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.