The government is working on a new planning framework for the rapidly growing Himalayan cities as climate change and human activity are increasing disaster risks in the region, it told the Lok Sabha on Tuesday.
In its reply to a question on whether climate change and unscientific construction were contributing to the rise in cloudburst incidents and other disasters in Himachal Pradesh, the government said that anthropogenic factors had also contributed to disaster risk. It added that climate change had increased the intensity and frequency of extreme rainfall events in the region.
The government’s public policy think tank NITI Aayog is working on a planning framework for hill cities. On July 13, NITI Aayog and the North Eastern Council held a consultation on the Hill City Regions Planning Initiative for Sustainable Urban Development in the Indian Himalayan Region. The proposed approach will cover ecological carrying capacity, climate resilience, sustainable infrastructure, governance and financing.
There have been calls for more integrated Himalayan planning. In June, the CP Kukreja Foundation for Design Excellence, a platform for aspiring designers, students and amateurs, released a framework, noting that roads, hydrology, tourism, settlements, forests and disaster management were being planned separately despite their interconnected impact on mountain systems. It called for a shift towards a more integrated approach, saying that “mountains do not function in fragments”.
The foundation’s framework said that a single road project could affect slope stability, drainage, rivers, forests, settlement growth and disaster vulnerability. It argued that many Himalayan disasters could no longer be treated as isolated natural events.
{{/usCountry}}The foundation’s framework said that a single road project could affect slope stability, drainage, rivers, forests, settlement growth and disaster vulnerability. It argued that many Himalayan disasters could no longer be treated as isolated natural events.
{{/usCountry}}The foundation’s framework pointed to destabilised slopes, poor drainage, excessive cutting and construction in hazard-prone areas as factors linked to cumulative planning failures. It proposed scientific carrying-capacity assessments for Himalayan towns and tourism corridors, covering population, tourism, water availability, waste, traffic and ecological stress, with development approvals calibrated to these limits.
The foundation’s framework proposed multi-hazard zoning that would incorporate landslides, seismic vulnerability, flooding, erosion, and hydrological instability before infrastructure and settlement approvals are granted. It said the broader objective is to move planning from reactive disaster response towards predictive resilience, including continuous monitoring of slopes, drainage and infrastructure after construction.