What role did policy failures and neglect play?

Headlines scream of the numerous dead and missing, and ascribe these events largely to cloudbursts, extreme weather, landslides, deforestation, infrastructure expansion and lack of early warning systems: the ‘what’ question, i.e., with a few exploring the question of ‘why.’ There is also very little discussion on ‘who’ should be held responsible.

Undoubtedly, the vulnerabilities of a young and fragile mountain system like the Himalayas have been exacerbated by a multitude of inexplicable policy measures that have been taken in the face of near-certain and observable climate change.

This should focus attention sharply on the issue of accountability, which is important not to pin blame, but to better integrate climate vulnerabilities with the risks added by poorly-planned development strategies, so that we can weigh these against adaptation needs.

The climate vulnerabilities of India, in particular those related to monsoon variability, have caused alarm for more than a couple of decades now. The Climate Risk Index published by Germanwatch places the most climate-affected countries, as per its long-term index (1993–2022), into two groups: One, countries most affected by highly unusual extreme events; and two, countries affected by recurring extreme events.

India has been classified in the second group and should expect that a new normal is already emerging in terms of its weather patterns and water flows. Ignoring a probabilistic assessment of environmental impacts based on this new normal would amount to criminal negligence.

The first point of accountability lies with the ministry of environment, forests and climate change.

After boasting of a strong regulatory framework aimed at environmental protection for nearly five decades, the ministry in 2020 inserted an appendix in its Environmental Impact Assessment notification that exempted several types of activities from prior environmental clearance without setting out specifics such as the definition of ‘linear projects’ or laying down thresholds or conditions on the volume or method of earth extraction.

Also, it did not distinguish between ecologically sensitive areas and degraded lands, nor did it outline whether excavation near wetlands, forests or water bodies required separate clearance. Thankfully, the Supreme Court struck down this exemption, holding it to be arbitrary, unreasonable and against constitutional provisions.

However, in this four-year period, significant environmental damage may already have been done in the Himalayan region by massive infrastructural projects, including for road construction, tunnels, hydro-power and so on.

Note that the National Highway Authority of India, an autonomous body under the administrative control of the central ministry of road transport and highways, is under scrutiny of the government of Himachal Pradesh, the high court in this state as also the Supreme Court of India for its role in environmental degradation, unregulated hill cutting and dumping.

The state government is also setting up a committee to monitor the work of the agency, which is also undertaking urgent repairs of various roads in the state. Taxpayer money is undoubtedly being used in an unfructuous manner and with high inefficiency. Not only have poorly planned development projects led to an exacerbation of environmental instability and vulnerabilities in the state, but also caused significant loss of lives and livelihoods and possibly de-development too.

State governments in hill states also have a key responsibility, as the subject is on the concurrent list. While strong regulatory frameworks exist in these states, enforcement is a challenge. As a result, hill towns are facing problems like overcrowding, traffic congestion, acute housing shortages and encroachment.

Apart from worsening environmental problems, overcrowding and high urbanization have exposed more people to climate vulnerabilities. Paradoxically, while it is true that hill states provide significant ecosystem services for downstream states, little compensation is provided by the latter to the former, which reduces the incentive of hill states to protect these ecosystems.

A problem of high population density in hill states is compounded by the rapid growth of tourism. As the plains experience longer and hotter summers, and as people become more mobile, a retreat by plains-folk to the hills for cooler climes has seen an explosion in numbers. Additionally, the creation of ‘high-speed’ road infrastructure to pilgrimage sites is pulling domestic tourists from more distant parts of India.

A look at the state tourism policy of Uttarakhand, for illustration, reveals its focus to be on tourist numbers and experiences, with lip-service given to environmental sustainability.

The courts of India are trying to hold state governments as well as central institutions accountable for their sustainability policies and practices—or lack thereof—but the demand for accountability must come from wider constituencies.

People at large have a legitimate role to play in this process—not embracing their own power in this context will result in minimal appeals for employment and compensation, as seen in Himachal Pradesh after the horrific disasters recently witnessed there.

The author is an independent expert on climate change and clean energy.