with all kinds of expensive toys “to tame the Koshi”.
The problem now is no longer just the breach at Kusaha in Nepal: it is totally uncertain where the new Koshi channel will be in the middle and lower delta in Bihar. Currently, satellite pictures show that it might be moving along the Supaul channel; but I think this might just be a massive ponding that is occurring with Koshi filling every depression, canal, old oxbow lake or the space between the indiscriminately built embankments. Since the land naturally slopes eastwards, depending upon whether the coming September floods are a four lakh cusecs flood or a nine lakh one (as happened in 1968) the new Koshi could be as far east as Katihar. Even if it does not go that far this year, it is inevitable it will do so in the years to come. This river morphology dynamics has to be looked at before any new embankments or repairs of old ones can be considered.
Q: What might be correct technology then?
DipakG: First, let us put to rest another wrong technology, a high dam on the Koshi. It is wrong because it would take two or more decades to construct, thus failing to address problems of current and immediate future concerns, is extremely expensive, does not address the primary problem of sedimentation (the reservoir will fill up too soon with Himalayan muck), has no convincing answer regarding the cost of attending to high seismicity in the region as well as diversion of peak instantaneous flood during construction (it is a major engineering challenge with no easy solution), and will create more social problems when indigenous population in Nepal have to be evicted from their ancestral homes. A Koshi high dam would be tantamount to Nepal importing downstream seasonal floods as permanent features of its landscape for questionable benefits to it. I think neither India nor Nepal is in a position to afford the technical, economic and social costs associated with it.
The immediate requirements of Nepal and Bihar (and by immediate I mean from now till ten or so years) will have to be met by new and alternative technologies suited to an unstable but very fertile flood plain. Such adaptive technologies with strong social components have been traditionally used by people in the form of houses on stilts and building villages with raised plinth levels that keep life and property safe but allow the flood to easily pass by leaving fertile silt behind. It will also call into serious question the current design practices in the transportation, housing, agriculture and other sectors, forcing the adopting of new approaches that look not so much to the watershed but to the 'problemshed' for answers. There is nothing called a permanent solution (how 'permanent' is a permanent concrete dam, after all?); but building houses on stilts is a cheaper, more 'doable' and thus a better solution.
Q: Why do you say that the current management setup of the Koshi barrage and embankments was a wrong institutional arrangement?
DipakG: The answer to that question can come from looking at the highly undiplomatic and breathtakingly ill-informed statement that came out from the Indian embassy in the immediate aftermath of the breach by blaming Nepal for it. When forcing the Koshi Treaty on Nepal in the 1950s, India took upon itself all responsibility for design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Koshi project, leaving Nepal absolutely no room to do anything except allow India to quarry all the boulders they like (which incidentally are rarely used in the Koshi but find themselves black marketed to all the aggregate crushers from Muzzafferpur to Siliguri!!)
The Koshi Treaty has been criticized very often for many reasons, but the reason some of us from the socio-environmental solidarity to criticize it is because of the neo-colonial mode that is built into its institutional make-up. Instead of a proper bi-national management arrangement, Nepal can only be a by-stander even for matters within its own territory: it can't order the opening of gates during floods or the supply of irrigation waters to its fields during the dry season. Everything is in the hands of the Delhi hydrocracy, which has conveniently (and to my mind, illegitimately) washed its hands off it by hiving it off to the Bihar hydrocracy. There is institutional irresponsibility built into the treaty at every level, which was seen at the time of its signing as a “construction” treaty rather than a management one, hence you can never get sustainable and scientific management out of it. In a tragic and perverse way, the current catastrophe has washed away the very foundations of that treaty and calls for revisiting the management of the Koshi in a more sane and equitable manner.
Q: What exactly did you mean by “bad conduct”, then?
DipakG: Even if you had a wrong institutional arrangement, right conduct could have still got things done more than semi-right. What happened here was that the entire Koshi project has become a synonym for the corruption that goes by the name of Bihari politics, which “New Nepal” seems to be importing with glee. Consider the following quote from an Indian scholar studying the problem.
