Thursday, February 09, 2012


Features

Shrinking Glaciers Threaten Tajikistan's Economic Dreams

The Tajik village of Barchid has seen a changing of the seasons, and less water to boot.
TEXT SIZE - +
By Farangis Najibullah
Like many other farmers in the remote village of Barchid, lying in the shadow of Tajikistan's Pamir Mountains, Makbulsho Yakinshoev knows little about issues like greenhouse-gas emissions or global warming.

But the 65-year-old Tajik farmer knows what he sees, and for years he has seen his fruit and vegetable harvests decline as the glacier that looms above his village retreats.

"In the past I used to sell 50 to 100 kilograms of tomatoes and cucumbers. It's my main source of income. Last year I had barely any harvest," Yakinshoev says. He says that he used to be able to send five sacks of potatoes and carrots to his two children who study in Dushanbe for the winter, but this year he could only send them one.

Over the years, Yakinshoev has observed many changes in Barchid, which is located some 3,000 meters above sea level and depends on a glacier of the same name for drinking water and irrigation. In the past decade, "it seems that the winter seasons have become warmer and the summer months much cooler and shorter than before," Yakinshoev says. "Summer is over before my tomatoes turn red, and the shortage of water is harming the potato crop."

And Yakinshoev isn't the only one noticing. Scientists both in Tajikistan and abroad link the water shortages, the cooler summer seasons, and the increasingly warmer winters to climate change. "In the past, the impacts of global warming were more evident in the valleys," says Haqnazar Oghonazarov, director of Tajikistan's Pamir Biological Institute. "But now we are witnessing very obvious signs of climate change in the mountains, too, thousands of meters above sea level."

Suffering From Change

Statistically, Tajikistan is not considered a major contributor to climate change. The country ranks 109th in the world in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions, and 129th in emissions per capita, according to a recent report by Oxfam International. The country's 7 million people emit fewer than a ton of carbon dioxide per person every year, compared to nearly 20 tons per capita by North Americans.

Some rivers have been running dry in recent years.
However, it is one of countries hit hardest by climate change, according to nongovernmental organizations focused on reducing poverty and its causes. A recent Oxfam report, titled "Reaching Tipping Point? Climate Change And Poverty In Tajikistan," warned that shrinking glaciers and extreme weather conditions could erode food security over the next four decades in Tajikistan. It's a scenario that could have dire consequences if not addressed in time: the loss of flora and fauna, outmigration, and even regional instability.

According to data cited by Oxfam, Tajikistan has seen a temperature rise of 1.0-1.2 degrees Celsius from 1940-2000, while 20 percent of its more than 8,000 glaciers have retreated, and some have disappeared completely.

Drought in the country, in which nearly two-thirds of agricultural production depends on irrigation, has become common. Before good rains broke the cycle in 2009, Tajikistan endured three consecutive drought years. During those years, the country's water supply was dependent on glacier melt to the tune of 80 percent during the summer months; in normal seasons melting glaciers would supply around 10-20 percent of the water that flows through the country's immense network of rivers.

Temperatures have explored extreme limits: 2008 was one of the coldest winters on record, with temperatures reaching minus 40 degrees Celsius and contributing to crop losses.

Shrinking Glaciers

Scientists predict that droughts will be ever more frequent in the coming years. Oxfam says that in addition to those that have already retreated or melted, up to 30 percent of Tajikistan's glaciers will shrink or disappear completely by 2050.

The Fedchenko Glacier, a massive glacier located in central Badakhshan Province some 80 kilometers to the north of Barchid, provides one of the most alarming examples. Sitting 6,500 meters above sea level and covering 700 square kilometers, the world's longest glacier outside the polar regions is melting at a rate of 16-20 meters a year.

Overall, Oghonazarov of the Pamir Biological Institute says, "glaciers, the treasure troves of water, are getting increasingly thinner and smaller."

"The amount of water coming from glaciers is diminishing. In the past, spring waters in each village were enough to cover our local irrigation needs," Oghonazarov adds. "Now there's an obvious water deficit in our villages." Meanwhile, the rivers' water volumes have fallen considerably because of the shrinking glaciers.

