DISASTER AND MANAGEMENT

Climate Change, Uttarakhand, and the World Bank's Message

The devastation in Uttarakhand in June 2013 showed that some of the effects of climate change are already upon us. It ought to serve as a wake-up call to desist from a development model that upsets fragile ecosystems on a large scale and impoverishes people who are already highly vulnerable to a wide range of social and economic problems. This article points out that we need to heed the consequences of climate change projected in a new report by the World Bank and think of viable ways to tackle the challenge ahead.

The Uttarakhand disaster left a trail of death and devastation in its wake. The state government claims that 557 people died, but the death toll could be as high as 15,000. Tourism is one of the important sources of income and employment in the affected areas. Local residents tell of village after village in the Mandakini valley below Kedarnath where boys and men have not yet returned home. One village near Guptkashi counts 78 missing. Several thousand Char Dham valley families are now set to fall below the poverty line. That the newly unemployed lack alternative sources of employment is a grave problem till the yatras begin again (Chopra 2013).

The events in Uttarakhand during June 2013 left us all stunned. Some observers have commented that it was an expression of the wrath of nature at the disruption caused to a natural ecosystem by accelerated infrastructure development. There is a grain of truth in this. We need to understand this while the horror of the situation is still upon us, lest we forget and go back to our usual short-sighted ways once the immediate crisis has passed.

First, the floods and devastation in Uttarakhand are probably linked to the effects of global warming and climate change, which until now was not seen as something imminent, but as part of a distant future scenario. We need, therefore, to treat this as a wake-up call and reformulate our thinking on climate change. No longer is it something that future generations are going to have to deal with, the initial stage is already upon us. It has attained the status of the immanent, or something that is already here, and we have to factor in climate change and its effects just as we were so far doing with climate itself.

What this implies that we will have to make some modifications in our approach to planning and in our developmental strategies. Coincidentally, the World Bank released a new report on climate change and its projected aftermath entitled “Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience” (2013) even as the disaster was unfolding in Uttarakhand.

India and Climate Change

The World Bank report focuses on how the effects of climate change on agriculture, water resources, coastal fisheries, and coastal safety are likely to increase, often significantly, as global warming climbs from the present level of 0.8⁰Celsius over pre-industrial times by mid-century and continues to become 4°C warmer by 2100. It illustrates the range of effects that much of the developing world is already experiencing, and will be further exposed to, while indicating how these risks and disruptions will be felt differently in other parts of the world.

The report is especially important for us in India and south Asia because it appears that we are going to be one of the worst hit by climate change, the impact being compounded by huge populations and their vulnerability to even moderate shocks due to poverty, malnutrition, poor health, low productivity of existing assets, and the lack of any cushion or insurance to fall back on. South Asia refers to the region comprising seven countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) with a population of about 1.6 billion people in 2010 and still growing, which is projected to rise to more than 2.2 billion by 2050. At 4⁰C global warming, the sea level is projected to rise more than 100 cm by the 2090s, and the monsoon to become more variable with a greater frequency of devastating floods and droughts. Glacier melting and snow cover loss could be severe, and unusual heat extremes in the summer months (June, July and August) are projected to affect 70% of the land area.

The report says south Asia has a unique and diverse geography dominated in many ways by the Himalayan mountain range and the Tibetan Plateau, where the great river systems of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra originate. The climate of the region is governed by the monsoon, with the largest fraction of precipitation over south Asia occurring during the summer season. In the past few decades, a warming trend has begun to emerge in south Asia, particularly India, which appears to be consistent with the outcome expected from human-induced climate change. Projections for the Indian monsoon are uncertain because of the inability of most climate models to simulate it accurately. According to the report, global mean warming approaching 4⁰C, a 10% increase in annual mean monsoon intensity, and a 15% increase in the year-to-year variability of monsoon precipitation is projected, compared to the levels during the first half of the 20th century. It suggests that many of the worst projected climate effects could be avoided by holding global warming below 2⁰C. Climate change can have a domino effect and ultimately affect development. For example, decreased yields and the lower nutritional value of crops could have the cascading effect of increasing levels of malnutrition and childhood stunting, adversely affecting academic performance. These effects can persist into adulthood, with long-term consequences for many people (World Bank 2013: xxiv).

As warming goes from 2⁰C to 4⁰C, multiple threats of more extreme heat waves, rising sea levels, more severe storms, droughts, and floods will have serious implications for the poorest and most vulnerable people. In India, for example, the mean flow of the Indus may increase by about 65%. The Ganges may have a 20% increase in run-off by 2040, and a 50% increase in run-off by the 2080s. The late spring and summer flows of the Brahmaputra may substantially decline. All this is while the gross per capita water availability is projected to decline due to population growth.