Such is the racket of breaches that out of the 2.5 to 3 billion rupees spent annually by the Bihar government on construction and repair works, as much as 60 percent used to be pocketed by the politician-contractors-engineers nexus. There is a perfect system of percentages in which there is a share for everyone who matters, right from the minister to the junior engineer. The actual expenditure never exceeds 30 percent of the budgeted cost and after doling out the fixed percentages, the contractors are able to pocket as much as 25 percent of the sanctioned amount. A part of this they use to finance the political activities of their pet politicians and to get further projects sanctioned. Thus the cycle goes on. [The result is that...] the contractor's bills are paid without verifying them. The same lot for boulders and craters are shown as freshly purchased year after year and the government exchequer is duped of tens of millions. Many of the desiltation and repair and maintenance works shown to have been completed are never done at all and yet payments are made....So much is the income of the engineers from the percentages that the engineers do not bother to collect their salaries.
(Fighting the Irrigation Mafia in Bihar, by Indu Bharati in the Economic and Political Weekly from Bombay in 1991, quoted by Dipak Gyawali in his book Water in Nepal/Rivers, Technology and Society, Zed Books, London and Himal Books, Kathmandu, 2001.)
This is what I mean by “wrong conduct”. My understanding, based on information filtering out of Saptari and Sunsari and on local FM channels, is that local cadres of ruling political parties got wise to the corruption practiced from across the border and began to demand a share, which was difficult for the Bihari contractors to agree to because of the high rake-in demanded by their traditional political and civil servant bosses in Patna and higher up. There were, it seems, tough negotiations going on before the start of the monsoon season, but no agreement could be reached. No formal approach was made by the Koshi officials to the most India-friendly government in power in Nepal because the issue to be resolved was not doing the work but sharing the booty. Which is why the complaint that the contractors had come on August 8 to strengthen the embankment but were not allowed to, itself begs the question: how come you come to do the repair works (if that is what you wanted to do) in the middle of the monsoon and not in January?
Q: What should be the priority now?
DipakG: There are three things needed to be done on a war footing in order of priority:
First, this is a major humanitarian tragedy of global proportions, and it should be attended to with an open heart, generous pockets and caring hands. If Biharis are coming into Nepal because that is where the only high ground is, they should be welcomed, all relief should be provided to them too, but a record should be kept and they must be handed over to the Indian government soon after the monsoon. It must be recognized that the displaced fifty thousand or so Nepalis are in all probability permanently displaced (over their village, the new Koshi probably runs and will do so for the forseeable future) and need to be housed in camps before a permanent settlement is found. Perhaps the now emptying Bhutanese refugee camps should be used for the purpose.
Second, a bridge should be constructed over the Koshi at Chatara on a war footing and the traffic along the Mahendra highway restored to connect east Nepal with the rest of the country as soon as possible. The current Kosi barrage bridge will in all probability remain as the Hattisunde barrage on the Tinau, a defunct monument of interest to future archaeologists; but even if restored, we will need a ferry system over the new Koshi channel before we can get to it.
Third, a serious public review and debate must ensue over the Koshi project and the treaty that brought about this catastrophe. The investigations and debate must be conducted jointly by civic movements in Nepal and India so that a sane path forward can be charted. Hydrocracies of both countries can contribute to this exercise, but their judgment and legitimacy are now in question, as is their hitherto unchallenged policy hegemony.
Dipak Gyawali, former Minister for Water Resources, heads Nepal Water Conservation Foundation and is hydropower expert.
Sources Of River Pollution
The sources of pollution of Ganga or for that matter any other river can be classified broadly into two categories namely;
(i) Point sources - these are organised sources of pollution where the pollution load can be measured e.g. surface drains carrying municipal sewage or industrial effluents, sewage pumping stations and sewerage systems, trade effluents from industries etc.
(ii) Non-point sources - these are non-measurable sources of pollution such as run-off from agricultural fields carrying chemicals and fertilizers, run-off from areas used for dumping of solid waste and open defecation, dumping of unburnt/half burnt dead bodies and animal carcasses, dhobi ghats, cattle wallowing, mass bathing, floral offerings etc.
(i) Point sources - these are organised sources of pollution where the pollution load can be measured e.g. surface drains carrying municipal sewage or industrial effluents, sewage pumping stations and sewerage systems, trade effluents from industries etc.
