Civilsdaily

GS Paper: GS3-19.Disaster and Disaster Management.

  • Waves of rain: Odisha must prepare for repeated bouts of intense downpour

    Why in the News

    Odisha is going through one of its most intense monsoons, with 1,453 mm of rain between June and 25 September, a 29% excess. The rain arrived in repeated bouts that left no time to recover, exposing a gap between the State’s celebrated evacuation system and its drains, roads and towns.

    Why was this monsoon so intense?

    1. Many weather systems: An unusually large number of low-pressure systems (rain-bearing areas of low air pressure) formed, 11 over the Bay of Bengal. The latest made landfall near Kalingapatnam on 23 September.
    2. Forecast missed: The India Meteorological Department (IMD) had forecast 90% of the long-period average (LPA) for India, the multi-decade mean used as the benchmark for a normal monsoon.
    3. El Niño expectation: That forecast rested partly on an expected El Niño, a warming of the central Pacific that usually weakens the Indian monsoon.
    4. From deficit to excess: The State finished June with a 47% deficit, after which the weather systems came to dominate its rainfall.
    5. The takeaway: Regional weather systems overrode a national forecast built on a global driver, so Odisha got repeated deluges instead of a weak season.

    Why do repeated bouts cause more damage?

    1. Saturated ground: When an earlier bout has soaked the soil and filled local storage, the next bout turns almost at once into runoff, so floods come faster.
    2. Extreme days: At least 60 locations have received more than 100 mm of rain in a single day.
    3. Floods and landslides: Swelling rivers threaten floods downstream in Bhadrak and Jajpur, and landslides in hilly areas.
    4. Two kinds of terrain: The hilly south faces slope failure, meaning landslides. The coast is a flat depositional plain built by several deltas, so water drains slowly into the sea.
    5. People affected: By the State’s estimates, 5.2 lakh people were affected by the end of July and another 13.5 lakh by late August.

    What does the long-term record show?

    1. Rainfall bursts: A May study by the Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, using data from 1901 to 2020, found maximum one-day and five-day rainfall bursts becoming more common.
    2. Fewer heavy-rain days: The same study found the frequency of heavy-rain days dipping, so rain is concentrating into fewer, more intense spells.
    3. Climate link: Climate change is increasingly correlated with a more protracted monsoon withdrawal and more intense rain events.

    Do Odisha’s evacuation protocols match its civic engineering?

    1. Zero-casualty policy: Odisha is renowned for its long-standing goal of zero casualties, built on early warning and mass evacuation. Its efficacy this season remains untested.
    2. Drain deficiencies: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) flagged deficiencies in drain design and maintenance in 2024, and this season will stress them.
    3. Urban waterlogging: Recurrent waterlogging in towns such as Berhampur shows the State is better at evacuating people than at draining its towns.
    4. Transport disruption: Floods repeatedly cut inter-State highways and rail lines, so roads, trade and livelihoods cannot absorb back-to-back shocks.
    5. Assessments pending: Crop and infrastructure damage assessments, and peak levels of the Baitarani, Budhabalanga, Jalaka and Rushikulya rivers after the 11th system fades, will show the season’s full cost.

    Challenges

    1. Design for single events: Drains and embankments are sized for isolated storms, not for back-to-back bursts on saturated ground.
    2. Building on floodplains: Towns expand into low-lying land and fill natural drainage channels, which raises flood exposure.
    3. Forecast blind spots: Seasonal forecasts built on global drivers miss regional extremes, so preparation keyed to them falls short.
    4. Losses beyond lives: Evacuation saves lives but not crops, homes and roads, which drive the cost of recovery.

    Way Forward

    1. Redesign drains: Odisha’s urban local bodies should redesign drains for repeated intense bursts and correct the defects the audit found.
    2. Plan for multiple events: The Odisha State Disaster Management Authority should plan for several extreme spells in one season, using burst trends in rainfall records.
    3. Flood-proof transport: Raise and cross-drain vulnerable highway and rail stretches, working with the national highway and railway authorities.
    4. Impact forecasting: Pair IMD warnings with district-level forecasts of runoff and waterlogging.

    Conclusion

    Odisha’s disaster system is built to move people out of harm’s way before a single storm, not to keep towns and roads working through a season of repeated deluges. It needs to pivot from anticipating isolated seasonal anomalies to preparing for repeated intense downpours, and the pending damage assessments will show how wide that gap is.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS3, 10 marks] Discuss how the contradiction between ‘rapid infrastructure development’ and ‘disaster-risk reduction’ in ecologically-sensitive areas of India can be managed, with suitable examples.”

  • In parched Maharashtra, why drought can’t be declared yet

    Why in the News

    Maharashtra cannot formally declare a drought despite a rainfall deficit across 31 of its 36 districts, because the rules governing central relief fix an assessment window that has not yet opened. Under National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) norms, a kharif drought assessment can begin only from 5 October, once the monsoon starts to withdraw, and a rabi assessment only in March 2027. Opposition leaders have asked that a drought be declared, and the Chief Minister has said the government is taking all steps necessary to deal with an alarming situation. The contested point is that a declaration framework built around fixed seasonal windows cannot respond to a crop failure that has already occurred.

    Why has a drought not been declared yet?

    1. The kharif window: NDRF rules allow a drought assessment for the kharif season, which runs from June to October, to begin only from 5 October, once the monsoon starts to withdraw.
    2. The rabi window: For the rabi season, which runs from October to April, the assessment can be held only in March 2027.
    3. What the timing means on the ground: The kharif crop has already failed, so the assessment that decides relief will measure a loss that was complete before the window opened.

    Who declares a drought, and on what basis?

    1. No single national definition: There is no definition of drought accepted across India, so the threshold is not uniform between States.
    2. The State declares: States hold the authority to declare a drought based on local conditions.
    3. The Centre holds the money: The State’s report must conform to the parameters specified under NDRF norms, and disaster relief funds are unlocked by the Centre.
    4. Why the two halves do not match: A State can act on local conditions but cannot fund the response on its own, so the operative standard is the central one whatever the State’s own assessment says.

    What are the NDRF parameters for a declaration?

    1. Crop loss: The extent of loss to the standing crop is the primary trigger.
    2. The moisture adequacy index: The index measures how far available soil moisture meets crop water requirement, and it is used to assess soil health for the purpose of the declaration.
    3. Rainfall deficit: The deficit must be up to 70 per cent.
    4. Sowing shortfall: Sowing must fall below 50 per cent of the total cultivable kharif or rabi area.
    5. Drinking water and groundwater: Drinking water shortage must be severe and groundwater tables must be shrinking.
    6. Fodder shortage: Availability of fodder for livestock must be short.
    7. Food production and migration: A decline in food production and labour migration in search of work are both counted.

    What do the rainfall and sowing figures show?

    1. The driver: The rain deficit this season is El Nino driven, and it has hit an agriculture dependent State economy directly.
    2. The spread of the deficit: The India Meteorological Department (IMD) records that 31 of 36 districts in Maharashtra are rain deficient, with 20 of them facing a deficit of 25 per cent to 58 per cent.
    3. The gaps between spells: In more than 100 of the State’s 355 drought hit talukas, gaps between rain spells have stretched to 40 to 60 days.
    4. A delayed sowing: Kharif sowing began only on 15 July against the normal 10 June, and rain failure after sowing then stunted flowering and fruiting.
    5. The area lost: The main kharif crop, sown across 147 lakh hectares, has withered.
    6. The crops worst hit: Soybean and cotton, the mainstay of small and marginal farmers in Marathwada and Vidarbha, are the worst affected. The dry spell has also stunted sugarcane growth in Marathwada and parts of western Maharashtra.
    7. Rain that damaged rather than helped: Where rain did fall it was short and intense, which damaged soil health and caused erosion in some areas.
    8. The structural exposure: Maharashtra’s agriculture is largely rain fed, and its irrigation potential, at under 20 per cent, is far below that of States such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

    How bad is the water storage position?

    1. Major and medium dams: Data up to 20 September shows the State’s 138 major dams at 85 per cent of capacity and 264 medium dams at 65 per cent, against 96 per cent and 77 per cent at the same point last year.
    2. The smallest storages are worst off: The State’s 2,630 small and micro dams stand at 43 per cent against 57 per cent a year ago, and these are the storages that villages draw on directly.
    3. The regional split: Marathwada, which has the most dams at 929, holds 46 per cent against 81 per cent last year. Amravati division stands at 64 per cent, Nagpur at 72 per cent, Nashik at 83 per cent, Pune at 88 per cent and Konkan at 76 per cent.
    4. Why drinking water is the immediate concern: Storage has to carry the State through the dry months to the next monsoon, so a deficit measured in September is a supply problem for the following summer.

