Pay heed to Himalayan warnings
One disaster after another has laid bare the gap between scientific evidence and policymaking
THE Himalayas have been giving one warning after another in the form of deadly disasters — flashfloods, avalanches, glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF), cloudbursts, landslides, severe land subsidence. We have seen them happen in Kedarnath, Dhauliganga, Joshimath, Sikkim and now in Nepal, leaving a trail of destruction.
After every disaster, there is talk of monitoring glaciers, developing early warning systems, hazard risk mapping and taking preventive and mitigation measures. After a few weeks or months, the din dies down, and it is back to business as usual.
Dealing with disasters in the Himalayas requires a multi-pronged strategy, involving scientific research, policymaking, implementation machinery, public awareness and community involvement.
Science has been unequivocal about the threat to Himalayan ecology, particularly the situation relating to glaciers and water systems — what needs to be done and the gaps in understanding. At the global level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published several reports, synthesising research findings on glaciers and hilly ecosystems from various countries.
In India, the National Remote Sensing Centre has used remote sensing imagery to map over 7,500 glacial lakes (out of 28,000) in the Indian Himalayan Region. It has even prepared flood risk maps for high-risk glacial lakes, detailing flood hazard and flood wave arrival time for settlements downstream if they were to breach at some point.
In March this year, the Kathmandu-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) published two remarkable reports — ‘Changing Dynamics of Glaciers in the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region from 1990 to 2020’ and ‘HKH Glacier Outlook 2026: Insights from 50 Years of Himalayan Glacier Monitoring.’
The findings of these reports were alarming. The first one was based on data from 63,761 glaciers across the Hindu Kush region, covering over 55,000 square km and containing an estimated 5,700 cubic km of ice reserves. The analysis showed that glaciers across the region have been consistently retreating since 1990, resulting in a 12% reduction in total glacier area and a 9% decline in estimated ice reserves.
The most pronounced acceleration in glacier shrinkage occurred between 2010 and 2020, particularly in the eastern and central parts. The Indus river basin lost 6% of its glacier area, while the Ganga and Brahmaputra river basins experienced a reduction of 21% and 16%, respectively. The direct result of such glacier retreat would be diminishing water availability during dry seasons and risks such as GLOF, avalanches, landslides and debris flows, the report warned.
The second report based on 38 monitored glaciers signalled that “parts of the Himalayan cryosphere may be nearing critical tipping points toward irreversible retreat.” The message from Pema Gyamtsho, Director General of ICIMOD, to policymakers was direct : “This is not a distant problem, but a crisis unfolding in real time, with new disasters every summer and monsoon. The fact that ice loss rates have doubled this century should shock us all into action.”
These words almost sound prophetic after the latest disaster in Nepal. According to Gyamtsho, “These aren’t blind spots becoming surprises anymore; they are our new reality.” This was perhaps the clearest warning based on the science of glacier dynamics and an analysis of satellite as well as ground data collected since 1974.
Scientists are doing their bit by analysing data and warning about the dire consequences of inaction, but the response from policymakers, politicians and administrations is slow, fragmented or even apathetic. Globally, the response to IPCC reports has been lackadaisical, particularly when it comes to addressing the core issue — reducing emissions to mitigate the impact of warming, which is directly affecting the Himalayas.
At the regional level, cooperation among countries in the Himalayan region is virtually absent. These nations must join hands because climate and ecological disasters do not recognise political borders, as the Nepal tragedy has shown. Major rivers such as the Indus, Ganga, Brahmaputra and Mekong originate in the Himalayas and cross multiple countries. For instance, a landslide in one country might cause catastrophic flooding in another. At the very least, there should be data and information sharing, followed by joint monitoring and scientific cooperation.
At the national level, too, policymakers have consistently ignored warnings based on science. Despite a series of disasters, no substantial steps have been taken for disaster risk reduction, and the building of hydropower projects and large infrastructure has continued. A GLOF that occurred in the Lehende Khola river in July last year damaged at least a dozen hydropower projects in Nepal’s Rasuwa-Nuwakot region, which has been hit hard this time.
The Trishuli basin has as many as 36 hydropower projects at various stages of completion. Multilateral financial institutions have contributed by systematically ignoring or downplaying the ecological impacts of these projects. They have extended financial aid, ironically, in the name of climate and disaster resilience, according to an analysis done by the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People. The cumulative impact assessment reports did point to possible dangers but were ignored. In India, too, hydropower development has progressed in valleys and basins prone to GLOF, avalanches and debris flows.
The ecologically sensitive regions of the Himalayas are also geopolitically sensitive, including border areas of India, China and Nepal. So, governments want to develop infrastructure for strategic purposes irrespective of ecological concerns and warnings. The countries in the region do not want to enforce any limits on tourism and associated infrastructure. Instead, they are promoting mass pilgrimage and commercial mountain tourism, as seen in the latest disaster.
Each of these factors accentuates the impact of any event like a glacial lake outburst or a glacier breaking off. While monitoring of glaciers and glacial lakes should be stepped up and early warning systems developed, this cannot go hand in hand with unrestricted development and commercial tourism in fragile regions. By bridging the gap between scientific evidence and policymaking, we can minimise the impacts of disasters in the mountains.