(ii) Non-point sources - these are non-measurable sources of pollution such as run-off from agricultural fields carrying chemicals and fertilizers, run-off from areas used for dumping of solid waste and open defecation, dumping of unburnt/half burnt dead bodies and animal carcasses, dhobi ghats, cattle wallowing, mass bathing, floral offerings etc.
सोमवार, 1 सितंबर 2008
A Drop To Drink
Low cost appropriate technology brings water to the Himalayas
RIMLI BOROOAH
Freelance editor and writer
DAPPLING THE verdant patch of grass where a community meeting is in progress, the afternoon sun also brings out the roses on Janki Joshi’s cheeks. Or perhaps they bloom in empathy with her vocal chords, currently engaged in urging fellow villagers to get on with the setting up of an infiltration well (IW). It’s left to Puran Ram, a veteran of such meetings, to keep things on track in his unassuming way: several matters need to be thrashed out in detail, for water is an issue that dominates the minds of the villagers of Badl, in Uttarakhand’s Kumaon hills.
There’s a water crisis in the central Himalayan region — ironically, what with the Himalayas being the source of water for most of north India — and Kumaon is particularly badly off. Near our small cottage on the outskirts of a pretty Kumaoni hill-town, most houses have a hosepipe winding its way down for several metres from a single water connection on top of the steep path. In more remote villages, the gadheras (underground streams) and naulas (traditional ‘wells’ that tap subterranean water capillaries) are drying up because of deforestation, and women often trudge long, steep distances to handpumps.
A situation IW can mitigate, as Jankiji knows for she’s seen it at work in a relative’s village. This appropriate technology (AT) device is used globally in different forms, and the form devised by British hydrologist Dr Tim Rees in the late 1980s in Kumaon is very appropriate indeed for hilly areas. About 5 ft wide and 25 to 30 ft deep, it is a combination of a unique protected well — a porous cylindrical tank with a lid — and a pump of some sort, usually a handpump. Water trickles into the tank, filtered by the sand packed around it, and is drawn up by the handpump.
An innovative extension of the traditional naula system, the IW wins over other water supply systems in several ways. It scores over the age-old naulas by being safe from contamination, being a covered structure, and by ensuring more supply by tapping a much deeper water network. Conventional handpumps, which call for digging much deeper — more than 300 ft — can only be set up close to roads, where drilling rigs can travel. They also involve heavy expenses, as do conventional piped systems. But an IW can be established in remote villages far from motorable roads as the equipment required is lightweight, costs relatively miniscule, and maintenance easy enough to be handled by villagers themselves, if trained in the technology.
Dr Rees collaborated with the NGO Pan Himalayan Grassroots Development Foundation (Grassroots), based in Ranikhet, Uttarakhand, to pass on the technology to a number of locals, including Puranji. These barefoot engineers eventually formed the Kumaon Artisans’ Guild (KAG), which now plays a vital role in promoting AT applications in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. Their method for setting up an IW involves the village community at all stages: from the initial community meetings to contributing towards the cost in cash and labour (currently Rs 55,000 to Rs 70,000; funding agencies tapped by Grassroots make up the balance), and helping in the maintenance. A KAG team, along with labour from the village, takes up to 40 days to build an IW; KAG also provides tech support later, when required.
The key factors for an IW are choosing a suitable site and maintaining the catchment area. Villagers are trained to tend to the catchment area by setting up check dams, digging percolation pits and undertaking afforestation: these ensure that the subsurface water matrix is properly recharged. Villagers have a sense of ownership and responsibility towards their water system, which ensures its smooth functioning, demonstrating that such community-managed water systems are the way to go in rural areas.
