M Balasubramanian (balasubramanian@isec.ac.in) is at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore. P J Dilip Kumar (dilipkumar@isec.ac.in) is a retired Indian forest service offi cial at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.

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

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

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

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

India and Climate Change

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

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

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

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

Urban Populations

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

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

Himalayan Vulnerability

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

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

Roads to Nowhere

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

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

Loss of Electricity Generation

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

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

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

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

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

Need for a Change

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

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

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

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

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

Note

1 The top 10 cities in terms of exposed population are estimated to be Mumbai, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Miami, Ho Chi Minh city, Kolkata, Greater New York, Osaka-Kobe, Alexandria, and New Orleans (Nicholls et al 2008).

References

Chauhan, Chetan (2012): “Green Minister’s No to New Hydel Projects on Ganga”, Hindustan Times, 8 August.

Chopra, Ravi (2013): “The Untold Story from Uttarakhand”, The Hindu, 25 June.

Nicholls, R J, C Hanson, N Herweijer, S Patmore, J Hallegatte, J Corfee-Morlot, Jean Chateau and Robert Muir-Wood (2008): “Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes: Exposure Estimates”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No 1.

Ranger, N, S Hallegatte, S Bhattacharya, M Bachu, S Priya, K Dhore and F Rafique (2011): “An Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change on Flood Risk in Mumbai”, Climatic Change, 104(1), pp 139-67.

Singh, Jyotsna (2013): “Check Global Warming to Prevent Uttarakhand-like Disasters: World Bank”, Down To Earth, available at http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/check-global-warming-prevent-uttar....

Trivedi, Anupam (2012): “More Than 200 Villages in Uttarakhand Face Threat, 85 Need Immediate Relocation”, Hindustan Times, 6 August.

Trivedi, Anupam and Deep Joshi (2012): “Uttarakhand Bans Riverside Settlements”, Hindustan TimesAugust. , 7

World Bank (2011): “India: Vulnerability of Kolkata Metropolitan Area to Increased Precipitation in a Changing Climate”, World Bank Other Operational Studies 2818 (World Bank: Washington DC).

– (2013): “Turn Down the Heat Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience”, World Bank, Washington DC, available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 2013/06/17862361/turn-down-heat-climate- extremes-regional-impacts-case-resilience-full-report