N4S: 

This article explores the drying Himalayan springs, linking it to climate change, deforestation, and poor governance. UPSC usually frames such topics through broad yet region-specific questions, like the 2017 question on climate impacts in Himalayan and coastal states. Aspirants often falter by giving generic answers, lacking micro-level insights. Aspirants often rely on generic content – definitions of climate change, impacts on agriculture, or global treaties. But UPSC seeks granular, Indian-context analysis: Why are springs in Darjeeling drying up? What has NMSHE achieved on-ground?The article uses specific subheads like “Causes of Dying Springs”, “Performance of Government Initiatives”, and “Socio-economic Impacts” to unpack how climate science, community action, and governance play out together in the Himalayas. This helps the aspirant move from theory to real-world analysis.

PYQ ANCHORING

GS 1:  ‘Climate Change’ is a global problem. How India will be affected by climate change? How Himalayan and coastal states of India will be affected by climate change?  [2017]

MICROTHEMES:  Climate Change Impact

In the Indian Himalayas, where clear mountain springs once flowed freely, people are now facing a serious water crisis. In many villages of Darjeeling, women have to walk more than an hour every morning just to collect water from springs that are slowly drying up. These springs were once a lifeline, but now nearly half of them are gone or running dry. And it’s not just about water – climate change, careless construction, and a lack of planning are putting the entire region at risk.

So, what’s drying up the springs so quickly? Can we find a way to develop the region without harming nature? And are we doing enough to save the Himalayas before it’s too late?

Causes of dying springs in Himalayan Region

Initiatives to protect the Himalayas // PRELIMS

Performance of the Govt. Initiatives // MAINS

1. Policy Implementation and Governance

Implementation has been partial and uneven. 

NMSHE’s activities (primarily research and monitoring) have often been slow to translate into concrete actions, due to limited budgets and institutional overlap. A “participatory and sectorally coordinated mixed governance approach” is needed for Himalayan ecosystems, implying current siloed efforts are inadequate. 

Similarly, SAPCCs (prepared by all Himalayan states) have struggled to secure dedicated funding. Many remain static documents rather than dynamic programs; for example, some states updated SAPCCs only once and lacked clear budget lines. Local bodies and forest departments are often weakly linked to the plans, hampering governance on the ground.

In contrast, the SECURE Himalaya project represents stronger multi-level coordination: it was formally launched by MoEFCC and UNDP (Oct 2017) and involves state forest/line departments in four states. It set up steering committees and landscape management plans for areas like Kanchenjunga (Sikkim) and Gangotri (Uttarakhand). Under this project, nearly 2,000 frontline forest staff and community members have been trained in habitat monitoring, and 1,000 women/youth in eco-tourism and sustainable crafts. This indicates relatively effective project governance in select landscapes.

Spring revival efforts have also adopted a multi-stakeholder model: a NITI Aayog working group (2017) brought together central ministries (Land Resources, MoEFCC, CGWB), state agencies (e.g. Sikkim Rural Development) and NGOs (ACWADAM, ICIMOD). A 2022 national workshop (NITI Aayog) further pledged to create platforms for sharing best practices on spring recharging. This inclusive structure is a governance achievement, although actual field-scale funding and implementation are only ramping up.

Gaps: Across all missions, persistent gaps include bureaucratic delays, overlapping mandates (e.g. between state forests and rural development agencies), and a lack of measurable targets and monitoring. For instance, NMSHE envisaged an “Himalayan knowledge network” years ago, but many projects remain stuck in planning. 

SAPCCs often lack institutional champions, so priorities (like agroforestry or disaster relief) fall through. Even Secure Himalaya’s limited geography (just 4 states) means most of the IHR (e.g. entire Northeast Himalaya) is not covered. Overall, governance is patchy – strong in pilot projects (like SECURE sites) but weak in statewide or inter-state programs.

2. Ecological and Environmental Outcomes

Evaluating environmental outcomes is challenging due to limited long-term data. Some positive signs are reported in targeted areas, but system-wide effects are still emerging. Under SECURE Himalaya, for example, one major achievement is launching India’s first nationwide Snow Leopard Population Assessment (SPAI), providing baseline data for Himalayan wildlife. Protected Area management has been strengthened in project sites, and anti-poaching patrols intensified (though detailed numbers are not public).

The NMHS-supported projects have contributed dozens of on-ground interventions: by mid-2020s they counted 37 water resource and 74 biodiversity conservation projects across Himalayan states. These include alpine wetland restoration, native species nurseries, and promotion of organic horticulture, which should improve habitat quality and water security. Likewise, many SAPCCs earmarked programs (e.g. contour trenching, watershed bunding, medicinal plant cultivation) that, if implemented, would benefit ecology. For instance, Uttarakhand’s SAPCC advocated spring protection and afforestation on degraded slopes, which some NGOs and local governments have begun to act on.