Left High And Dry

Considering that Tajikistan's glaciers feed some 50 percent of the rivers in all of Central Asia, any drop in the water supply could have severe implications across the entire region. Water resources have already been a source of disagreements between the region's upstream countries, like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and downstream Uzbekistan. Dwindling water supplies could bring a rise in tensions.

There are also enormous economic issues at stake. Tajikistan has high hopes to boost its bankrupt economy and resolve its longstanding energy crisis by drawing on its immense wealth of rivers to generate hydroelectric power . Any drop in water volumes could put the country's plans to become an energy exporter in jeopardy.

Farmer Makbulsho Yakinshoev wonders if he'll need to find a new livelihood at 65.
It's not only people who stand to suffer from climate change. Oghonazarov says many rare species of animals and plants could face extinction. "I can speak in concrete numbers. In the recent past, there were, on average, 10-15 wild plants per square meter. Now, that number has decreased by 20-25 percent," he says. "Around residential areas, the amount of grass and plants -- the primary source of food for grazing animals -- has decreased by up to 40 percent due to water shortages."

Tajikistan has stationed dozens of scientists in Badakhshan to monitor the effects of climate change to the area's flora, fauna. They keep a close eye on melting glaciers, but stopping or reducing the pace of climate change is beyond their control.

Oghonazarov says that all Tajikistan can do is to adapt itself to new realities. "We are trying to find other alternatives for local farming -- vegetables that require less water or can survive water shortages," he says. The Pamir Biological Institute is preparing a new manual for local farmers offering them advice on how to adapt to climate change. "It's not an easy task, though," the institute's director adds.

Yakinshoev, in the meantime, is running low on food to get his family through the end of this winter, and is already anxious about the coming farming season. "I used to work as a carpenter during the Soviet times," he says. "But I had to change my occupation and take up farming because the money I got from my previous job was no longer enough to support my family."

Now, the elderly farmer admits he has considered changing his occupation once again. But considering his age and the rampant unemployment in the country, Yakinshoev fears it might be too late.

RFE/RL's Tajik Service correspondent in Khorog, Mirzojalol Shohjamol, contributed to this report
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Sean Maxwell from: Saint-Denis, Belgium
March 01, 2010 23:27
Typical left-wing climate change alarmism! Of course Tajikistan is one of the lesser emitters of CO2 - they're a backward state. But when will someone in the press recognize that real scientists have noted NO CONNECTION between CO2 emissions and climate change? Just like Al Gore loves to talk about the ice cap on Kilimanjaro diminishing; it is entirely related to changes in precipitation levels and has NOTHING to do with man-made causes.

by: Guest
March 02, 2010 12:44
Actually, Sean is wrong: there is a simple, direct correlation between increased CO2 emissions and climate change, and this is the vast majority consensus opinion among climate scientists.

It's okay, though, Sean--some people think vaccines cause autism, too, but there's no data to support that.

by: Patrick W. from: Southern Ontario, Canada
March 03, 2010 02:47
Tajikistan and the other glacier dependant countries cannot depend on the deniers of the world for any help or comprehension. We have already wasted decades. What more evidence do our polititians need? If the coal and oil giants would put half of their denier money into the transition to the renewable, low carbon economy we might be able to reduce or avert some of the coming disasters our grandchildren will face.

by: oco
March 03, 2010 14:08
Global Warming is a political science, it has been proven false each time. IPCC glacier melt report has been proven to be false.


by: Jessica A. from: Washington DC
March 03, 2010 15:48
Has any one considered the reason for the severe climate change in Tajikistan and Central Asia might be the result of the mass Soviet irrigation projects that drained major bodies of water (ex. Aral Sea) and completely changed the environmental landscape of the center of the Eurasian continent?

by: eli from: hell
March 03, 2010 17:45
No, Jessica, why would they consider that? It doesn't make much sense.