Urban Populations

The report discusses the effects of climate change on two Indian cities – Mumbai and Kolkata. It projects the sea-level rise in Mumbai at around 35 centimetres by the 2050s under either of the emission pathways leading to a 2⁰C or 4⁰C rise; for 2⁰C, a rise of around 60 cm by the 2080s, and for the 4⁰C, a rise of close to 80 cm (World Bank 2013). The report also mentions that the projected increase in heavy precipitation associated with climate change poses a serious risk to the cities – and that does not even take into account the effects of sea-level rise. Climate projections indicate a doubling of the likelihood of an extreme event similar to the 2005 floods, and direct economic damages (that is, the costs of replacing and repairing damaged infrastructure and buildings) are estimated to triple in the future compared to the present day and to increase up to $1.9 billion due to climate change only. Additional indirect economic costs, such as sectoral inflation, job losses, higher public deficit, and financial constraints slowing down the process of reconstruction, are estimated to increase the total economic cost to $2.4 billion (Ranger et al 2011).

Kolkata is ranked among the top 10 cities in the world in terms of exposure to flooding under climate change projections.¹ It is projected to be exposed to increasing precipitation, storm surges, and a sea-level rise. Roughly a third of its total population of 15.5 million lives in slums, which significantly increases their vulnerability to these risk factors. Further, 15% of the population live by the Hooghly river and are highly exposed to flooding (World Bank 2013: 124). Kolkata’s infrastructure development cannot keep pace with the current rate of urbanisation, and unplanned and unregulated urbanisation only adds to its vulnerability (World Bank 2011).

Himalayan Vulnerability

What is of striking importance to us in the context of Uttarakhand is that the Himalayan region has been recognised as a highly vulnerable zone and the actual nature of the climate change effect has been spelt out. This consists of effects due to a higher rate of melting of glaciers and increased variability and irregularity of the monsoon. It means that there will be more frequent incidences of very high and concentrated rainfall in some years, and low rainfall in others. The high rainfall will of course cause sudden floods and landslides, as experienced in northern Pakistan in 2010, and in Uttarakhand in 2012 and again in 2013.

The report warns that India will see a significant reduction in crop yields because of extreme heat by the 2040s. Reduced water availability due to changes in precipitation levels and failing groundwater tables are likely to aggravate the situation. In India, groundwater resources are already at a critical level and about 15% of the country’s groundwater tables are over-exploited (Singh 2013).

Roads to Nowhere

The more roads we build into the interior, the more the damage to the soil. As infrastructure and centres of population increase, the more the pressure on land, water, and vegetation. Since there are going to be more frequent occurrences of disasters in the next couple of decades, the first step would be to limit infrastructure development, especially roads, mines, and hydro projects, in fragile ecosystems.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has for long been urging caution in opening up the Himalayan region rapidly. The usual argument for building the hundreds of roads in the plans of development agencies is that these are required for the defence of the country. We cannot join issue with the defence ministry, but, realistically speaking, it is going to take decades to get all the planned roads done, and they will have an adverse effect on the ecology and probably the living conditions of the local people because competition for natural resources and ecological services may increase beyond the carrying capacity of these fragile localities. Although we have all along been complacent about the Himalaya mountains being our great defence in the north, we are at the lower contours and the terrain on our side is very difficult. This means that we are more at a disadvantage as we do not command the heights. Even though it may not be our place to make suggestions on so grave an issue, we would say that we need to make use of diplomacy, trade, and cultural contacts to secure our northern border, rather than relying solely on physical measures. If roads have to be built for defence purposes, they should be closed to commercial and tourist traffic from the plains and be used solely for by local communities, local administration, and the defence forces.

Loss of Electricity Generation

The Central Electricity Authority and the Uttarakhand power department have estimated the hydroelectric potential of rivers in the state at some 9,000 megawatts and planned 70-odd projects on their tributaries. In building these projects, key tributaries would be modified through diversion into tunnels or reservoirs, and 80% of the Bhagirathi and 65% of the Alaknanda could be affected. As much as 90% of the other smaller tributaries could be affected. The state hydel power development corporation, the Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd (UJVNL), suffered a loss of Rs 77 crore in 2013, in addition to a loss of Rs 50 crore in power generation.

The MoEF has tried to infuse a sense of moderation in developing hydro resources in the Himalayas, including commissioning special studies on the cumulative effect of dozens of projects on the same river system. The shape of things to come was seen in Uttarakhand in 2012 when it was reported that more than 200 villages faced threats from floods and landslides, and residents of 85 villages had to be evacuated (Trivedi 2012). According to official records, 233 villages are disaster prone and could face an Uttarkashi-like situation any time. The state government is aware of the dangers people living in the hills face each year, but many of its best-laid plans have come undone due to lack of funds (Trivedi and Joshi 2012).