    What has the State done in the meantime?

    1. Loss assessment has begun: The State government has begun surveys and panchanamas to assess crop loss, so that the administration can quantify losses in food production and in money terms.
    2. A proposal after the window opens: Maharashtra has decided to submit a proposal to the Centre for financial assistance after 5 October.
    3. A central team follows: Before relief funds are released, a central team will visit the affected regions and make its own assessment.
    4. Relief already announced: The Chief Minister announced a farm loan waiver of Rs 40,385 crore during the monsoon session in July, with an additional Rs 50,000 incentive for farmers who repaid their loans regularly.

    Challenges to the drought declaration framework

    1. Relief is timed to the calendar rather than to the failure: An assessment window keyed to monsoon withdrawal starts counting after the loss is complete, so compensation arrives a season late. Eg. A kharif crop lost in August is assessed only from October under the present norms.
      The Fix: Allow a provisional interim assessment on a triggered basis once sowing and rainfall thresholds are breached, with the final assessment reconciling it later.
    2. Taluka level averages hide the worst affected villages: Declaration works off administrative units, so a severely affected pocket inside a unit that is only moderately deficient receives nothing. Eg. Rain spell gaps vary sharply between talukas within the same division in the present season.
      The Fix: Use village level rainfall and satellite crop condition data as the unit of assessment, as crop insurance already does.
    3. Rainfall totals do not capture distribution: A season can end close to the normal total and still destroy the crop through long dry spells at flowering. Eg. Short intense spells this season damaged soil and caused erosion while adding to the recorded total.
      The Fix: Weight dry spell length and the timing of rainfall against crop growth stages in the declaration parameters, not only the seasonal deficit.
    4. The measure of damage is production, not income: Parameters built around crop loss and food production miss the loss of farm wage work and of livestock income that follows a failed season. Eg. Labour migration is counted as an indicator of drought rather than compensated as a loss.
      The Fix: Attach an automatic expansion of rural employment guarantee workdays and fodder camp funding to a declared drought, independent of the crop loss estimate.
    5. Rain fed districts carry the shock every time: Where irrigation potential is under 20 per cent, the same districts fail in every deficit year and relief substitutes for capacity that was never built. Eg. Marathwada and Vidarbha carry the worst crop loss in the current season, as in earlier deficit years.
      The Fix: Tie drought relief transfers to a schedule of watershed treatment and micro irrigation coverage in the districts that receive them most often.

    Conclusion

    The declaration is a funding instrument and not a description of conditions, which is why a State can be in drought and not declared to be in one. The gap this exposes is between a relief architecture organised around seasons and a rainfall pattern that no longer arrives in them. The immediate status is that the State is conducting crop loss surveys and will submit its proposal once the assessment window opens. The winter season is the one to watch, since the rabi position is not assessed until March 2027.

    Back2Basics: National Disaster Response Fund

    1. Statutory basis: The Fund is constituted under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and is held by the central government to supplement a State’s own response effort.
    2. Relationship with the State fund: A State first meets relief from its State Disaster Response Fund, and the NDRF is accessed when that fund is inadequate for a disaster of severe nature.
    3. How it is financed: It is financed through a cess levied for the purpose and through budgetary support, and it is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    4. Coverage: It covers notified disasters including drought, cyclone, flood, earthquake, hailstorm, landslide, pest attack, cloudburst and cold wave.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2014, GS3, 12.5 marks] Drought has been recognised as a disaster in view of its party expense, temporal duration, slow onset and lasting effect on various vulnerable sections. With a focus on the September 2010 guidelines from the National disaster management authority, discuss the mechanism for preparedness to deal with the El Nino and La Nina fallouts in India.”

  • Building trust is key in warnings on melting glaciers

    Why in the News

    The disaster that unfolded in Nepal and Tibet began with a rock-ice avalanche that transformed into a devastating debris flow. First reports read the event as an earthquake and possibly a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF), a flood released when a lake held back by glacial ice or debris gives way. The shaking was in fact the force of the rock-ice avalanche hitting the valley floor. There was no glacial lake in the valley at all. The same sequence produced the Chamoli disaster in 2021, from a rock-ice avalanche off Ronti Peak, and the Dharali disaster in 2025. Himalayan warning systems are organised around glacial lakes whose location is known. The hazard that killed at Rasuwa can begin on any of hundreds of thousands of thawing slopes.

    What is a rock-ice avalanche hazard cascade?

    1. Rock-ice avalanche: A mass of rock and ice detaches from a steep, deglaciating slope and falls to the valley floor.
    2. Transformation into a debris flow: The impact converts the avalanche into a debris flow, which then travels down the valley and destroys what stands in its path.
    3. Hazard cascade: One process sets off the next, so the damaging flood has no single identifiable source waiting to be watched.
    4. Disaster rather than natural event: Many rock avalanches and thousands of debris flows occur every year, and they become disasters only where they strike lives and surroundings.

    Why is a hazard cascade harder to plan for than a glacial lake flood?

    1. Known water source in a GLOF: For a glacial lake outburst flood, the origin of the water is the glacial lake itself.
    2. Three interventions available at a lake: A lake can be modelled to forecast flood behaviour, drained where it is judged dangerous, or fitted with real-time monitoring.
    3. No lake at Rasuwa: There was no large lake in that valley, so none of those three options was available and the event was as difficult to plan for as Chamoli.
    4. Number of possible sources: Rock-ice avalanches could originate from many hundreds of thousands of steep, rapidly deglaciating slopes with thawing permafrost in the Himalaya.
    5. Limits of failure prediction: Detecting slopes that are already moving is perhaps possible, and working out which of them will fail catastrophically is not yet reliable.

    Who is exposed to these hazards, and where did the deaths occur?

    1. Global GLOF exposure: 15 million people worldwide live with glacial lake outburst flood danger.
    2. Concentration in High Mountain Asia: Over 9 million of those people are in High Mountain Asia, and nearly 3 million are in India alone.
    3. Hydropower workers among the dead: In both Chamoli and Rasuwa, a significant number of the dead and missing were workers at hydropower infrastructure standing in the path of the flows.
    4. Decisions downstream: The open questions are where people can and cannot live below such slopes, and what the benefits and risks of hydropower development in these environments are.

    What would a denser seismic station network deliver?

    1. Detection of landslide-generated earthquakes: Seismic stations can detect and locate the earthquake that a landslide itself generates.
    2. Seismic signature of the flood: Extreme flood events produce continuous seismic noise as they move down a valley, in the same way glacial lake outburst floods do.
    3. Technically possible, not yet built: The denser network is achievable with existing science and has not been done.
    4. Cost and cross-border requirement: It would need co-operation across the Himalaya’s international borders and tens of millions of dollars.

    Challenges to early warning for Himalayan hazard cascades

    1. Instrumenting every valley is impractical: River gauges or monitoring in every single high mountain valley cannot realistically deliver warning in time. Eg. At Rasuwa the cascade began where there was no lake and no instrumented source to watch.
      The Fix: Concentrate instruments on the valleys that carry settlements or hydropower works below a rapidly deglaciating slope.
    2. No usable lead time near the source: Warning shrinks to nothing for people living close to where the cascade begins. Eg. The system in place during the Rasuwa event gave enough warning for those further downstream and not enough for those upstream.
      The Fix: Pair instrumented warning with pre-agreed evacuation routes for the upstream valley, where no alert will ever arrive early enough.
    3. Warning as a communication problem: Detection has to be followed by the news reaching people, by the speed at which they respond, and by what they actually do. Eg. Workers at hydropower sites in the flow path died in both Chamoli and Rasuwa.
      The Fix: Embed the warning system in the communities expected to act on it, so an alert is trusted and attached to a rehearsed response.
    4. Cost of a wrong call: Naming a slope as dangerous, and failing to name one, both carry high consequences. Eg. Identifying which moving slopes will catastrophically fail is not yet reliable science.
      The Fix: Publish slope hazard assessments with their stated uncertainty, so the confidence attached to a warning travels with the warning.

    Conclusion

    Himalayan risk planning is built around a hazard whose source can be located, and the events now killing people begin on slopes nobody is watching. The science to close that gap exists and the network to carry it does not, because it requires money and agreement between countries that share the range. A warning that communities do not trust, or do not know how to act on, saves nobody, which makes trust part of the engineering rather than an afterthought. Lives can be saved on those terms, and the places cannot, which turns the harder question into where building should be permitted at all.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020, GS1, 10 marks] How will the melting of Himalayan glaciers have a far-reaching impact on the water resources of India? (हिमालय के हिमनदों के पिघलने का भारत के जल-संसाधनों पर किस प्रकार दूरगामी प्रभाव होगा ?)”

