It has been almost 15 years since Erik Eckholm's book Losing Ground hit the stands and made many aware of the perils of Himalayan ecological degradation. Since then, there have been many studies on the processes of erosion, "mass wasting", floods, forestry policy, stall feeding, topsoil runoff, and the perceived role of the hill peasant in all of this.
With more scientific study, there is today increasingly sophisticated under-standing of the process of erosion in the hills. Some swear by Eckholm's thesis of havoc in the Himalaya. Others go to the opposite extreme and profess not to know what the fuss is all about, for, they say, the Himalaya is "dynamic" and erosion is as natural as snowmelt in the summer. A few would even have you believe that there is no cause for worry.
The outcome of this debate, and its followup, is crucial for the Himalayan people. The truth must lie somewhere between those who say we are all doomed and those who refuse to worry. Himal seeks to provide a forum for all who have opinions one way or the other. In its own reporting, Himal will try to be careful not to be carried away by dogma on either side. Too often, concern for the environment is a fad among unconcerned elites. Environmental reporters get roped in to this "fashionable" pursuit of predicting armageddon on the high slopes.
We have often read and believed stories based on selective facts supplied by experts. A reporter lands up in a researcher's home ground for a couple of hours or days, is willy-nilly fed a lot of information, which is then regurgitated into a convincing article. Such writing disregards the first rules of reporting by shunning background research, ignoring historical precedent, not questioning the researcher's credibility and motives, and not getting a second opinion. This kind of journalism gives environmental reporting a bad name and none of us has been blameless, including Himal.