The union environment minister was even quoted as advising against any new hydel projects on the Ganges and its tributaries (Chauhan 2012). But the Planning Commission went on an offensive, pressing for early clearances and fast-tracking them through a new investment board, which was again advised against by the environment minister. This year’s flood damage has been even more severe and will hopefully prompt a saner approach to river basin development, especially as the same pattern is being demanded by Arunachal Pradesh for all rivers flowing down from the north.

One of the problems with development of the hills is that most of the infrastructure that state governments want is for the benefit of people from the plains, and not so much for the hill people themselves. With its already huge population and limited geographical area and natural resources, India is already under resource stresses of every type, whether it be for water, energy, food, living space, or clean air. Our people are also among the world’s most peripatetic, as even the poorest do not hesitate to make long journeys to visit relatives and see new places. For instance, the fragile ecology of a small town like Haridwar on the banks of the Ganges as it emerges from the mountains is put under severe strain by the ever-growing burden of the Kumbh Mela. Local leaders speak with pride about the number of visitors that has steadily gone up. What was counted in lakhs is now spoken of in crores, and they want no less than five crore people at the next Kumbh Mela. But this requires more roads to be cut through forests and hillsides, more infrastructure on the river banks, and so on. This devastates the local ecology, all along the valleys right up to the holy centres, so that the access of wild animals, including elephants, to the river is cut off, and increases the danger of landslips, and so on.

The pressure on pilgrim centres upriver also increases manyfold with more buildings and roads having to be built all along to the upper Himalayas for visitors. The result is that when disaster strikes, the effect is that much more horrifying. So we partly have to blame our cultural habits, as we could very well develop any number of holy or scenic spots all over the country and consciously reduce the pressure on Haridwar and the Himalayan region. The north-east, at least, should be spared the horrors of this type of development, which will only convert that pristine region into a massive slum and an ecological disaster.

Need for a Change

Coming back to the Uttarakhand disaster, it would be unfair and unkind to the memory of those who perished there due to no fault of theirs to call it the wrath of nature. But it has to be taken as a warning and a clear signal to reconsider our development model. One of the problems in developing our hill states is that it is difficult to know how far to go without unrealistically stretching the capacity of the region to absorb more pressure.

Environmental safeguards are the responsibility of all sectors, not just the MoEF. User industries should carry out the first level of screening at the design stage, rather than putting the onus on environmental agencies. For example, the Supreme Court, on 25 April 2013, ordered the MoEF to verify if the current status of environmental compliance by a certain firm was as stipulated in an environmental clearance of May 1985 as well as the ministry’s order dated 30 June 2011. The verification was to be carried out by a joint committee comprising officials of the ministry and the Government of Uttarakhand. The ministry constituted a joint committee, which visited the project site on 1 and 2 May and submitted its report on 4 May. It said that compliance with a number of conditions was unsatisfactory.

All of us have to shoulder the joint responsibility of not proposing intense development in ecologically fragile areas. Roads and other infrastructure are seen as benign and positive, and development agencies are not able to understand why environmental watchdogs create so many hurdles. In reality, they open up fragile areas to all sorts of pressures, both environmental and socio-economic. This is also applicable to hydro-projects, coal and iron ore mines, roads, railways and other linear projects, power plants and chemical industries, tourism infrastructure, urban expansion, and so on. Compliance with environmental safeguards must be sincerely and voluntarily taken on by promoters of projects because best practices will ultimately benefit them in terms of lowered risk and control of losses due to ecological disasters.

The country’s planners need to sit down with environmentalists and conservationists, and reformulate our developmental agenda from the bottom up. We need to safeguard every water source, every stream and tank as it were precious, and increase the careful use and reuse of the water through small, local, dispersed structures rather than massive dams that swallow up tens of thousands of hectares of farmland and forest. The touchstone of the effect on the last man, suggested by M K Gandhi, must be invoked with all earnestness. Even in economic parlance, a strong equity principle does not permit us to proceed with a course of development if it is going to result in some people being worse off without recompense. The country has no right to take away the little means of survival of its poorest when it has nothing to offer in the foreseeable future to restore them to at least their previous level of penury, let alone raise them to a higher level of well-being.

Our economy is now powered by a few capital-hungry, resource-guzzling sectors that are increasing energy consumption and making cities and villages unlivable, gradually corroding our very society and polity (for instance, the goings-on in the mining sector). We are not doing so well in terms of human development and welfare indicators. Worse, our mines and industries are displacing hundreds of thousands of poor people from their small bits of land, which at least allowed them a place to live and to grow something to feed themselves. Our gross domestic product does not include the horrifying damage that is being caused to the environment, to soil and water resources, rivers and water bodies, and the health of the people living around them. If we were to account for everything, the growth in net domestic product would possibly even be negative. Now that the first portents of climate change are already upon us, we need to stop pointing fingers at the developed economies and asking for compensation for some historical fait accompli. Instead, we have to get together with our neighbours in the region and formulate realistic plans to meet the looming apocalypse.