  • Don’t let borders blind us to Himalayan risks

    Why in the News

    The floods in Nepal have been widely labelled a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF), and emerging evidence points instead to an avalanche that turned into a cascading debris flow hazard. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources, in its 2023 report on glacier management in the Himalaya, had already recorded that no mechanism exists for transboundary coordination on glacier linked risks and that existing water treaties carry no provisions for them. The Committee treated transboundary coordination as the core challenge rather than a secondary one. The contested point is that the Himalayan cryosphere and its river systems form one connected risk system, while the institutions that manage that risk remain organised around political boundaries.

    What is a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood?

    1. Mechanism: A lake held back by a natural dam of glacial debris or ice releases its water suddenly when that dam fails.
    2. Cascading character: The release carries high energy and picks up rock and sediment on the way down, so the damage downstream comes from the debris as much as from the water.
    3. Triggers: An avalanche falling into a lake, a cloudburst, seismic shaking or the thawing of frozen ground supporting a moraine can each breach the dam.
    4. Why the label travels loosely: A flood can follow the same downstream path without being an outburst at all, which is what the Nepal episode now appears to be.

    Why does a Himalayan hazard refuse to stay inside one country?

    1. Rivers as carriers of risk: Rivers in South Asia are treated as sources of water to be allocated between states, and they are also the channel through which hazard moves from one country to the next.
    2. Origin and impact are separable: The event originated in northern Nepal and Nepal bore the immediate brunt, which does not place downstream India outside the risk.
    3. One ecological region: The Himalayan cryosphere, the river systems below it and the climate dynamics above it make South Asia a single ecological unit rather than a collection of separate political territories.
    4. A geography blind response fails: Institutions built around boundaries cannot manage a hazard whose pathway is decided by the slope of a river.

    What do India’s own episodes show about cascading Himalayan risk?

    1. Bhote Koshi, 2014: A landslide on the Bhote Koshi impounded a lake behind the slide debris. India worked with Nepal to breach that lake in a controlled manner and reduce the downstream impact.
    2. South Lhonak, 2023: The South Lhonak GLOF in Sikkim demonstrated the speed and the scale at which a Himalayan hazard reaches settlements and critical infrastructure.
    3. Costs are systematically understated: Damage accounting stops at assets destroyed and leaves out the setback to infrastructure, livelihoods and development trajectories that runs for years afterwards.
    4. Disruption is a standing condition: Repeated interruption of critical infrastructure and of water systems is a recurring feature of the region rather than a peripheral concern.

    What did the Parliamentary Standing Committee actually recommend?

    1. Scope of the 2023 report: The Committee examined glacier management in the Himalaya, covering flash floods associated with glacial melting and the risk of glacial lake outbursts.
    2. Systematic data gathering: It recommended sustained data collection and monitoring of glaciers across the Indian Himalayan Region, so that actionable plans rest on measurement rather than on estimate.
    3. A diplomatic route, not a technical one: It urged the Ministry of Jal Shakti to press the Ministry of External Affairs for an agreement with neighbouring Himalayan countries, which places the remedy in foreign policy rather than in water administration.
    4. The gap it named: The absence of both a coordination mechanism and of treaty provisions was recorded as a finding of a parliamentary committee, so the omission is documented rather than merely alleged.

    How does cryosphere risk change the balance between riparians?

    1. Geography sets the distribution: River courses are fixed by geography, and with them the distribution of power and of vulnerability among the countries along a basin.
    2. Upstream advantage is not absolute: An upstream riparian holds the water and holds the hazard at the same time, so risk can disrupt and even reverse the power relations that allocation bargaining assumes.
    3. Treaties written for allocation alone: Water treaties in the region divide flows between parties and carry nothing for a surge of water and debris that arrives without notice.
    4. Rivers enter geopolitics: River basins can no longer sit at the edge of the region’s geopolitical conversation, because the risk they now transmit is strategic rather than only environmental.

    What would a regional architecture built around shared risk contain?

    1. A Himalayan early warning network: A connected network across the range would convert monitoring done separately by each country into warnings that travel down the basin.
    2. Shared cryosphere risk assessments: Assessment conducted jointly gives each country the upstream picture it cannot generate from inside its own borders.
    3. Common alert protocols: Common protocols for GLOF and flash flood alerts make a warning issued in one country readable and actionable in the next.
    4. Joint exercises: Regular exercises involving the disaster management agencies of the countries concerned test whether the protocols work before an event rather than during one.
    5. India as convenor: India has the reach to convene such an arrangement and to build institutions around shared risk rather than around allocation disputes.
    6. Imperfect institutions still count: Regional institutions in South Asia are weak, and the scale of the emerging risk makes continuing to marginalise them harder to justify.

    Challenges to a Himalayan transboundary early warning system

    1. Hydrological data is treated as strategic information: Countries in the basin withhold real time river and snow data because it carries military and negotiating value. Eg. Upstream data sharing on the Brahmaputra has lapsed during periods of bilateral tension.
      The Fix: Route cryosphere and lake level data through a technical body with a standing mandate, so transmission does not depend on the state of political relations in a given year.
    2. No treaty covers glacier linked hazard: The region’s water agreements are allocation instruments and create no duty to warn. Eg. The Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 and the Ganges Water Treaty, 1996 both set shares of flow and neither addresses outburst risk.
      The Fix: Add a hazard notification protocol as a separate instrument, so it can be agreed without reopening the allocation bargain each treaty settled.
    3. Warning time is measured in minutes: A debris laden surge moving down a steep valley reaches the first settlements faster than a conventional alert chain can act. Eg. The 2021 Chamoli event in Uttarakhand destroyed a hydropower site within minutes of the initial failure.
      The Fix: Place automated sensors at the lake and along the valley that trigger sirens directly, removing the human decision step from the first stage of the alert.
    4. Infrastructure is sited on the hazard path: Hydropower and road projects occupy the narrow valleys that a surge uses, which converts a natural event into an economic loss. Eg. The Teesta III project in Sikkim was breached in the 2023 outburst.
      The Fix: Make an outburst assessment a condition of clearance for any new project in a glacial basin, with existing designs reviewed against it.
    5. Monitoring is split across agencies: Glacier science, weather forecasting and disaster response sit in separate institutions with no single owner for cryosphere risk. Eg. Glacier monitoring, satellite mapping and alert dissemination are handled by different national bodies in India.
      The Fix: Name one authority accountable for glacial lake risk, with the mapping, forecasting and alert functions reporting into it.

    Conclusion

    The hazard travels by river and the response travels by treaty, and the two follow different maps. A parliamentary committee has already recorded that neither a coordination mechanism nor a treaty provision exists for glacier linked risk, and that recommendation has not produced an agreement with any neighbouring Himalayan country. What to watch is whether the Ministry of External Affairs opens a negotiation on hazard notification distinct from the allocation question, since that separation is what would let an agreement move at all.

    Glacial Lake Outburst Floods in India

    1. Expanding lakes: Glacial lakes in India expanded by 33.7 percent between 2011 and 2024.
    2. High risk concentration: 67 high risk lakes in India recorded an increase of over 40 percent in surface area, with Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh as the main expansion zones.
    3. Transboundary lakes: Glacial lakes across Nepal, Bhutan and China recorded a 10.81 percent increase over the same period.
    4. Mapped inventory: The National Remote Sensing Centre mapped 28,043 glacial lakes larger than 0.25 hectare across the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra basins in a 2023 report, covering Indian and transboundary territory.

    Government Initiatives for Glacial Lake Risk Management

    1. National GLOF Risk Mitigation Project: A Rs 150 crore project covering Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Uttarakhand for structural and non structural mitigation at identified lakes.
    2. Central Water Commission glacial lake monitoring: It monitors 902 glacial lakes and has built a Risk Indexing Framework to rank lakes by priority.
    3. NDMA Committee on Disaster Risk Reduction: The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) works with Himalayan States and Union Territories to identify high risk lakes and put mitigation measures in place.
    4. Mandatory outburst studies for dams: Assessments became compulsory for new dams after 2023, and existing dam designs are under review against the same standard.
    5. Mission Mausam: It upgrades weather forecasting and multi hazard early warning systems, including alerts relevant to glacial lake risk.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Discuss the recent measures initiated in disaster management by the Government of India departing from the earlier reactive approach.”

  • For Bihar flood problem, solution lies beyond

    Why in the News

    Bihar received 27 per cent below normal rainfall between 1 June and the first week of September, and large parts of the state are still under water. Six rivers, the Ganga, Gandak, Kosi, Budhi Gandak, Punpun and Ghaghra, have risen above danger levels in different stretches. The flooding therefore cannot be explained by how much rain fell on the state, which locates the cause in how its rivers and channels are managed. The state’s inherited answer has been containment, holding rivers inside defined channels behind embankments since colonial times. That method separates a river from its floodplain, and with silt raising the bed year on year it reduces the channel’s capacity to carry the discharge it is given. The contested question is whether flood works should keep aiming to hold the river in, or to give it space to spread safely.