Pushpa Bisht of Ravalsera village is all smiles as she talks of how the IW in her village has made life so much easier for the women. The relief and happiness of the women laughing and joking at the IW handpump in Bhora village is palpable: the furthest any of them must walk now for water has been reduced to a few metres, as opposed to several kilometres only some months ago. Kalyan and Anita Paul of Grassroots are also happy as they impart some good news: the Uttarakhand Government has recently appointed the NGO as a resource institute to transfer knowledge of this AT to the water department staff, aiming to take this people’s technology across the state. Grassroots is keen to spread the technology, having already helped train many barefoot engineers and recently commissioned a step-by-step training film. At the same time, they sound a note of warning: it’s not enough to set up these wells; a holistic plan is required for water problems in the hills and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, if community meetings continue to be an integral part of Grassroots’ / KAG’s IW process, with the Uttarakhand Government pitching in with funds and resource transfers, perhaps other Janki Joshis will set up IWs in their villages without having to resort to a great deal of lung power. •
RIMLI BOROOAH
Freelance editor and writer
DAPPLING THE verdant patch of grass where a community meeting is in progress, the afternoon sun also brings out the roses on Janki Joshi’s cheeks. Or perhaps they bloom in empathy with her vocal chords, currently engaged in urging fellow villagers to get on with the setting up of an infiltration well (IW). It’s left to Puran Ram, a veteran of such meetings, to keep things on track in his unassuming way: several matters need to be thrashed out in detail, for water is an issue that dominates the minds of the villagers of Badl, in Uttarakhand’s Kumaon hills.
There’s a water crisis in the central Himalayan region — ironically, what with the Himalayas being the source of water for most of north India — and Kumaon is particularly badly off. Near our small cottage on the outskirts of a pretty Kumaoni hill-town, most houses have a hosepipe winding its way down for several metres from a single water connection on top of the steep path. In more remote villages, the gadheras (underground streams) and naulas (traditional ‘wells’ that tap subterranean water capillaries) are drying up because of deforestation, and women often trudge long, steep distances to handpumps.
A situation IW can mitigate, as Jankiji knows for she’s seen it at work in a relative’s village. This appropriate technology (AT) device is used globally in different forms, and the form devised by British hydrologist Dr Tim Rees in the late 1980s in Kumaon is very appropriate indeed for hilly areas. About 5 ft wide and 25 to 30 ft deep, it is a combination of a unique protected well — a porous cylindrical tank with a lid — and a pump of some sort, usually a handpump. Water trickles into the tank, filtered by the sand packed around it, and is drawn up by the handpump.
An innovative extension of the traditional naula system, the IW wins over other water supply systems in several ways. It scores over the age-old naulas by being safe from contamination, being a covered structure, and by ensuring more supply by tapping a much deeper water network. Conventional handpumps, which call for digging much deeper — more than 300 ft — can only be set up close to roads, where drilling rigs can travel. They also involve heavy expenses, as do conventional piped systems. But an IW can be established in remote villages far from motorable roads as the equipment required is lightweight, costs relatively miniscule, and maintenance easy enough to be handled by villagers themselves, if trained in the technology.
Dr Rees collaborated with the NGO Pan Himalayan Grassroots Development Foundation (Grassroots), based in Ranikhet, Uttarakhand, to pass on the technology to a number of locals, including Puranji. These barefoot engineers eventually formed the Kumaon Artisans’ Guild (KAG), which now plays a vital role in promoting AT applications in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. Their method for setting up an IW involves the village community at all stages: from the initial community meetings to contributing towards the cost in cash and labour (currently Rs 55,000 to Rs 70,000; funding agencies tapped by Grassroots make up the balance), and helping in the maintenance. A KAG team, along with labour from the village, takes up to 40 days to build an IW; KAG also provides tech support later, when required.
The key factors for an IW are choosing a suitable site and maintaining the catchment area. Villagers are trained to tend to the catchment area by setting up check dams, digging percolation pits and undertaking afforestation: these ensure that the subsurface water matrix is properly recharged. Villagers have a sense of ownership and responsibility towards their water system, which ensures its smooth functioning, demonstrating that such community-managed water systems are the way to go in rural areas.