The tasks in Uttarakhand

In June 2013, unprecedented flash floods and landslips wreaked havoc in Uttarakhand. 

That it was a man-made calamity was clear: 

unplanned development and misuse of the lower Himalayan region’s natural resources were at its root.  The tourism boom in such traffic had put a severe strain on infrastructure. 

Scores of hotels, guesthouses and religious centres sprang up, some of them on the flood plains of the Mandakini and the Alakananda rivers, which join to form the Ganga. Several of them were washed away. 

-->The valley where the Ganga, the Bhagirathi and the Alaknanda flow should be declared an eco-sensitive zone. (The livelihood concerns of people who depend on tourism need to be taken into account, too.)

--> Dams, barrages and tunnels had impacted the course of rivers.  Some of them come with dams, but a majority are run-of-the-river projects requiring tunnelling through mountains. Debris from some of the displaced structures caused havoc downstream. However, it is equally true that the devastation would have been even more widespread had the Tehri reservoir failed to contain a significant volume of the deluge. So, the critical issue may not be dams per se, but overall hydel management. 

-->Another lesson that remains to be learnt relates to the role of deforestation in making the region vulnerable to landslips and erosion. The absence of vegetation in the higher reaches aids landslips.

-->The task of reconstruction is nowhere near completion. Post-disaster, the State government set up a Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority to look into planning and development of the region. 

-->A full-fledged Ministry as part of the Union government needs to be created to chart out and implement — in tandem with the State government — an action plan to set priorities for the region and preserve its ecology, while striking the right balance between its development needs and the vulnerability factors. A

--> suitable mechanism, bringing together scientific expertise, dispassionate efficiency and administrative acumen, should be put in place to ensure proper and transparent utilisation under diligent oversight of the aid package that was made available. 

Report of Expert Committee on Uttarakhand Flood Disaster & Role of HEPs: Welcome recommendations:

In a significant development on role of hydropower projects in Uttarakhand flood disaster of June 2013, the Expert Body (EB) headed by Dr Ravi Chopra has recommended that at least 23 hydropower projects should be dropped, that hydropower projects played significant role in the Uttarakhand disaster and that there is urgent need to improve the environment governance of hydropower projects. The Report “Assessment of Environmental Degradation and Impact of Hydroelectric Projects During The June 2013 Disaster in Uttarakhand” The committee was appointed by a reluctant Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in October 2013, following the Supreme Court’s suo motto order of August 13 2013.

SC order of Aug 13, 2013[4]: On Aug 13, 2013, while disposing off the petition on Srinagar HEP in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court, suo motto, made an order that asked, MoEF and Uttarakhand governments not to provide any further clearances to any more hydropower projects anywhere in Uttarakhand till further orders. Both MoEF and Uttarakhand governments have been violating this order. However, one of the fall outs of this order was formulation of Expert Body appointed by MoEF more than two months latter, through an order .

On 24 projects recommended to be dropped by WII “After considerable discussions and analysis, the Expert Body concluded that of the 24 proposed Hydropower Projects (HEPs) that Wildlife Institute of India (WII) recommended for Review, 23 HEPs would have significant irreversible impacts on biodiversity values.”

“The EB recommends that for the 23 proposed HEPs out of the 24 identified by WII (other than the Kotli Bhel 1A project) that would have irreversible impacts on the biodiversity of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins, the HEPs that fall in any of the following conditions should not be approved for construction.

(a)               Proposed HEPs that fall inside wildlife Protected Areas such  National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

(b)               Proposed HEPs that fall within the Gangotri Eco-sensitive Zone

(c)               Proposed HEPs that fall above 2,500m that encompass critical wildlife habitats, high biological diversity, movement corridors, and fragile in nature due to unpredictable glacial and paraglacial activities.

(d)               Proposed HEPs that fall within 10 km from the boundary of Protected Areas and have not obtained clearance from the National Board for Wildlife.”

It would have been in fitness of things if EB had exclusively asked for stoppage of work on all these 23 projects with immediate effect.

HEPs above 2 MW need EC “All projects > 2 MW, shall require prior Environmental Clearances (EC) from MoEF”.

No projects above winter snow line “Learning from the June 2013 event, the EB believes that the enhanced sediment availability from and in paraglacial zones could be a serious problem for the longevity of the existing, under construction and proposed HEPs in Uttarakhand. Therefore the EB recommends that the terrain above the MCT in general and above the winter snow line in particular (~2200-2500 m) should be kept free from hydropower interventions in Uttarakhand.”