    Why did rivers cross danger levels in a deficit monsoon?

    1. The rainfall record for the season: The state recorded 27 per cent below normal rainfall for the period from 1 June to the first week of September.
    2. Two causes acting together: High upstream river flows combined with erratic weather, meaning spells of heavy localised rainfall inside an overall seasonal deficit, pushed rivers over their banks.
    3. A tributary can flood because the main river is high: The unusually high level of the Ganga created a backwater effect in the Gandak and the Punpun, the condition where a high level in the receiving river obstructs the outflow of a river draining into it.
    4. What that effect did: Both tributaries drain into the Ganga, and its high level made their discharge difficult, so water backed up in the tributaries and added to the flooding.
    5. Danger level is a gauge based threshold: It is the level fixed for each gauge site above which a river threatens habitation and property, so six rivers crossing it in different stretches describes localised failures rather than one basin wide event.

    What does containment by embankment do to a river?

    1. It cuts the river off from its floodplain: Embankments separate rivers from the floodplains that would otherwise absorb and spread a high discharge.
    2. The bed rises inside the confined channel: Continuous silt deposition raises the riverbed and reduces the channel’s capacity to carry flow.
    3. A breach concentrates the damage: When an embankment breaches, artificially contained water rushes into homes and fields at a depth and force an unconfined flood would not produce.
    4. Each year of containment narrows the next year’s margin: A rising bed inside fixed embankments means the same discharge sits higher against the same defences, so the safety margin shrinks with no change in rainfall.

    Why will higher embankments not settle the problem?

    1. The premise needs revisiting: The state needs to reconsider the idea that higher or stronger embankments will by themselves contain floods, since the containment is what raises the bed against them.
    2. Maintenance remains an obligation: Existing embankments protect settlements and land that have grown up behind them, so the choice is not between maintaining them and abandoning them.
    3. The stated objective is the opposite of containment: Persistent monsoon floods point to the need to give the river space to spread safely during periods of high discharge, which a confined channel is designed to prevent.
    4. This is an execution problem, not a knowledge problem: The measures required are already identified in policy, and the flooding continues, which places the failure in implementation rather than in diagnosis.

    What must accompany embankment maintenance?

    1. Restoration of drainage channels: The natural and constructed drains that carry water off the land have to be reopened, since water that cannot drain stays on fields after the river level falls.
    2. Protection of floodplains: The land a river needs during high discharge has to be kept free of the construction and occupation that turns a spread into a disaster.
    3. Better land use planning: Where settlement, cropping and infrastructure are permitted has to follow the flood behaviour of the stretch rather than precede it.
    4. Restoration of wetlands: Wetlands in the basin hold and release flood water, and their loss transfers that volume to the channel and to the settlements behind the embankment.
    5. Deployment of early warning systems: Warning converts an unavoidable flood into an evacuated one, and it is the only measure on this list that reduces loss without altering the river.

    Why has an existing basin plan not changed the outcome?

    1. The imperatives are already on record: The Ganga Basin River Management Plan, implemented for more than a decade, acknowledges these requirements.
    2. The outcome has not followed: Persistent monsoon floods in Bihar show how much remains to be done to give the river room to spread during high discharge.
    3. One requirement sits outside the state’s control: Addressing Bihar’s concerns requires greater coordination between the riverine states on reservoir releases, since a downstream state’s peak is partly set by upstream release decisions.

    Where does the Farakka question sit in this argument?

    1. The state’s long standing contention: Bihar has argued that the barrage and the India-Bangladesh Ganga water sharing treaty compounded its river management challenges.
    2. The mechanism it alleges: Its case is that the barrage altered the Ganga’s flow regime, affecting the movement and deposition of the river’s sediment load.
    3. The causal claim is not settled: The extent to which this contributes to flooding in Bihar remains contested, so it cannot carry the whole explanation for the season’s flooding.
    4. The claim still belongs in the negotiation: Renegotiation of the 1996 treaty, which expires in December, should take account of Bihar’s concerns over silt accumulation and the state’s river management needs.
    5. The evidence base has to be current: Any new arrangement needs to be informed by updated data on river flows and climate change projections rather than on historical records alone.
    6. The principle extends past this treaty: In a period of erratic weather, states and countries sharing a river basin have to strengthen coordination to manage flows and reduce flood related distress.

    Challenges to embankment based flood control in Bihar

    1. The network is too long to maintain to standard: Bihar carries roughly 3,800 km of flood embankments, and every weak section of it is tested in the same few weeks each year. Eg. Breaches are recorded each season at several points across different river systems rather than at one predictable location.
      The Fix: Publish a stretch wise condition rating for the full embankment length before each monsoon, with repair funds released against the ratings rather than spread evenly.
    2. Containment creates waterlogging behind the line: An embankment that keeps a river out also keeps rainwater and local drainage in, so land behind it is lost to standing water rather than to flooding. Eg. Large areas in the Kosi and Gandak belts of north Bihar remain waterlogged well after river levels have fallen.
      The Fix: Build and maintain sluice and pump drainage at every point where an embankment crosses a natural drain, and treat the outfall as part of the embankment asset.
    3. People live between the embankments: Villages inside the embanked corridor are flooded every year by design, without the protection the structure was built to provide. Eg. Settlements between the eastern and western Kosi embankments are inundated annually while the land outside them is defended.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory resettlement and compensation entitlement for households inside the embanked corridor, separate from general flood relief.
    4. The decisive failure point can lie outside the state: The Kosi and the Gandak are regulated by structures in Nepalese territory, so a breach beyond Bihar’s jurisdiction can determine its flood year. Eg. The 2008 Kosi flood followed a breach at Kusaha, upstream of the barrage in Nepal, and displaced close to three million people in Bihar.
      The Fix: Establish a joint pre monsoon inspection and certification regime with Nepal for the Kosi and Gandak structures, with agreed repair timelines.
    5. Warning lead time is short because the catchment is foreign: Rainfall and discharge data from the upper catchments decide how much notice a district can be given, and that data is not generated within India. Eg. A peak on the Kosi can reach the Bihar plains within a day of heavy rainfall in its Nepalese catchment.
      The Fix: Extend real time telemetry sharing across the upper catchments and route it directly to district administrations rather than only to state control rooms.
    6. Silt removal has no funded programme: Reversing a raised bed is slow work with no annual budget head behind it, so the only measure reliably funded is raising the embankment. Eg. Dredging in the state is undertaken for navigation on specific stretches rather than for restoring channel capacity across a river.
      The Fix: Create a standing sediment management head in the state’s water resources budget, reporting channel capacity rather than embankment height as its outcome.

    Conclusion

    A flood season inside a rainfall deficit places the cause in the river system rather than in the monsoon, and that changes what a flood programme should be measured against. Protection built on confining rivers cannot hold once the beds inside those confinements keep rising. The question Bihar now faces is whether it makes channel capacity and floodplain space the stated objective of its flood works, or continues to judge success by the height and length of its defences. The water negotiation ahead is where the state’s sediment case will either become an operating rule or remain a grievance.

    Back2Basics: Ganga Basin River Management Plan

    1. What it is: A basin scale plan that treats the Ganga as a single hydrological unit, covering environmental flows and sediment alongside pollution abatement, rather than as a set of separate state level works.
    2. Why a basin frame: The Ganga basin covers about 861,000 sq km in India, close to 26 per cent of the country’s geographical area, spread across 11 states.
    3. Who carries the Ganga programme: The National Mission for Clean Ganga, under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, is the implementing arm of the National Ganga Council and was constituted as an authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    4. What a basin plan can and cannot do: It sets requirements across the basin and depends on state departments and inter state coordination to execute them, which is how its imperatives can stand on record for years without changing outcomes on the ground.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017, GS1, 15 marks] In what way can floods be converted into a sustainable source of irrigation and all – weather inland navigation in India?”

  • Bihar flooded despite rainfall deficit; Nepal isn’t the reason

    Why in the News

    Bihar has flooded in a season of deficit rainfall. The State received 601.1 mm of rain between 1 June and 8 September, 27% below normal, and the Disaster Management Department recorded 2,157 villages across 14 districts affected. The Water Resources Minister has said this year’s flood pattern differed from previous years, with the Ganga rising first rather than the rivers that enter Bihar from Nepal. Discharge at the Valmikinagar Barrage on the Gandak stayed below what officials had expected, and the flooding continued anyway. The explanation offered is a backwater effect, so the immediate cause sits downstream in the main river rather than upstream across the border.