Pushpa Bisht of Ravalsera village is all smiles as she talks of how the IW in her village has made life so much easier for the women. The relief and happiness of the women laughing and joking at the IW handpump in Bhora village is palpable: the furthest any of them must walk now for water has been reduced to a few metres, as opposed to several kilometres only some months ago. Kalyan and Anita Paul of Grassroots are also happy as they impart some good news: the Uttarakhand Government has recently appointed the NGO as a resource institute to transfer knowledge of this AT to the water department staff, aiming to take this people’s technology across the state. Grassroots is keen to spread the technology, having already helped train many barefoot engineers and recently commissioned a step-by-step training film. At the same time, they sound a note of warning: it’s not enough to set up these wells; a holistic plan is required for water problems in the hills and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, if community meetings continue to be an integral part of Grassroots’ / KAG’s IW process, with the Uttarakhand Government pitching in with funds and resource transfers, perhaps other Janki Joshis will set up IWs in their villages without having to resort to a great deal of lung power. •
When glaciers melt, bacteria move in to boost soil efficiency
A new study has determined that after mountain glaciers melt, primitive bacteria start to invade the soil immediately, enriching it with nutrients, cementing the ground, and preventing landslides.
Researchers, who have studied the process in the Peruvian Andes, carried out the study.
A few studies have looked at the types of plants that colonize mountain valleys that were previously covered in ice.
But, before plants move in, there is usually a period, which at high latitudes and altitudes can last several years, during which the newly uncovered soil appears totally barren.
According to a report in New Scientist, to investigate what is happening during this period, Steve Schmidt of the University of Colorado, US, and colleagues examined the soil at the retreating edge of the Puca glacier in the Peruvian Andes.
Between 2000 and 2005, they sampled the top 10 centimetres of ground that was revealed as the glacier moved uphill at a rate of 20 metres per year.
They analyzed the chemical structure of the samples and screened for bacteria.
They found that over the years, the “oldest” soil - the dirt taken from the point that was revealed at the glacier edge in 2000 - changed rapidly.
The first organisms to appear in the soil were cyanobacteria.
These primitive bacteria are found in many marine ecosystems and some land-based ecosystems. It is these bacteria that have pumped oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere 3.4 billion years ago, allowing land life to evolve.
By running DNA analyses on the soil, Schmidt and his colleagues show how the bacteria population changed over the first five years.
Whereas “young” soil contained just three distinct genetic strains of cyanobacteria, four-year-old soil harboured up to 20.
The cyanobacteria increased the amount of carbon available in the soil, through photosynthesis and, along with other types of bacteria; they also boosted nitrogen levels in the soil, an essential nutrient for plant life.
Another, perhaps more surprising, function of the cyanobacteria seems to be to hold the ground together.
Previous studies have shown that they secrete sugary chemicals that help hold the soil particles together and prevent erosion.
At Puca glacier, the researchers found that soil shear strength was nearly double in the oldest soil relative to the youngest.
According to Schmidt and colleagues, “An important role of cyanobacteria in extreme environments may be to hold the soil in place.” (ANI)
Researchers, who have studied the process in the Peruvian Andes, carried out the study.
A few studies have looked at the types of plants that colonize mountain valleys that were previously covered in ice.
But, before plants move in, there is usually a period, which at high latitudes and altitudes can last several years, during which the newly uncovered soil appears totally barren.
According to a report in New Scientist, to investigate what is happening during this period, Steve Schmidt of the University of Colorado, US, and colleagues examined the soil at the retreating edge of the Puca glacier in the Peruvian Andes.
Between 2000 and 2005, they sampled the top 10 centimetres of ground that was revealed as the glacier moved uphill at a rate of 20 metres per year.
They analyzed the chemical structure of the samples and screened for bacteria.
They found that over the years, the “oldest” soil - the dirt taken from the point that was revealed at the glacier edge in 2000 - changed rapidly.
The first organisms to appear in the soil were cyanobacteria.
These primitive bacteria are found in many marine ecosystems and some land-based ecosystems. It is these bacteria that have pumped oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere 3.4 billion years ago, allowing land life to evolve.
By running DNA analyses on the soil, Schmidt and his colleagues show how the bacteria population changed over the first five years.
Whereas “young” soil contained just three distinct genetic strains of cyanobacteria, four-year-old soil harboured up to 20.
The cyanobacteria increased the amount of carbon available in the soil, through photosynthesis and, along with other types of bacteria; they also boosted nitrogen levels in the soil, an essential nutrient for plant life.
Another, perhaps more surprising, function of the cyanobacteria seems to be to hold the ground together.
Previous studies have shown that they secrete sugary chemicals that help hold the soil particles together and prevent erosion.
At Puca glacier, the researchers found that soil shear strength was nearly double in the oldest soil relative to the youngest.