SIA should be carried out for all river systems in Uttarakhand “The WII study has already identified 24 proposed HEPs in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins as likely to cause irreversible impacts. But comprehensive research studies of other basins in Uttarakhand are lacking at this stage… Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) be carried out in other major river basins of Uttarakhand such as the Yamuna and Kali basins.”

Distance between projects in a cascade “Scientific studies by subject experts should be conducted for establishing baseline data on river parameters, diversity and populations of floral and faunal species in different rivers of Uttarakhand at different elevation zones.  Such studies should be used for deciding upon the minimum distances between two consecutive HEPs. Until such scientific studies are completed, no new HEPs (in S&I stage) should be cleared on the rivers of Uttarakhand within a distance that may later be revoked. Minimum distances for projects in the clearance stage should be significantly revised upward from the current consideration of 1 km.”

National Himalayan Policy “Since the Himalaya are our vital source of growth and abundance, a National Himalayan Policy needs to be urgently created and implemented.”

“Therefore, the EB strongly recommends that a detailed study of the impacts of hydropower projects in terms of deforestation/tunneling/ blasting/reservoir formation on the hydrogeology of the area should be carried out.”

A study on the role of large artificial reservoirs on local climate change and precipitation patterns with special reference to the Tehri dam reservoir.”

Sediment transportation studies “Recent studies have highlighted serious concern about the Indian deltas, which are shrinking due to changes in river courses. The Ganga-Brahmaputra delta is also noted in this category. This seems to be a major issue in near future therefore we recommend that the studies should be carried out regarding the impacts on sediment transportation due to projects existing on Himalayan rivers.”

Cultural impacts of HEPs “Therefore EB recommends that the Ministry of Culture along with the local representatives and spiritual leaders should undertake a comprehensive study of the cultural impacts of HEPs in the spiritually rich state of Uttarakhand.”

“River Regulation Zone (R.R.Z.) guidelines should be issued immediately by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and should be executed accordingly.”

Muck Management: “The existing practices of muck management are inadequate to protect the terrain and the people from an eventuality like the June 2013 flood. Therefore, a serious revisit is required towards evolving technically better and ecologically sustainable methods for muck disposal and rehabilitation in Uttarakhand.”

Environmental Flows: “Till such time as a decision is taken on the EFlows recommendations of the IITs-consortium, the EB recommends EFlows of 50% during the lean season and 30% during the remaining non-monsoon months. Sustaining the integrity of Uttarakhand’s rivers and their eco-systems is not negotiable.”

Eco-Sensitive Zones: “It is recommended that legislation be enacted to (i) protect small but significant rivers (as done in Himachal Pradesh and also recommended by the IMG for Uttarakhand) as pristine rivers and (ii) designate Eco-Sensitive Zones for all rivers of Uttarakhand.”

Community based CA and CAT “Community-based CA and CAT plan execution must be done by the State Forest Department within the construction period of the project.” This is to be monitored by a committee that includes two representatives from local communities, a renowned environmentalist, among others.

Forests and Biodiversity Conservation: “Community based CAT programmes have to be systemically implemented for ensuring sustenance of the plantations. This requires training of forest officials to work with the communities through their Van Panchayats.”

“It was brought to the notice of the EB that clearances to start work had been granted recently to the Lakhwar (300 MW) and Vyasi (120 MW) projects. This is in violation of the spirit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order of August 13, 2013. It is also noticed that these projects were approved more than 25 years ago. Consequently they do not have any EIA/EMP/DMP studies that are mandatory today. Without conducting cumulative impact assessments and disaster management studies of the Yamuna and Kali basins no such projects should be allowed at the risk of fragile ecology, biodiversity and lives of people living in and around the project sites.”[6]

SOME WEAK RECOMMENDATIONS OF EB

“The EB recommends that MoEF strengthens its personnel and procedures for post-sanction monitoring of environmental conditionalities. The MoEF should develop a programme for research studies by reputed organizations on the impacts of HEPs on river water quality (and flows). Pre-construction and post operation long term impacts monitoring studies are required.”

Geology & Social Issues: “Given the massive scale of construction of HEPs in Uttarakhand it may be worthwhile to set up a formal institution or mechanism for investigating and redressing complaints about damages to social infrastructure. The functioning of such an institution can be funded by a small cess imposed on the developers. It is also suggested that to minimize complaints of bias, investigations should be carried out by joint committees of subject experts and the community.”

Disaster Management: “Disaster preparedness is critical because all of Uttarakhand lies either in seismic Zone IV or V. These areas are most vulnerable to strong earthquakes. Disaster Management Plans (DMPs) are critical parts of EIA Reports. They need to be carefully reviewed and approved by local communities in the probable zone of influence.”