    What is a backwater effect?

    1. How a tributary drains: A tributary can discharge into a main river only for as long as the water level in the main river stays below its own.
    2. What happens when the main stem rises: A high stage in the main river holds the tributary’s water back and spreads it across the tributary’s own floodplain, with no additional rain falling there.

    Why did Bihar flood on a rainfall deficit?

    1. The seasonal shortfall: Rainfall from 1 June to 8 September was 601.1 mm, 27% below normal, and the deficit stood at 30% as late as 1 September.
    2. The month ran the other way: Rainfall during September itself was 31% above normal, so the cumulative figure conceals the period when the flooding worsened.
    3. Localised extremes: Individual rain events delivered 214.92 mm in East Champaran and 154.55 mm in Sitamarhi.
    4. The recorded damage: By 9 September the Disaster Management Department reported 2,157 villages in 14 districts affected and about 40.51 lakh people hit.
    5. Seasonal totals are the wrong measure: A flood is produced by the intensity and timing of rain and by upstream discharge, not by the season’s aggregate.

    How was this year’s flood sequence different?

    1. The usual order: The Bagmati, Kamla, Kosi and Gandak, which enter Bihar from Nepal, normally rise first, and the Ganga follows.
    2. What happened instead: The Ganga became the first source of concern this year, which inverted the sequence the State’s flood response is built around.
    3. The catchment is not local: The Ganga’s catchment extends far beyond Bihar, so it carries water generated by rainfall upstream, including in Uttar Pradesh.
    4. The stated drivers: The Disaster Management Department’s Principal Secretary identified rainfall around the Allahabad and Varanasi region and the resulting downstream discharge as important factors, with discharge from neighbouring States a major factor for the other rivers too.

    Why did opening the Valmikinagar Barrage not settle the Gandak?

    1. The gates were opened early: When floods hit Nepal on 26 August, Bihar opened all 36 gates of the Valmikinagar Barrage on the Gandak, which was then below its normal levels.
    2. The peak came in under expectation: Discharge at the barrage reached 1,50,200 cusecs (cubic feet per second, the volume of water passing a point each second) and then declined, below what officials had expected.
    3. Flooding continued regardless: The Gandak and the Punpun could not drain once the Ganga had swelled, which is the backwater effect at work.
    4. A second local input: The Punpun was also carrying heavy rainfall from Jharkhand.
    5. A flood travels: A river flood is a moving event, so a peak recorded at one gauge is transferred downstream and the flooded area is far larger than the area that recorded the heaviest rain.

    What do Bihar’s embankments do, and what do they not do?

    1. The length built: The State has built more than 3,730 km of river embankments.
    2. What they have protected: These structures have historically shielded around 3,600 sq km of land during floods.
    3. The limit of the structure: Embankments do not remove the underlying vulnerability of one of India’s flattest and most sediment heavy alluvial landscapes.
    4. Sediment raises the bed: The Ganga, Gandak, Kosi and Bagmati carry enormous quantities of sediment, and accumulation within a channel lifts the riverbed relative to the land beside it. Silt is a permanent condition of Bihar’s rivers rather than an event.

    Why has the Farakka Barrage entered the flood argument?

    1. The State’s contention: State leaders hold that the Farakka Barrage has trapped large volumes of silt along the Ganga over the five decades since it was built.
    2. The claimed consequence: That accumulation has made the riverbed shallower, so even normal seasonal monsoon flows now spill over the banks and produce annual flooding across the plains.
    3. A treaty deadline gives it timing: The 1996 India Bangladesh Farakka Treaty expires in December 2026, and demands in Bihar are for a review of the pact.

    What in Bihar’s own geography keeps exposure high?

    1. The rivers move: The Ganga, Gandak and Kosi constantly reshape their channels, so the land at risk is not fixed from one year to the next.
    2. People live at the water’s edge: High population density means many communities are settled close to rivers, and a rise in level turns into an evacuation rather than an inconvenience.

    Challenges to Bihar’s flood management

    1. An embankment concentrates risk at its weakest point: A breach releases water at high velocity onto land that the structure had kept dry for decades, so the damage is deeper than an unprotected flood. Eg. The Kosi breach at Kusaha in 2008 shifted the river’s course and displaced over three million people in Bihar.
      The Fix: Hold a pre positioned stock of boulders and geobags at identified weak reaches before each monsoon rather than mobilising material after a breach.
    2. Land behind the line cannot drain itself: An area sealed off from the river also loses the outlet for its own rainfall, so ground protected from flooding turns permanently waterlogged. Eg. Large tracts in the Kosi and Bagmati belts of north Bihar have gone out of cultivation from persistent waterlogging.
      The Fix: Build and maintain sluices and drainage channels through the embankment line with a fixed operating protocol for the monsoon months.
    3. Flood moderation depends on storage that does not exist: Peak attenuation on the Kosi and the Gandak requires reservoirs upstream in Nepal that have never been constructed. Eg. A high dam at Barahkshetra on the Kosi has been under discussion since the 1950s without being built.
      The Fix: Separate real time data sharing and joint forecasting from the dam negotiation, so warning improves without waiting on construction.
    4. Warnings are issued off levels already recorded: Forecasts rest on gauge readings at the moment of the peak, which leaves little lead time on terrain where water spreads sideways for tens of kilometres. Eg. A level based warning gives downstream districts only hours once an upstream gauge has crossed its danger mark.
      The Fix: Build district level inundation forecasts from upstream rainfall and barrage release data rather than from gauge readings alone.

    Conclusion

    Bihar’s flood risk is no longer set mainly by how much rain falls inside the State. It is set by the level of the main river the State has to drain into, and by channels whose beds have risen relative to the land beside them. The unresolved tension is that the structures protecting settled land also hold in the sediment that raises those beds, so each decade of protection shortens the next decade’s margin. What to watch is whether flood planning shifts from adding embankment length to sediment management, drainage behind the line and forecasting built on upstream data.

    Back2Basics: Farakka Barrage

    1. What it is and where: A barrage on the Ganga in Murshidabad district of West Bengal, commissioned in 1975, a short distance upstream of the border with Bangladesh.
    2. Why it was built: It diverts a part of the Ganga’s flow into a feeder canal to the Bhagirathi and Hooghly, to flush silt and maintain navigability for the port of Kolkata.
    3. A barrage, not a dam: It regulates and diverts flow through gates rather than impounding a large storage reservoir behind it.
    4. The water sharing arrangement: An agreement between India and Bangladesh shares the dry season flow measured at the barrage in ten day cycles between 1 January and 31 May.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 15 marks] What is disaster resilience? How is it determined? Describe various elements of a resilience framework. Also mention the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030).”

  • Disaster preparedness must put communities at centre

    Why in the News

    The catastrophe unfolding across Nepal is being read as a warning for the Himalaya and for mountain regions worldwide rather than as one country’s disaster. The reading rests on field research with disaster-affected communities in Nepal, including flood-affected elders, women, men and local leaders in Kharapani in the Pokhara Valley after the Seti River flood, and on separate field research on earthquake recovery in Kathmandu. Those communities reported inadequate warning, limited preparedness and delayed recovery support. They did not reject science or technology, and asked instead for warnings that function and for the equipment and training to act on them. The contest is between a preparedness system measured by its ability to detect the next hazard and one measured by whether the detection reaches a household with the authority and the means to move.

    Why does a mountain disaster become a regional problem?

    1. Mountains hold the water other regions live on: They store snow and ice, feed major rivers and sustain societies far beyond their own slopes.
    2. The physical base is changing across all mountain systems: From the Hindu Kush Himalaya to the Andes, the Alps and the Rocky Mountains, warming is altering glaciers, snowpack, permafrost and water flows.
    3. The consequences land downstream: Environmental change in the highlands cascades into social, economic and health crises in the plains that depend on those flows.

    What did flood-affected communities report?

    1. The loss was continuing rather than momentary: Residents described a long relational disaster covering the loss of relatives, homes, livestock and businesses.
    2. The damage extended past property: They described grief, disrupted livelihoods and frustration with the institutions meant to respond.
    3. Three failures were named: They reported inadequate warning, limited preparedness and delayed recovery support.

    What do affected communities ask for?

    1. Working warnings, not more instruments: Communities asked for functioning warnings, local flood-information centres, communication technologies, rescue equipment and preparedness training.
    2. An unread warning protects nobody: A warning that does not reach people, is not trusted, or is disconnected from evacuation and response plans provides no protection.
    3. The people at risk hold usable knowledge: Affected populations are knowledge holders and leaders in their own right, not recipients waiting for expert instruction.