According to Schmidt and colleagues, “An important role of cyanobacteria in extreme environments may be to hold the soil in place.” (ANI)
Our quality of mercy
Sunita Narain
We value employment industry provides but dismiss the employment in the livelihoods of poor people.
Jambudwip is a tiny dot in the Bay of Bengal. A few years ago, it hit headlines when wildlife activists dragged fishermen, who used the landmass to dry their fish, to the Supreme Court. A case was filed regarding ‘encroachment’ of this island, partly covered by mangroves. The apex court’s central empowered committee (CEC), which advises it in all forest matters, got into the act. Its report to the court was clear: Fish drying was a non-forest activity, so disallowed under the Forest Conservation Act (1980).
The fishermen appealed. They had to go out into the open sea for days, putting life on hold and everything they had at risk. Jambudwip was a convenient transit camp; they used this nearest landmass, with a natural harbour, only to dry fish. They had no fancy refrigeration; this was the only way they could preserve fish for sale in the mainland. Their practices were sustainable — fishing nets were handcrafted to catch only the adult fish, leaving the small to the sea. They used the sun to dry fish. They took from nature only what they needed.
The fishermen also put forward a plan — use the money we pay for permits to the forest department to plant mangroves; create a sustainable management plan for the island; restrict boat numbers. Sensible solutions. But “No”, said the CEC. The court concurred. In one stroke, the livelihood of over 10,000 people engaged in fishing, drying, transporting and selling fish ended.
Was it a victory for conservation?
Cut now to another ‘forest case’. Same court, same committee. This time, though, the matter concerned a very powerful industrial house — Sterlite Industries, the subsidiary of London-based Vedanta plc — which wanted some 700 hectare of rich, much more bio-diverse and valuable forest for its bauxite mine. This time, the decision was different. Court and committee agreed to a compromise. The company could get the forest, but would have to pay for the value of the forest to be destroyed — Rs 55 crore, paltry when you think of the wildlife and the priceless watershed value of this forest, which feeds two rivers and countless streams of the region. It would also have to pay another Rs 50 crore for a wildlife management plan. And of course, it would only do ‘sustainable’ mining. No questions were asked on how ripping the top of a hill and dumping three tonnes of waste for every tonne of bauxite mined in a high rainfall area could be sustainable.
In this case, the apex court was possibly conscious that it could not hold up ‘development’, and opted for a middle path. So let us move back in time. Same committee, same court. Some years ago, the committee had decided that no non-forest activity would be allowed in any national park or sanctuary, not even removing dead or decaying trees, grasses or drift wood. In the sanctuary of Kumbalgarh, in Rajasthan, this order was a death-knell for camels, which used the area, for three monsoon months, to graze. No appeal worked. Conservation science itself proved grazing benefited the sanctuary in these months. But “No”, said the committee. “No”, said the court.
Back to the present. Same committee. Same court. The matter is of diamond mining in the core area of the Panna national park, where tigers breed. The decision: Mining to continue in the protected reserve; company to pay some 5 per cent of its capital cost and the net present value of the forests it would destroy. Interestingly, no deadline has been given for closure of the mine, which is a non-forest activity in protected core of the park.
These cases are not just about power and powerlessness. They are about our understanding of what works for conservation and what is good for development. It is clear we cannot comprehend why livelihoods of the poor are important. In our view, these are both destructive of the environment and dispensible. So, we value the ‘employment’ (meagre by any standards) modern industry will provide, but dismiss the employment, much larger in numbers, in livelihoods.
We also believe modern industry, which by its very nature is extractive and destructive of resources, can be made sustainable. But we cannot believe the economies of the poor, which do not have such huge footprints to begin with, can be managed for sustainability. It is either our contempt for their practices or for the people, or both. In this way, increasingly, conservation has become a mere money game. If you can pay, you can cut the forest, destroy the wildlife. No forest is so priceless it cannot be cut, or land so inviolate it cannot be had. Not by the poor, because they cannot pay and in any case their use is destructive and valueless. But by the rich.
Whatever happened to our quality of mercy?
We value employment industry provides but dismiss the employment in the livelihoods of poor people.
