Banner
Workflow

Why Himalayan towns need a different kind of development

Contact Counsellor

Why Himalayan towns need a different kind of development

  • The Indian Himalayan Range (IHR), comprising 11 States and two Union Territories, had a decadal urban growth rate of more than 40% from 2011 to 2021.
  • Towns have expanded, and more urban settlements are developing.
  • However, Himalayan towns require a different definition of urbanisation.

Issues in IHR towns

  • Almost all Himalayan towns, including State capitals, struggle with managing civic issues.
  • For example, cities like Srinagar, Guwahati, Shillong, and Shimla, as well as smaller towns, face significant challenges in managing sanitation, solid and liquid waste, and water.
  • Planning institutions in these States often fail because they use models copied from the plains and have only limited capacities to implement these plans.
  • City governments are short of human resources by almost 75%.
  • For instance, in the Kashmir Valley, excluding the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, there are only 15 executive officers across over 40 urban local bodies.
  • Cities continue to expand into the peripheries, encroaching on the commons of villages.
  • Srinagar and Guwahati are examples of such expansion, leading to the plundering of open spaces, forest land, and watersheds.
  • In Srinagar, land use changes between 2000 and 2020 showed a 75.58% increase. Water bodies have eroded by almost 25%, from 19.36 square kilometres to 14.44 square kilometres.
  • Nearly 90% of the liquid waste enters water bodies without treatment.

Why is this happening?

  • The IHR faces increasing pressure from urbanisation and development, compounded by high-intensity tourism, unsustainable infrastructure, and resource use (land and water), further aggravated by climatic variations like changing precipitation patterns and rising temperatures.
  • This has led to water scarcity, deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss, and increased pollution, including plastics.
  • These pressures have the potential to disrupt lives and livelihoods, impacting the socio-ecological fabric of the Himalayas.
  • Over the past few decades, tourism in the IHR has continued to expand and diversify, with an anticipated average annual growth rate of 7.9% from 2013 to 2023.
  • Current tourism in the IHR often replaces eco-friendly infrastructure with inappropriate, unsightly, and dangerous constructions, poorly designed roads, and inadequate solid waste management, which leads to loss of natural resources damaging biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Way forward

  • Every town needs to be mapped, with layers identifying vulnerabilities from geological and hydrological perspectives.
  • The planning process should involve locals and follow a bottom-up approach.
  • Consultant-driven urban planning processes should be shelved for Himalayan towns, with the urban design based on climate resilience.
  • The Finance Commission must include a separate chapter on urban financing for the IHR.
  • The high costs of urban services and the lack of industrial corridors place these towns in a unique financial situation.
  • Current intergovernmental transfers from the centre to urban local bodies constitute a mere 0.5% of GDP; this should be increased to at least 1%.
  • Himalayan towns must engage in wider conversations about sustainability, with the focus on urban futures being through robust, eco-centric planning processes involving public participation.

Categories