    What five responsibilities does mountain preparedness now carry?

    1. Transboundary monitoring and data sharing: Glaciers, rivers, landslides and flood pathways cross political borders, so Nepal, India, China, Bhutan and other Himalayan countries need faster exchange of upstream observations, satellite information, river conditions and warnings. Scientific cooperation of this kind is life-saving regional infrastructure.
    2. Community-centred warnings: Information must reach people in trusted languages and forms, warnings must be tested, communities must know where to go, and women, elders, youth and marginalised groups must hold meaningful authority in preparedness decisions.
    3. Preparedness as a permanent public responsibility: Local information centres, evacuation plans, shelters, community response teams, health-system continuity and rescue equipment all require sustained investment rather than post-disaster allocation.
    4. Ecosystem-sensitive mountain development: Roads, tourism, hydropower and mining bring benefits, and poorly planned versions of each amplify exposure to the hazard.
    5. International climate responsibility: Nepal has contributed a tiny share of historical emissions and faces profound risk from a changing cryosphere, so climate finance, loss and damage support, scientific capacity and locally controlled adaptation are questions of justice rather than charity.

    Challenges to community-centred disaster preparedness

    1. The first responder tier is the least resourced: Panchayati Raj Institutions and urban local bodies carry the immediate response duty without matching funds, trained staff or defined roles. Eg. Relief work and maintenance of community assets sit with panchayats under the Eleventh Schedule, and States have devolved neither dedicated disaster staff nor untied funds against that entry.
      The Fix: Earmark a fixed share of the State Disaster Response Fund for village-level preparedness and train elected representatives through the National Disaster Management Authority and National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj modules.
    2. Spending is tilted towards relief rather than prevention: The disaster fund architecture keeps response funds far larger than mitigation funds, so preparedness competes for the smaller pool every year. Eg. India’s mitigation funds were created only after the response funds had been operating for years, and the tilt towards relief persists.
      The Fix: Move early warning systems, retrofitting and nature-based works into the National and State Disaster Mitigation Funds with a published annual drawdown target.
    3. Warnings fail at the last mile: Alerts are generated centrally and lose their audience before reaching the household, which is where the decision to move is actually taken. Eg. Real-time disaster information systems and last-mile dissemination remain uneven between States.
      The Fix: Test each warning chain through a drill that measures how many households received and acted on an alert, rather than how many messages were dispatched.
    4. Himalayan hazard data stops at the border: Glacial lakes, landslide dams and river surges form upstream of national boundaries, where the agencies that will face the flood have no observation rights. Eg. The South Lhonak lake outburst flood in Sikkim in October 2023 destroyed the Teesta III dam downstream and killed dozens of people.
      The Fix: Convert existing bilateral hydrological exchanges into a standing Himalayan hazard data protocol with fixed transmission times and a named receiving authority in each country.

    Conclusion

    Preparedness is being judged by the wrong instrument. Detection capacity has improved across the Himalaya; the authority to act on a detection still sits several administrative tiers above the people who must move. The unresolved tension is that the tier holding the legal duty to respond holds neither the money nor the staff to prepare, and the tier holding both is too distant to run an evacuation. Whether that changes is visible in one measurable thing over the next monsoon: whether any Himalayan State publishes household-level reach data for its warning system, instead of counting alerts issued.

    Disaster Management in India

    1. Where the mandate sits: The Ministry of Home Affairs oversees disaster management through its Disaster Management Division, which coordinates response, relief and preparedness for natural and human-made disasters, excluding drought and epidemics.
    2. A four-tier institutional structure: The National Disaster Management Authority is chaired by the Prime Minister, State Disaster Management Authorities by Chief Ministers and District Disaster Management Authorities by District Collectors, with primary responsibility resting on State governments.
    3. A fund architecture with four pillars: The National and State Disaster Response Funds finance relief, and the National and State Disaster Mitigation Funds finance risk-reduction projects.
    4. How resilience is defined: The Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005, defines disaster resilience as the capacity of a system or community exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing, so as to maintain an acceptable level of functioning.

    Laws and Rules Governing Disaster Management

    1. Disaster Management Act, 2005: It establishes structures and processes for disaster management at national, State, district and local levels, and mandates the creation of the National, State and District Disaster Management Authorities.
    2. Disaster Management (Amendment) Act, 2025: It modernises the 2005 framework for urban risk, climate extremes and data-driven response.
    3. It allows States to set up Urban Disaster Management Authorities in State capitals and Municipal Corporation cities. Eg. Karnataka’s authority for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
    4. It mandates national and State disaster databases covering risk assessments and real-time disaster data.
    5. It gives statutory status to the National Crisis Management Committee and the High-Level Committee.
    6. Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992: Article 243G empowers Panchayati Raj Institutions to prepare plans and implement schemes, and the Eleventh Schedule places relief work and maintenance of community assets among their functions.

    Government Initiatives for Disaster Preparedness

    1. National Disaster Management Plan: Issued in 2016 and revised in 2019, it is India’s first all-hazard plan aligned to the Sendai Framework.
    2. Disaster Management Plan of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj: Framed under Section 37 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, it builds community-based planning from the village to the district panchayat.
    3. Aapda Mitra: It trains community volunteers in first response, search and rescue in disaster-prone districts.
    4. SACHET and the Common Alerting Protocol: They push multi-hazard alerts to every phone in an affected geography from one standardised feed.
    5. Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure: Launched by India in 2019, it is an international organisation of over 50 countries working on disaster-proofing critical infrastructure.

    Key Facts about Disaster Risk Reduction

    1. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015-2030: Adopted at Sendai in Japan, it carries four priorities for action and seven global targets.
    2. The United Nations custodian: The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction anchors global disaster risk reduction and runs the Sendai Framework Monitor for reporting against the seven targets.
    3. India’s stated vision: The Prime Minister’s Ten-Point Agenda on Disaster Risk Reduction was announced in 2016 at the Asian Ministerial Conference.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 15.0 marks] What is disaster resilience? How is it determined? Describe various elements of a resilience framework. Also mention the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030).”

  • SC refuses extension for Aravalli panel to submit final report

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has refused a six month extension sought by the high powered committee it appointed to define the Aravalli hills and range, and has directed the panel to submit its final report by 30 November. The committee was constituted to evolve a uniform definition of the ecologically fragile Aravalli hills and range and to recommend measures to regulate future mining. A three judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India observed that the panel appeared to be waiting for the Chief Justice’s retirement, which falls on 9 February 2027, and made clear that no further extension would be granted. The Bench also directed the panel to work continuously, to file interim reports on urgent issues, and to hear all stakeholders including tribal communities in Rajasthan and Gujarat. The tension is that a definition still unsettled after repeated extensions is the same definition that determines where mining may lawfully continue in the meantime.

    What is the high powered committee tasked with?

    1. Composition: It is a five member panel constituted by the Supreme Court and headed by the Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), the Union government’s forestry research body.
    2. First task, the definition: It must evolve a single uniform definition of what counts as the Aravalli hills and the Aravalli range, applicable across the States the range runs through.
    3. Second task, mining regulation: It must recommend the measures by which future mining in the defined area is to be regulated.

    Why does a definition decide what can be mined?

    1. Protection follows the boundary: Restrictions on mining and construction attach to land identified as Aravalli, so the extent of the definition is the extent of the protection.
    2. State practice has diverged: The range runs across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, and in the absence of one national test each State has applied its own criteria to identify protected hills.
    3. The dispute is about elevation and landform: The competing tests turn on how much a landform must rise above the surrounding ground before it qualifies as an Aravalli hill, and a stricter threshold removes large stretches from protection.
    4. The interim period is the live cost: Mining approvals continue to be processed while the definition is pending, so delay is not neutral between the parties.

    What has the Court directed the panel to do?

    1. A hard deadline: The final report is due by 30 November, with the matter listed for hearing on 2 December, by which time the report is expected to have been filed.
    2. Interim reporting: The panel must submit interim reports on specific issues that require immediate consideration rather than holding everything back until the full exercise is complete.
    3. Stakeholder hearings: The panel must hear all stakeholders before finalising its recommendations, including tribal communities in Rajasthan and Gujarat whose land and livelihood the definition affects.
    4. No further extension: The Bench recorded that the six month request would not be entertained and that no further extension would follow.