Jambudwip is a tiny dot in the Bay of Bengal. A few years ago, it hit headlines when wildlife activists dragged fishermen, who used the landmass to dry their fish, to the Supreme Court. A case was filed regarding ‘encroachment’ of this island, partly covered by mangroves. The apex court’s central empowered committee (CEC), which advises it in all forest matters, got into the act. Its report to the court was clear: Fish drying was a non-forest activity, so disallowed under the Forest Conservation Act (1980).
The fishermen appealed. They had to go out into the open sea for days, putting life on hold and everything they had at risk. Jambudwip was a convenient transit camp; they used this nearest landmass, with a natural harbour, only to dry fish. They had no fancy refrigeration; this was the only way they could preserve fish for sale in the mainland. Their practices were sustainable — fishing nets were handcrafted to catch only the adult fish, leaving the small to the sea. They used the sun to dry fish. They took from nature only what they needed.
The fishermen also put forward a plan — use the money we pay for permits to the forest department to plant mangroves; create a sustainable management plan for the island; restrict boat numbers. Sensible solutions. But “No”, said the CEC. The court concurred. In one stroke, the livelihood of over 10,000 people engaged in fishing, drying, transporting and selling fish ended.
Was it a victory for conservation?
Cut now to another ‘forest case’. Same court, same committee. This time, though, the matter concerned a very powerful industrial house — Sterlite Industries, the subsidiary of London-based Vedanta plc — which wanted some 700 hectare of rich, much more bio-diverse and valuable forest for its bauxite mine. This time, the decision was different. Court and committee agreed to a compromise. The company could get the forest, but would have to pay for the value of the forest to be destroyed — Rs 55 crore, paltry when you think of the wildlife and the priceless watershed value of this forest, which feeds two rivers and countless streams of the region. It would also have to pay another Rs 50 crore for a wildlife management plan. And of course, it would only do ‘sustainable’ mining. No questions were asked on how ripping the top of a hill and dumping three tonnes of waste for every tonne of bauxite mined in a high rainfall area could be sustainable.
In this case, the apex court was possibly conscious that it could not hold up ‘development’, and opted for a middle path. So let us move back in time. Same committee, same court. Some years ago, the committee had decided that no non-forest activity would be allowed in any national park or sanctuary, not even removing dead or decaying trees, grasses or drift wood. In the sanctuary of Kumbalgarh, in Rajasthan, this order was a death-knell for camels, which used the area, for three monsoon months, to graze. No appeal worked. Conservation science itself proved grazing benefited the sanctuary in these months. But “No”, said the committee. “No”, said the court.
Back to the present. Same committee. Same court. The matter is of diamond mining in the core area of the Panna national park, where tigers breed. The decision: Mining to continue in the protected reserve; company to pay some 5 per cent of its capital cost and the net present value of the forests it would destroy. Interestingly, no deadline has been given for closure of the mine, which is a non-forest activity in protected core of the park.
These cases are not just about power and powerlessness. They are about our understanding of what works for conservation and what is good for development. It is clear we cannot comprehend why livelihoods of the poor are important. In our view, these are both destructive of the environment and dispensible. So, we value the ‘employment’ (meagre by any standards) modern industry will provide, but dismiss the employment, much larger in numbers, in livelihoods.
We also believe modern industry, which by its very nature is extractive and destructive of resources, can be made sustainable. But we cannot believe the economies of the poor, which do not have such huge footprints to begin with, can be managed for sustainability. It is either our contempt for their practices or for the people, or both. In this way, increasingly, conservation has become a mere money game. If you can pay, you can cut the forest, destroy the wildlife. No forest is so priceless it cannot be cut, or land so inviolate it cannot be had. Not by the poor, because they cannot pay and in any case their use is destructive and valueless. But by the rich.
Whatever happened to our quality of mercy?
Water everywhere, and not a drop to grow
VIEWPOINT Colin Chartres Limited availability of fresh water is often overlooked as a cause of food scarcity and environmental decline, according to Colin Chartres. Governments should be ramping up efforts to make sure we have enough to grow crops as well as enough to drink, he argues.
Essentially, every calorie of food requires a litre of water to produce it
This year, the world and, in particular, developing countries and the poor have been hit by both food and energy crises.