“It is necessary to establish an independent authority which may commission EIA Reports…”

onclusion: In spite of certain weaknesses, most of the recommendations of the committee need to be immediately implemented and till they are implemented in letter and spirit, the Supreme Court should order a status quo on any further hydropower projects. The EB headed by Dr Ravi Chopra should be congratulated for this report in spite of difficult circumstances under which the committee operated.

Þ     We also hope the Supreme Court would ask MoEF to order stoppage of work on Lakhwar and Vyasi projects that has been started recently, violating the Supreme Court order in letter and spirit, and also as pointed out by the EB.

Þ     The work on 24 hydropower projects that was part of explicit TOR of the committee should be ordered to stop immediately. The EB should have made this explicit recommendation, but even if they have not done that, it is implicit in its recommendation.

Þ     The Supreme Court should ask MoEF to provide a time bound action plan on implementation of the various recommendations of the EB. The SC an also possibly appoint EB (minus Dr Das, CWC and CEA persons) to oversee the implementation of the action plan and continue to provide independent feedback on adequacy of such implementation.

Þ     The Lessons from Uttarakhand are relevant for all Himalayan states of India from Kashmir to all the North East states and we hope Supreme Court to ask the follow up committee to ensure that these lessons are taken note of and necessary steps flowing there from are implemented in these Himalayan states. These will also provide guidance to our Himalayan neighbouring countries.

Þ     The failure of environmental governance is one of the clearest stark message from this episode and we hope MoEF will put its house in order in this respect, revamping its entire environmental governance.

Drought-mitigation plans ready

With the India Meteorological Department predicting that the southwest monsoon can be 93 per cent below normal, drought-mitigation plans have been prepared for States likely to be worse hit. 

The worst-affected regions are likely to be north-west and central India — parts of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar and Kerala.

The Union Agriculture Ministry plans to get the Cabinet’s approval to provide seed and diesel subsidies to the affected States.

 Already an advisory has been sent out from the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna to the States to set aside 10 per cent of their funds for mitigating drought.

Normally, a State is declared drought-affected when it states so in a memorandum to the Union government.

The contingency plan prepared by the Centre has advised States to go in for short-duration pulses and suitable legumes for late sowing. Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka farmers have been advised to go in for late-sown varieties of groundnut. 

For eastern and central Uttar Pradesh growers, the advice is to go in for rapeseed and mustard varieties that can be grown late in the kharif season.

Late-sown pearl millet and small millet has been suggested for Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Bihar. Farmers have been advised to go in for traditional sowing methods to preserve moisture in the soil and to keep their livestock cool.

It is expected that while irrigated Punjab, Haryana and parts of western Uttar Pradesh may tide over the situation and the Northeast may get a normal monsoon, the central parts of the country and Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan may be the worst hit.

Govt Working on Plan to Stop Desertification

NEW DELHI OUR BUREAU





India would become land degradation neutral by 2023 if all stakeholders work together

 India's food security under threat with nearly 81 million hectares facing desertification, environment minister Prakash Javadekar said that the government was working on a plan to “stop and reverse“ the “serious threat“.

The minister said India would become “land degradation neutral“ by 2030 if all critical stakeholders--ministries of environment, agriculture, water resources and land resources--worked together on a common implementation strategy.
Desertification refers to the process of land degradation by which fertile land, especially dry regions, become increasingly arid, losing water bodies, vegetation and wildlife. Deforestation, drought and improper or inappropriate agriculture are typically considered to be the main causes of such land degradation. India has about 105 million hectares of land classified as dry land.
The objective of achieving land degradation neutrality is to maintain or improve the condition of land resources through the sustainable management of soil, water and biodiversity,
. In India, 69% of the land is dry land and 32% of the land is undergoing desertification.
“In India, we are facing the problem of degradation of land, desertification of the land and creation of wasteland.
Drawing on his experience of working on 11 watershed projects in Maharashtra, Javadekar said that desertification of land could be stopped or reversed through integrated land use planning on landscape basis and through collective efforts. Coordination among the different stakeholders was the key to achieve the goal of a land degradation neutral India. Reclaiming the waste land has a direct effect on poverty eradication and makes communities prosperous.
Land degradation neutrality is an idea that owes its origin to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) held in Rio in 2012, where member states recognised the need for urgent action to reverse land degradation. The concept also embraces the restoration of degraded natural and semi-natural ecosystems that provide vital, albeit indirect, services to people and working landscapes. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), which focuses on desertification, land degradation and drought.

Lessons from the Uttarakhand Tragedy

1.The recent events in Uttarakhand have shown, more than ever, that we need a development strategy for the Himalayas that takes into account the vulnerability of the region and the need for environment protection.

2.We need to think about a pan-Himalayan strategy so that states can evolve common policies based on the region’s natural resources—forests, water, biodiversity, organic and specialty foods, nature tourism – but without adverse effect to the environment.