    Challenges to regulating mining in the Aravallis

    1. Illegal mining outruns enforcement: Leases are policed by State mining departments with small field staff, so extraction continues outside sanctioned boundaries and at night. Eg. The Supreme Court has repeatedly had to intervene in Aravalli mining in Haryana, including through orders restraining mining in the range’s Haryana stretch.
      The Fix: Mandate satellite based volumetric monitoring of every lease, with quarterly comparison of extracted volume against the approved mining plan.
    2. Definitional ambiguity is exploited at the margin: Where a landform’s status is arguable, the developer’s classification prevails until challenged, which converts a mapping question into a licensing loophole. Eg. Construction has advanced on Aravalli land in Faridabad on the basis that the plots were not classified as forest.
      The Fix: Publish the finalised boundary as a single geo referenced map notified in the gazette, so classification is not decided plot by plot.
    3. Land use change destroys the hill even without mining: Real estate and quarry backfilling flatten the same ridges that mining regulation is meant to protect, and neither is governed by mining law. Eg. Farmhouse and residential development has expanded steadily on the Aravalli fringes around the National Capital Region.
      The Fix: Attach the mining definition to the State land use plans as well, so the same boundary governs building permissions.
    4. The ecological function is not priced into any clearance: The range checks the eastward spread of the Thar desert and recharges groundwater, services that no mining lease valuation accounts for. Eg. Groundwater levels in the districts flanking the range have fallen faster than the State averages.
      The Fix: Require a hydrological and dust dispersion impact assessment specific to the range before a lease is granted, not a generic mining environmental clearance.
    5. Restoration obligations are rarely enforced after closure: Reclamation of a mined pit is a lease condition that lapses once the operator exits, leaving abandoned pits and unstable slopes. Eg. Disused quarries across the range have filled with water and remain unrehabilitated.
      The Fix: Hold a restoration bond sized to the assessed reclamation cost, released only after independent certification that the site has been restored.

    Conclusion

    The Court has converted an open ended technical exercise into a dated one, which is the only lever available to it while the substantive question remains with the committee. The unresolved position is that protection of the range currently depends on a definition that does not yet exist, so every month of delay is a month in which the weakest interpretation operates by default. The concrete things to watch are the interim reports the panel now owes, and the hearing on 2 December at which the recommendations on regulating mining will first be tested.

    Back2Basics: The Aravalli Range

    1. What it is: One of the world’s oldest fold mountain ranges, formed in the Proterozoic era and heavily eroded, so it survives as broken ridges rather than a continuous chain.
    2. Extent: It runs roughly 690 km from Delhi in the northeast through Haryana and Rajasthan to Gujarat in the southwest.
    3. Highest point: Guru Shikhar on the Mount Abu massif in Rajasthan, at about 1,722 metres, is the highest peak of the range.
    4. Ecological role: It acts as a barrier to the eastward advance of the Thar desert and as a groundwater recharge zone for the plains on either side.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS3, 15 marks] Mineral resources are fundamental to the country economy and these are exploited by mining. Why is mining considered an environmental hazard? Explain the remedial measures required to reduce the environmental hazard due to mining.”

  • Fragile ecology, competing interests: The red flags in building Himalayan dams

    Fragile ecology, competing interests: The red flags in building Himalayan dams

    Why in the News

    A glacier collapse near the China Tibet border has triggered floods in Nepal that have killed over 1,100 people, with thousands still missing. The event has renewed expert concern about recent human made changes in a mountain system whose climatic conditions are shifting quickly. 13 hydropower plants, including several under construction projects, were affected.

    Why is the Himalayan system already fragile?

    1. A naturally unstable mountain system: The Himalayas are prone to earthquakes, landslides, avalanches and flash floods before any human intervention is added.
    2. The topography concentrates risk: The region carries lakes formed by melting glaciers, fast flowing rivers and steep slopes, in a zone highly vulnerable to strong earthquakes.
    3. Climate change acts on the pace of natural processes: Temperature change affects the pace and frequency of snow melting and thawing, and of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), which occur when water collected from melting glaciers overflows its containing barrier.
    4. Attribution and risk are separate questions: Linking any single disaster directly to climate change still requires more scientific assessment, and the overall level of risk appears to be increasing.

    How does infrastructure build up compound the toll?

    1. Dams carry a genuine benefit: Dams and reservoirs regulate the flow of water and extend access to services for people living in remote regions.
    2. Construction alters the geology: Building a dam disturbs the geology of the area and makes it more prone to earthquakes, and the drilling and tunnelling required for further projects extends that effect.
    3. Damage runs through the assets themselves: The loss of hydropower plants in this flood dented both generation capacity and access to power.
    4. Exposure has risen with use: Infrastructure build up and high tourist footfall together compounded the disaster’s toll.

    How extensive is Himalayan hydropower now?

    1. Across the Tibetan region: One recent study identified at least 193 dams built or planned across the wider Tibetan region since 2000.
    2. In Nepal: A Nepal hydropower database lists more than 570 projects at different stages.
    3. The largest single project: China is building a massive dam on the Yarlung Tsangpo, the upper course of the Brahmaputra, near Arunachal Pradesh.
    4. A fault beneath it: In July, Chinese researchers flagged an active fault line, a fracture between two blocks of rock, directly beneath the Yarlung Tsangpo mega dam.

    Why is Himalayan dam building also a geopolitical contest?

    1. Infrastructure as a sovereignty marker: Chinese infrastructure building in Tibet is treated by China as a marker of sovereignty over Tibet, not only as an energy programme.
    2. The response is more dams: India, Nepal and Bhutan have responded with their own set of dams, and India is helping Bhutan build a series of hydropower projects.
    3. Signalling and counter signalling: The result is a pattern of signalling and counter signalling in which project decisions answer each other rather than answering the basin’s hydrology.

    What is missing in transboundary cooperation?

    1. No substantial ecosystem cooperation: There has been no substantial cooperation between China and Nepal, or between China and India, on managing the shared ecosystem.
    2. The existing mechanism is narrow: Disasters in the 2000s prompted a memorandum of understanding between India and China in 2002, with an expert level mechanism on transboundary rivers created in 2005. That mechanism has to be expanded to cover other aspects such as GLOFs.
    3. Transparency differs across the border: Nepal officially publishes fairly detailed project and licensing information. Chinese project level information exists but stays scattered across separate official documents and announcements rather than in a comparable consolidated public database.
    4. No real time upstream data: There is no clearly established public system between China and Nepal for continuous, real time sharing of upstream river flow, reservoir operations or glacial lake conditions from Tibet.
    5. Early warning fails at the border: Gaps in information and data sharing between countries complicate early warning for hazards that originate across a boundary.
    6. No arbitration route: Downstream countries lack the consensus to build alliances that can deal with China, and there is no scope for international arbitration. Even a signed agreement would face a state that does not follow such international norms, as the South China Sea dispute shows.

    What would stronger cooperation require?

    1. Continuous data sharing: Cooperation would necessarily include continuous sharing of hydrological, weather and climate data across the boundary.
    2. Paying for upstream observation: Where sustained monitoring carries a cost, downstream countries could co invest in upstream observation systems or pay for specialised datasets, creating a model that benefits both sides.
    3. Standing operational machinery: Automated public warning systems, joint scientific studies and regular emergency exercises would complement the data arrangements.
    4. A landscape rather than a national frame: A nation state centric, container approach does not fit the Himalayas, since these disasters do not confine themselves within national boundaries and their ramifications run across the landscape.

    Challenges to hydropower expansion in the Himalayas

    1. Projects sit in the highest seismic risk zones: Much of the Himalayan arc falls in seismic zones IV and V, so a design earthquake is a live engineering assumption rather than a remote one. Eg. The 2011 Sikkim earthquake damaged structures at the Teesta III project and halted work.
      The Fix: Make site specific seismic hazard assessment and independent design review a published precondition for financial closure, not a post clearance formality.
    2. Sediment load shortens the working life of a project: Himalayan rivers carry among the world’s highest silt loads, which abrades turbines and fills reservoirs faster than design assumptions allow. Eg. Run of the river plants on the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi shut down repeatedly during the monsoon for desilting.
      The Fix: Require measured basin sediment yield data in the detailed project report and size desilting capacity against it rather than against a regional average.
    3. Cascade layouts convert one failure into several: Projects built in series on the same river mean an upstream breach delivers debris and water straight into the next structure. Eg. The 2021 Chamoli flood destroyed the Rishiganga project and then struck the Tapovan Vishnugad project downstream.
      The Fix: Assess clearances at the level of the whole river cascade, so cumulative and cascading failure is evaluated once rather than project by project.
    4. Tunnelling destabilises slopes and drains aquifers: Long headrace tunnels cut through fractured rock, dewater springs and remove support from the slopes above. Eg. Land subsidence in Joshimath in 2023 followed years of tunnelling and construction in the same valley.
      The Fix: Publish pre construction and post construction spring discharge and slope movement monitoring for every tunnelled project, with construction halted on a defined trigger.
    5. Rehabilitation is settled before the risk is understood: Displaced communities are resettled onto land whose hazard exposure has not itself been mapped. Eg. Resettlement colonies for Himalayan projects have been sited on debris fans and old landslide zones.
      The Fix: Require the resettlement site to carry its own hazard clearance before the displacement award is finalised.