@ oco
No it hasn't. Please provide evidence. And by that I don't mean some conspiracy theory blog or other nonsense.

by: Sean Maxwell from: Saint-Denis, Belgium
March 03, 2010 23:10
Guest and Eli,

You have drunk the Kool-Aid! How about if you produce some real figures to prove it. The truth is that temperatures tend to lead to increases in CO2 levels - not the other way around, and the time correlation is often off by significant periods. Here are a few troubling, "inconvenient" truths and dilemmas:

- Why is Greenland called that? Between about 1000 and 1400 A.D., it really was green, and the Vikings cultivated the land. If we're now on the verge of cataclysmic global warming because of all those "bad people" doing evil things like driving cars, then why was it so much warmer then? Did the cows just "pass" more methane back then? Where's the smoking gun of anthropogenic causes?

- Why did all you alarmists ring the bells about "Global Cooling" until 1975, but all those scientists didn't lose their jobs? Why are there still people listening to this nonsense and trying to commit our tax dollars to worthless cap and trade schemes and the like?

- So is everyone who is skeptical controlled by the gas companies? I'm not - I don't know how to get oil money. In fact, Ken Lay was lobbying the Clinton White House for Kyoto - those "big energy" types (ADM, DuPont) are the primary guys who stand to get money from these tax schemes, and we taxpayers are the losers.

- Guest, have you ever heard of a scientific field in which one side was so eager to silence the other by declaring the subject closed with your offensive "consensus" term? Who keeps telling you there is a consensus? Do you know what that means? That means everyone agrees in the scientific community. What do you need, a list of scientists who disagree? How about a list of scientists who have been removed from positions of scientific leadership for talking against the "party line"? There is big money in the "global governance" (Jacques Chirac's words describing Kyoto) business of global warming.

- Who told you there is any such thing as a "global climate" that can change? The temperatures in the southern hemisphere have been dropping for decades - not rising.

- Why was George W. Bush demonized from 2001 on for "not signing" Kyoto, when he never even had the chance? Clinton signed it, but then served the rest of his 801 days in office not lifting a finger to send it to Congress for ratification. Bush just knew better than to do what Clinton had not tried to do, because he saw the economic devastation that colossal folly would wreak.

- Finally, why on earth is this catastrophic increase of 2 degrees F over the next century such a disaster? Ice is the enemy of life on earth. Or did that famous (Nobel prize-winning) scientist Al Gore convince you that Manhattan will soon be sinking under 20 feet of water?

by: eli from: grunland
March 04, 2010 11:03
@SeanMaxwell

um, ok. How about if I trust the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scientists studying global warming? You saying "real scientists disagree" is funny, and not supported by the facts.

Speaking of which, "Greenland" was so named by Erik The Red to attract settlers. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17946/17946-h/17946-h.htm) It was perhaps a bit greener before the "Little Ice Age" about 500 years ago, but so what? There have been changes in the climate before, this is not news, but it's the speed of the change now that makes it so likely to be the result of human activity. Also, it's 2 degrees celsius, at least get that right. And a rise in the sea level of 3 feet is enough to cause global chaos, thanks.

by: Sean Maxwell from: Saint-Denis, Belgium
March 07, 2010 12:23
@ eli

Clearly you do not have an answer for most of my issues, and you have hardly answered the question about Greenland. No, it really was cultivating land - people settled and farmed there. Sources differ, but if you have to have your 2 deg C, you can have it - it still doesn't get farmers to Greenland...and if it did, how do you explain that being bad? 35 inches is the worst case from already questionable models, and if it happens over a century, this is hardly on a level with the late 2004 tsunami disaster. Get a little perspective, PLEASE!

When I say "real scientists", I mean those not suffering the scientific conflict of interest of being required to make the results show alarmist trends if they want their funding to continue. The corruption of the scientific process is sickening, and you are either uninformed or in denial. This is fact, not conspiracy theory. Your consensus is bought and paid for.

So data from some of these sources shows that the global mean temperature (as some have logically pointed out, this really means about as much as the global mean telephone number) peaked (in its most recent upward fluctuation) in 1998. It has consistently dropped in the Southern Hemisphere.