3.Forest Preservation: Thus, hydropower and other development projects must not be allowed without compensatory afforestation.

4.Stop Damming Rivers: Uttarakhand, on the Ganga basin alone, has identified projects totaling nearly 10,000 MW of power and plans for 70-odd projects. Their impact of the ecology and hydrology of the region must be seriously evaluated, particularly in the light of increasing extreme climatic events. 

5.Promote local agriculture: Himalayan states try to boost their economies using their unique products. They also recognize the need to keep their agriculture organic. Meghalaya was the first to declare itself an organic state; Sikkim followed and Uttarakhad is working to promote green agriculture in the state. But they are facing problems such as difficulties in certification and even forest laws. For instance, Sikkim promoted organic cardamom crop, but discovered that forest laws do not allow cultivation on ‘forest’ lands, even though it is done without destroying forests.

6.Promote tourism but with safeguard: Adventure and nature tourism, alongside religious pilgrimage are the most obvious route to economic development in the Himalayan states. But this must come with inbuilt safeguards as the ecology is highly fragile. Some common safeguards can be as follows:

1. Similar to sanctuaries and national parks, create a provision of buffer areas within 5-10 km, surrounding the pilgrimage sites, where development is restricted.
2. Give strict priority to the local community in all economic activities of the tourist or pilgrimage spot. Create local community interest in management of these sites.
3. Make it mandatory for the tourists to remove and take back all non-degradable items. This can be implemented through a security deposit and checks at the designated entry points.
4. Increase the rate of entry tax charged by all hill towns. More fragile ecosystems should have higher entry tax. The collected fund should be used for creating better and eco-friendly tourist facilities and strengthening the ecosystem.
5. Promote homestead tourism, instead of hotel/motel tourism, based on policy incentives.
6. Promote reuse and recycling of waste, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources at all hill tourist spots.
7. Restrict the number of private vehicles in all fragile areas of the hill towns to reduce both pollution and congestion.
8. =======================================================

How Good is India’s Disaster Management System

The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)

NDMA was constituted under the Disaster Management Act of 2005 to draft policies and guidelines on disaster management, risk mitigation and prevention of disasters, and approve and coordinate the implementation of plans for disaster preparedness and management at the Central, state and ministerial levels. 

It is headed by the prime minister just like the Planning Commission. 

There appears to be a general consensus that the central disaster agency (NDMA) has failed to carry out most of its functions since its inception 7 years ago:

--The flash floods and landslides in Uttarakhand of June 2013 decisively proved the absence of any preventive and mitigation measure. This happened in a state that has history of such disasters! The post disaster relief response has been also equally poor—more than 70,000 people are reported missing. How prepared the Apex disaster body would be in other parts of the country for dealing with totally unexpected events is anyone’s guess?

--NDMA had initiated projects for flood mitigation and landslide mitigation at the national level in 2008. However, those projects have either been abandoned midway or are being redesigned because of poor planning. 

---The projects to prepare national vulnerability atlases of landslides, floods and earthquake are also incomplete. 

CAG Indictment

According to the performance audit report of April 2013 of the disaster management mechanism in the country by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, NDMA has neither had information and control over the progress of disaster management work in the states, nor could it successfully implement various projects it had initiated for disaster preparedness and mitigation. 

--What’s more, the authority has been functioning without its core advisory committee of experts that advises it on different aspects of disaster management for the past three years.

--The report further pointed out that the NDMA has also not been performing several functions as prescribed in the Disaster Management Act. These include recommending provision of funds for the purpose of mitigation and recommending relief in repayment of loans or for grant of fresh loans. 

---Besides, several critical posts in NDMA are vacant and consultants were used for day to day work (mean paper work).

---According to law, NDMA should have an advisory committee of experts in the field of disaster management at the national, state or district level. The first advisory committee of NDMA was constituted in 2007 for two years. Later, the term was extended for one more year. However, since June 2010, NDMA is functioning without the advisory committee. Why? [a routine and classic example of governance deficit in India]

And what is the excuse?

Initially, it was stated that several ministries had not sent the proposals of the names of experts to be included in the committee. But then, the excuse was modified: the names are being reviewed by the Prime Minister’s Office. It will be stupid to talk of accountability here!

No Major Project Completed

The CAG report also highlighted several other loopholes in the functioning of NDMA. It said none of the major projects taken up by NDMA was complete even after seven years of its functioning. The projects were either abandoned midway or were being redesigned because of initial poor planning. The major projects include producing vulnerability atlases for floods, earthquakes and landslides, national landslide risk mitigation project, national flood risk mitigation project and national disaster management information system.

Is NDMA Just Another White Elephant?

