A lot has been said in the media recently, and on unaccountable blogs, about the error in the IPCC report on the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. The IPCC has put forward a statement to “regret the poor application of well established procedures in this instance” and have assured the world of their “commitment” to ensuring the level of performance required in the future. As a coordinating lead author in the Third Assessment Report, I can affirm that the IPCC’s processes and guidelines are very carefully drafted and followed. Beyond this, the element of ‘human error’ always remains. Even the ministry of environment and forests in its State of Environment Report 2009 has said that the “… Himalayan glaciers could disappear within 50 years because of climate change….” The IPCC has an opportunity to update its statements on this issue as well as reflect new knowledge that has emerged, and will continue to do so, in its Fifth Assessment Report.

The issue in relation to the Himalayan glaciers is not whether they will melt by 2035 or not. There is substantial evidence from communities that have been living in the vicinity to reveal that there is great concern around the melting and receding of some glaciers. The key issue is that we do not have systematic studies to measure the health of the Himalayan ecosystem, including its glaciers, and understand and prepare for the consequences of any adverse impacts on the same. If the impacts are likely to be felt over many decades, the response also needs careful pl­anning and implementation, and cannot be done overnight. Additionally, the vulnerability of the countries in this region will not be determined by when the Himalayan glaciers disappear completely! We need to be able to map the vulnerability of different natural and human ecosystems to the rate of change in the larger ecosystem and understand the tipping points beyond which such vulnerabilities may become unmanageable. In sh­ort, serious and dedicated research and data generation efforts are needed to ensure that our approach and response to managing this critical eco-system is appropriate and precautionary.

The greatest challenge that this controversy, possibly deliberately played up and poses is to our commitment to action on climate change. The work of thousands of scientists over decades has resulted in the conclusion that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. It is also obvious from a review of emission trends in the recent past that our development pathways are continuing to contribute significantly to a further rapid build up of greenhouse gases aggravating the threat of climate change. The challenge of climate ch­ange is neither uni-dimensi­onal, nor geographically uniform. Clima­te change is about how the accumulation of gr­eenhouse gas­es in earth’s atmosphere would affect temperatures, pre­cipitation, snow cover, sea levels and related ex­treme ev­ents. It is for this reason that the appropriate terminology was changed fr­om ‘global wa­rming’ to ‘clima­te change’. And, the controversy over the rate of melting of the Hima­layan glaciers, ca­nnot and sh­ould not result in an easing of the urgent need for action on mitigating the emission of greenhouse gases.

Teri has been working on climate change issues from the late 1980s — well before Pa­chauri took over as chairman of IPCC in 2001 or the release and acclamation of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Re-focusing as a research institution in 1982, it has today evolved into an integrated, multi-disciplinary institute of international repute, with over 500 research professionals, focused on the wide array of issues that constitute sustainable development. The climate change division of Teri represents less than 10% of its annual activity profile and the glacier work less than 1%.

The writer is executive director, Teri