By the way, the condescending argument alarmists make about the difference between weather and climate is getting old. Whenever it seems hot, it becomes climate with you folks. Climate is the trend of weather in a given place (not the whole globe), and climate change is a constant throughout earth's history. There is ZERO reliable evidence of man-made climate change. The percentage of greenhouse gases generated by humans is on the order of three percent. Before we spend billions of dollars/Euro on cap and trade schemes, shouldn't we get at least one prediction right to prove it is not just flushing money?

I would be inclined just to ignore all you alarmists, but the problem is you have a real chance of getting to my pocketbook, and that is really aggravating.

by: John Ecob from: NSW Australia
March 10, 2010 20:07
This is fascinating! An exhibition of ignorance! Dont you read? In one breath the report states the glaciers are melting due to global warming and then that Tajikistan had its coldest winter on record in 2008. Next the drought was only for 3 years and good rains returned in 2009. Next the farmer complains that summers are getting so cold he hasn't got enough warmth to ripen his tomatoes and the growing season is shortened!
Al Gore told Copenhagen the ice cap would melt in 5 years. It can't! There are only 2 ice caps. Greenland and Antarctica. All the glaciers in the world account for 0.64% of all ice. Antarctica's average temperatures don't get below zero in summer (except on the Larsen Peninsula which is outside the Antarctic circle) and fall in the 6 months of night to -87degrees C at Vostok Station. Most of Antarctica is more than 1000m above sea level and rises to nearly 5000m. Ice has been drilled to >4000m. Water doesn't melt till it gets to zero degrees C and haven't you heard about latent heat?? Even when the temp. gets to zero it takes as much heat to change the state of ice from solid to liquid -without change in temp. as it does to heat warter 80 degrees C. So even if the temp rose to zero it wouldnt melt the ice but NASA says the ice cap in Antarctica temps are falling 0.2degrees per year for the last few years!
Greenland's ice cap is well over 3000 m high and has been drilled to 3000m thick of ice with temperatures of between -20 and -30degrees C. What difference would a 2 degree C change make?????
The Arctic Ocean ice floats and at the Nth Pole is 1meter above sea level. That means that it is 9 meters below water level and can all melt without any change in sea level. Ice increases in volume by 8-10% when water freezes. But the Arctic is in a BIG freeze right now and ships are getting stuck in ice off the coast of Norway. Don't you read your papers. Al Gore gets $300,000 per speech so why would he admit he's wrong? The facts that the Ice caps are ONLY in Greenland and Antarctica and they are as cold as ever and can't melt UNLESS the 6 months of winter night changes and that will require the tilt of the earth to change and CO2 can't do that! To say that exhaust fumes can shift the earth's axis is ludicrous.
Have you noticed the TV p[istures of a chimney belching black smoke? Its a very OLD photo -pre 1965 because ANY factory that did that would be fined (in the western world). The environmental protection laws stopped that over 40 years ago when there was a threat of an ICE age!!! I'm and engineer I know. Its all a lies and brain washing. You say most scientist are for global warming. Havent you seen the list of more than 31,000 academics from various fields who signed that they opposed the concept that climate change was produced by man? But the left-wing media is sticking to its story and John Citizen is deceived. But things are changing. At last the man in the street is waking up to the deception. I travel all over Australia and internationally and I find it hard to meet anyone who agrees with your "vast majority" of left wing scientists who are being funded by governments. They should study geography and they will soon see that it would take a lot more than 2degrees C rise to melt the ice caps. One final point. Did you know that the Arctic ocean doesnt melt from temperature change of the atmosphere? It melts from beneath from warmer waters and makes NO difference to sea levels. The Ice Caps are ON LAND and cant be influenced by warm water. Just a thought - an inconvenient truth to ponder. Hope your honest.

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

EU Has Bulgaria, Romania Questions

Latest Comment (2 total)

Eugenio: In other news from the EU: yesterday during the anti-EU and anti-IMF demonstrations ... More

UN Envoy Decries Syria 'Massacre'

Latest Comment (2 total)

Eugenio: Strictly speaking, who cares what the UN evoy has to say: there is ... More

Baby Girls Seen As Mixed Blessing In Afghanistan

Latest Comment (5 total)

Bill Webb: Perhaps the Pashtuns need an example to follow, The United States, surely not ... More