However, comprehensive ecological monitoring is still lacking. There are few published assessments of trends like forest cover change or glacier health directly attributable to these schemes. The IHR continues to see reports of shrinking springs and retreating glaciers, underscoring that policy actions have not yet fully countered climate stress. Achievements so far tend to be site-specific successes rather than landscape-level transformations. For example, a few hundred springs have been rejuvenated in model villages (using Darjeeling–HP style “Dhara Vikas” trench systems), securing drinking water locally, but tens of thousands more springs remain dry. Similarly, forest regeneration efforts (through CAMPA or afforestation drives) have helped re-green some degraded lands in Himachal and Uttarakhand, yet many reports warn of overall tree-line and biodiversity loss if warming continues.

In summary, some environmental outcomes are emerging: better wildlife data (SPAI), local spring flow recovery, and targeted habitat restoration. But data are sparse. The initiatives’ ecological effectiveness is often assumed rather than proven, pointing to a need for systematic monitoring (e.g. linking SAPCC projects to measurable indicators).

3. Socio-economic and Community Impact

Many IHR policies explicitly aim to benefit mountain communities, but impacts vary widely. The SECURE Himalaya project has a strong livelihood component: besides conservation training, it set up skill-building camps for women and youth in nature-tourism and traditional crafts. This has reportedly given hundreds of families alternative incomes, though formal evaluations are pending. Communities in SECURE sites are also encouraged to form eco-development committees, co-manage pastures, and engage in citizen science (snow leopard monitoring), which builds local ownership.

NMSHE itself is mostly a research mission and has limited direct community outreach. Its socio-economic impact depends on how states use its findings. In contrast, the NMHS Action Research under (State Government Projects) mandate involvement of state agencies to tackle local problems (e.g. a Himachal project on vermiculture, or a Sikkim project on piggery), blending science with livelihoods. These projects often employ local people as field staff, which builds capacity.

SAPCCs’ community impact is uneven. Good examples exist where climate funds have flowed to villages: e.g. some Uttarakhand hill villages received agroforestry saplings and training, or slope stabilization works (through MGNREGS) that reduced landslide risk. The spring-revival works (often combined with village water committees) are also community-driven, with local youths and women’s groups digging recharge trenches and planting. Such actions improve water security and reduce drudgery (women walk less for water), which is a clear socio-economic gain.

Gaps: Nevertheless, many schemes suffer from low grassroots reach. Participation in planning is sometimes token; the NMSHE’s research outputs have yet to translate into village-level programs. In some areas, communities feel overwhelmed by overlapping projects (e.g. being told about SAPCC, NMHS, Jal Jeevan Mission, etc. separately). Some locals also mistrust external projects or lack the training to maintain new infrastructure. For instance, while Secure Himalaya held hackathons and VR campaigns to raise awareness, actual tech uptake in villages remains small.

Furthermore, there are socio-economic challenges not fully addressed by these policies: out-migration continues as young people leave for jobs, suggesting that ecological schemes alone aren’t sufficient without parallel economic development. Land rights and grazing rights issues (for pastoral communities) also persist despite some provisions in SAPCCs and NMHS.

Way Forward

• Adopt IWRM: Focus on spring rejuvenation, watershed development, and glacier management.
• Build Green Infrastructure: Eco-friendly materials, EIA-first approach, and disaster-resilient design.
• Empower Communities: Train locals in conservation, agroforestry, and sustainable tourism.
• Promote Renewables: Use solar and micro-hydro power in remote Himalayan villages.
• Climate-Resilient Farming: Encourage drought-resistant crops, organic practices, and market linkages.
• Eco-Tourism: Regulate pilgrim numbers, support local-led tourism models, reduce ecological stress.
• Disaster Preparedness: Strengthen early warning systems, local response training, and climate projections.
• Create Eco-Corridors: Link wildlife habitats to reduce fragmentation and preserve biodiversity.
• Establish a Himalayan Body: A central institution to coordinate multi-sector sustainability efforts.
• Raise Awareness: Education campaigns on climate change, conservation, and sustainable living.

#BACK2BASICS : Himalayas : Significance & Issues

Nearly 50% of Himalayan springs have dried up, pushing women in areas like Darjeeling to walk long distances for water. This ecological crisis, worsened by climate change and unsustainable development, threatens water security, biodiversity, and even national security.

Why the Himalayas Matter

Key Issues

SMASH MAINS MOCK DROP

The drying up of Himalayan springs is not just an ecological concern but a governance failure.” Examine in the context of climate change and regional development strategies.