Consider the following facts about its style of functioning:

• NDMA’s headquarter is in South Delhi’s plush Safdarjung Enclave.
• It holds press conferences about human tragedies in luxurious five-star hotels.
• The Prime Minister is its ex officio chairman, and its vice-chairman equals a Cabinet minister in status. Other members, mostly retired bureaucrats and police officers, are as powerful as the ministers of state.
• Its National Executive Committee has not met at all between 2008 and 2012. Seven years after it came into being, the authority doesn’t even have a working plan.
• Most NDMA projects, conceptualized soon after it was constituted in May 2005, have failed to get started. The body formally came into existence in September 2006. Projects like earthquakes, flood and landslide risk mitigation have been in cold storage despite being approved way back in 2007. Due to improper planning, projects are abandoned midway or are lying incomplete.

Some of the key roles that the NDMA is expected to perform are: lay down policy on disaster management, approve national Disaster Management plan, lay down guidelines to be followed by Central ministries and state authorities, and provide such support to other countries affected by major disasters.

The National Disaster Plan (NDP) hasn’t been formulated even after seven years of the enactment of the Disaster Management Act. The NDP was to define the guidelines for prevention of disasters, preparedness and roles and responsibilities of different arms of the government.

A key objective of the NDMA is proactive prevention of loss of life and property in disasters. Needless to say, the NDMA has failed miserably. The June 2013 tragedy of Uttarakhand explicitly exposed the incompetence of the NDMA bureaucracy.

A senior bureaucrat in a state government who closely worked with the NDMA in the last two years explained what plagues this body.

According to a senior bureaucrat who has worked closely with the NDMA for two years, “The lack of effective leadership at the top (vice-chairperson) is the key source of problems.” The vice-chairman is too happy to blame the meteorological department for the utter absence of NDMA’s performance in the Uttarakhand. What Mr Vice Chairman of NDMA, M. Shashidhar Reddy, fails to understand is that tragedies cost human lives – and he is suppose to feel responsible for saving them, not shift the blame elsewhere. Saving lives is altogether a different ball-game than evasive verbal acrobatics – bureaucrats, with guaranteed perks and privileges, and politicians are hardly the suitable people when it comes to save human lives or tackle disastrous situations.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) slammed the NDMA’s functioning in a report tabled in March 2013. The CAG report says: “The performance of NDMA in terms of project implementation had been abysmal. So far, no major project taken by NDMA had seen completion. It was noticed that NDMA selected projects without proper ground work and as a result either the projects were abandoned midway or were incomplete after a considerable period.”

It adds further, “In many cases, NDMA realized midway that some other agency was already executing projects with similar objectives. Timelines in most of its projects were absent and where ever they were given, they were not adhered to.”

And, what is the response of the brilliant top boss of the NDMA?

“We are ready to work on it but the government auditor needs to be sensitized about disasters.”

Perhaps he is himself unaware that as much as 59% of the nation’s land area is prone to moderate and severe earthquakes; 23,000 lives were lost in six major earthquakes between 1990 and 2006. It also doesn’t require much intelligence to realize that landslides in the sub-Himalayan hills and floods in some parts of the country are fairly annual feature.

It is for the whole nation to see how fit he is to hold such an important position that involves saving human lives and national property.



ELEMENTS OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT

Tsunami Warning System

The Indian Tsunami Early Warning Centre (ITEWC) was established and made fully functional since 2007 and is now rendering operational services as a Regional Tsunami Watch Provider (RTWP) for whole of the Indian Ocean Region by the Earth System Science Organization - Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Sciences (ESSO-INCOIS) of the Ministry of Earth Sciences located in Hyderabad. ITEWC comprises real-time seismic monitoring network of 17 broadband seismic stations apart from other national and international seismic stations to detect under-sea tsunamigenic earthquakes from the two known subduction zones of Andaman-Sumatra and Makran in Indian Ocean which can potentially affect entire Indian coastal states and Island regions, a network of real-time sea-level sensors with Bottom Pressure Recorders (BPR) in the open ocean, HF Radars for coastal currents and coastal tide gauge stations to capture tsunami wave speed and amplitude on 24 X 7 basis. All types of data collected from the ITEWC are fully archived and is fully accessible to the Decision Support System (DSS). The tsunami wave arrival time to different coastal locations depends upon the location of the under-sea earthquake and intensity. In general the tsunami reaction time will be around 2h for the Indian mainland if the earthquake has occurred in the vicinity of the two known subduction zones. As far as the Andaman & Nicobar Islands is concerned, the reaction time is around 30-minutes. Hence the standard operational procedure (SOP) and the emergency response plans are formulated in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the disaster management agencies of coastal states and UTs. Union Minister of Science & Technology and Earth Sciences Shri S.Jaipal Reddy gave this information in reply to a written question in the Lok Sabha today.