    Conclusion

    Himalayan risk now runs through infrastructure as much as through geology. The two positions that cannot both hold are that dams are national assets worth building at scale and that the floods which destroy them cross three borders within minutes, with no obligation on the upstream state to say what is coming. Data sharing, not engineering standards, is the binding constraint on early warning. The concrete thing to watch is whether the India China expert level mechanism is widened past monsoon river flow data to cover glacial lake and reservoir conditions.

    [2023, GS3, 10 marks] Dam failures are always catastrophic, especially on the downstream side, resulting in a colossal loss of life and property. Analyze the various causes of dam failures. Give two examples of large dam failures.”

  • Why risk-monitoring in the Himalayas is like looking for ‘needles in haystacks’

    Why risk-monitoring in the Himalayas is like looking for ‘needles in haystacks’

    Why in the News

    A Senior Fellow of the Energy, Water and Sustainability Program at the Stimson Center, a US based non-profit think tank, has set out the sequence of the recent Nepal flood and the lessons it holds for hazard monitoring across the Himalayas.

    What triggered the Nepal flood, and why is the trigger still uncertain?

    1. A glacial detachment carrying bedrock: The present consensus is that the initial trigger was a glacial detachment that included bedrock on the northern slopes of Langtang Lirung, a 7,000-plus-metre peak in the Langtang range.
    2. The triggering process is not understood: The failure could be related to climate-related risks or to gradual shifts at the site itself.
    3. A slow creep, then a tipping point: Preliminary analysis indicates minor movement of the glacial mass in the weeks or months before the event, followed by a tipping point.

    How did a single glacial failure cascade more than 100 kilometres downstream?

    1. The descent: The failed mass swept down a gully toward the Lhende River, which reaches the Chinese border. The source area was around 5,200 metres, so the flow descended a couple of thousand metres.
    2. A temporary natural dam: The flow deposited a mixture of ice, rock and sediment that blocked the river.
    3. Three contested water sources: Debate continues on how much water came from the glacier itself, from melting of entrained ice, and from water that accumulated behind the landslide dam.
    4. Nine minutes to the border: The dam failed and sent a major pulse of water downstream, which reached the China border in roughly nine minutes. Footage from the Gyirong border facility shows a massive dark wave carrying a large volume of material, not just water.
    5. Back into Nepal within seconds: The border facility sat at a confluence with the Gyirong River tributary, and within seconds of hitting it the flow was already moving back into Nepal. There was no realistic opportunity to warn communities downstream, and many of those who could have generated an alert were themselves swept away.
    6. Dams, hydropower and villages: The flow destroyed dams and hydropower projects downstream, recruited additional sediment, and swept through villages along the river corridor.
    7. Beyond every mapped floodplain: The event continued into Nuwakot district and affected larger market towns in the floodplain, in areas well beyond the 100-year or 500-year floodplain (the extent a flood of that average recurrence interval is expected to reach). This was a thousand-year-plus flood event.
    8. Registered at the India-Nepal border: Significant impacts extended more than 100 kilometres downstream, and the flood pulse also registered at the India-Nepal border.

    Why are cascading hazard chains the larger Himalayan problem?

    1. A pattern across three countries: The same chain has appeared in Chamoli, in Sikkim with the South Lhonak GLOF (glacial lake outburst flood), and in Nepal with the Melamchi disaster.
    2. Climate risk as an amplifier: Climate risks are interacting with and amplifying other disaster risks, and these events are becoming more frequent and more intense.

    Why does hazard monitoring keep missing the sites that fail?

    1. Known high-risk sites exist, and this was not one: Several places around Nepal have been identified as high-risk areas for glacial detachment and surges, and glaciers immediately on the other side of Langtang Lirung are high-priority research sites. This particular location had no red flags.
    2. Hindsight still needs a target: Analysts are examining whether changes could have been detected in the days before the event, but that would still require knowing where to look.
    3. No signal to separate from noise: Monitoring every glacier and every mountainside that could collapse is not feasible without some signal that narrows the search.
    4. Satellites answer only the question they were pointed at: Remote sensing and satellite-based analysis are important, but different satellite tools answer different questions, and each needs a target. Engaging local communities is how the target is found.
    5. Almost every event came from an unknown place: Of over a dozen extreme events in the Himalayas over 10 years, almost all came from unknown places, the South Lhonak GLOF being the one known risk.
    6. No borrowed training data: Patterns are beginning to emerge, but no training dataset from the Alps or Norway can simply be transferred to the Himalayas, which have their own context and significant data scarcity and data sparsity.

    What monitoring triangle does the interview propose for India, Nepal and the Himalayas?

    1. Mapping is the baseline: The mapping exercise undertaken by India’s Home Ministry and space agencies to monitor glacial lakes and hazards is an absolute necessity. Nepal does not have the same level of resources. Some mapping has been done there, and it is not as comprehensive.
    2. Maps enable zoning; monitoring is the key: Once maps exist, hazard zoning and modelling can begin, but detection depends on continuous monitoring.
    3. Corner one, remote sensing: Remote sensing and satellite imagery form one part of the triangle.
    4. Corner two, fixed station networks: Hydromet (hydrological and meteorological) and seismic stations form the second.
    5. Corner three, localised monitoring through local government: Local governments, disaster managers and Community Disaster Management Committees can collect local data, report landslides and monitor impacts after storms.
    6. Localised monitoring through people immersed in the terrain: Yak herders and fishermen notice changes in rivers, glaciers and glacial lakes. Oral histories with elders reveal smaller avalanches, glacial-lake floods and other events that science has not recorded, helping identify potential hotspots.
    7. The combination is the detector: Combining the station network, remote sensing and localised monitoring gives a better chance of detecting changes and distinguishing the signal from the noise that tells you where to look.

    Challenges to Himalayan hazard monitoring

    1. Hydropower sited in hazard corridors without upstream sensing: Projects sit in narrow gorges below unstable ice and rock with no instrument between the source and the intake. Eg. The February 2021 Chamoli rock and ice avalanche from Ronti peak destroyed the Rishiganga and Tapovan-Vishnugad projects with no upstream warning.
      The Fix: Make a hazard chain assessment and ridge line sensors with satellite telemetry a condition of clearance for every Himalayan hydropower project.
    2. Instruments die with the event they are meant to detect: A sensor placed at the lake or in the channel is destroyed by the first surge and reports nothing. Eg. Monitoring equipment installed at South Lhonak lake in September 2023 was washed away in the October 2023 outburst that also breached the Teesta III dam at Chungthang.
      The Fix: Place redundant stations on high ground and at staggered distances downstream so at least one survives to trigger sirens.
    3. Cross-border flows carry no shared alert: The upstream country holds the first minutes of warning and no protocol obliges it to pass them on. Eg. India’s hydrological data sharing arrangement with China on the Brahmaputra lapsed in 2023.
      The Fix: Adopt a Hindu Kush Himalaya alert protocol through the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) that pushes automatic upstream alerts to downstream disaster authorities within minutes.
    4. Warnings that never reach the last mile: A satellite detection is useless to a village asleep in a gorge with no siren and no signal. Eg. The Sikkim outburst struck after 10 pm on 3 October 2023 and reached the Teesta valley settlements in the dark.
      The Fix: Pair the National Disaster Management Authority’s Common Alerting Protocol based cell broadcast with battery-backed community sirens in every mapped downstream settlement.

    Conclusion

    India has the baseline map; Nepal has part of one. Neither has the monitoring triangle that turns a map into a warning. The unresolved gap is that detection still depends on knowing where to look, and the herders, fishermen and village committees who hold that knowledge are not yet wired into any station network. The test of the next monsoon is whether a single high mountain site with no red flag gets watched because a community reported it first.

    Back2Basics

    1. What it is: A sudden release of water from a lake formed by melting glaciers, held back by a natural dam of loose moraine debris or ice rather than bedrock.
    2. How it starts: An avalanche, rockfall or ice calving into the lake sends a displacement wave over the dam, or seepage erodes the moraine from within until it collapses.
    3. Why it is deadlier than a rain flood: The surge carries rock and sediment, arrives with minutes of warning, and can breach infrastructure far below the lake.
    4. India’s framework: The National Disaster Management Authority issued dedicated guidelines on GLOF and Landslide Lake Outburst Flood management in 2020.

    [2021, GS1, 15 marks] How does the melting of the Arctic ice and glaciers of the Antarctic differently affect the weather patterns and human activities on the Earth? Explain. (250 words)