As a consequence, prices for many staple foods have risen by up to 100%.
When we examine the causes of the food crisis, there are many contributing factors: a growing population, changes in trade patterns, urbanisation, dietary habits, biofuel production, climate change and regional droughts.
Thus, we have a classic increase in prices as a result of high demand and low supply. However, few commentators specifically mention the declining availability of water that is needed to grow irrigated and rain-fed crops.
According to some, the often mooted solution to the food crisis lies in plant breeding that produces the ultimate high yielding, low water-consuming crops.
While this solution is important, it will fail unless attention is paid to where the water for all the food, fibre and energy crops is going to come from.
Thirsty world
The causes of water scarcity are essentially identical to those of the food crisis.
There are serious and extremely worrying factors that indicate water supplies are close to exhaustion in some countries.
Human needs for water have to be balanced against nature’s needs
Population growth over the next four decades will see the number of people in the world increase from 6.5 billion up to 9.0 billion.
Essentially, every calorie of food requires a litre of water to produce it.
So on average, we require between 2,000 and 3,000 litres of water per person to sustain our daily food requirements.
We will have 2.5 billion extra mouths to feed by 2050, so finding the extra water each year will not be an easy task, given that it is more than double what is currently used in irrigation.
We also have to bear in mind that the availability of new fertile land in humid areas for rain-fed farming is extremely limited.
Recent studies, as part of the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, have indicated that we will not be able to produce all the food, feed and fibre required in 2050 unless we improve the way we manage water.
Invest and survive
A few years ago, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) demonstrated that many countries are facing severe water scarcity, either as a result of a lack of available freshwater, or as a consequence of a lack of investment in infrastructure such as dams and reservoirs.
Current estimates indicate that we will not have enough water to feed ourselves in 40 years time
What makes matters worse is that this scarcity predominantly affects developing countries where the majority of the world’s 840 million undernourished people live.
However, there are potential solutions. These include more water storage, improved management of irrigation systems and increasing water productivity in irrigated and rain-fed farming systems.
All of these will require investment in knowledge, infrastructure and human capacity.
Better water storage has to be considered. Ethiopia, which is typical of many sub-Saharan African countries, has a storage capacity of 38 cubic metres per person.
In contrast, Australia has almost 5,000 cubic metres per person, an amount that in the face of current climate change impacts may be inadequate.
Whilst there will be a need for new large and medium-sized dams to deal with this critical lack of storage in Africa, other simpler solutions will also be part of the equation.
Governments should make sure water infrastructure is up to standard
These include the construction of small reservoirs, sustainable use of groundwater systems including artificial groundwater recharge, and rainwater harvesting for smallholder vegetable gardens.
Improved year-round access to water will help farmers maintain their own food security using simple supplementary irrigation techniques.
The redesign of both the physical and institutional arrangements of some large and often dysfunctional irrigation schemes will also bring the required productivity increases.
Safe, risk-free re-use of wastewater from growing cities will also be needed.
Of course, these actions need to be paralleled by development of drought-tolerant crops, and the provision of infrastructure and facilities to get fresh food to markets.
Resource competition
Since the formulation of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), much of the water agenda has been focused around the provision of drinking water and sanitation.
This puts demand on the same resources as agricultural water; and as we urbanise and improve living standards, increasing competition for drinking water from domestic and other urban users will put agriculture under further pressure.
While improving drinking water and sanitation is vital with respect to health and living standards, we cannot afford to neglect the provision and improved productivity of water for agriculture.
Many communities are still struggling to gain enough clean water
Current estimates indicate that we will not have enough water to feed ourselves in 40 years’ time, by when the current food crisis may turn into a perpetual crisis.
Just as in other areas of agricultural research and development, investment in the provision and better management of water resources has declined steadily since the Green Revolution.
My water science colleagues and I are raising a warning flag that significant investment in both research and development and water infrastructure development is needed if dire consequences are to be avoided.
Dr Colin Chartres is director-general of the Sri Lanka-based International Water Management Institute (IWMI), a not-for-profit research organisation focusing on the sustainable management of water resources for food, livelihoods and the environment
To read the summary of “Water for Food, Water for Life”, visit http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Assessment
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)