Niti Mishra is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Disaster Management, Jamsetji Tata School of Disaster Studies (JTSDS), Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

This article discusses the recurring floods in India and the challenges with its flood risk management systems.

Floods

Flood events are the result of cumulative causative factors such as monsoon rains, coastal location, high population density in low-lying areas, artificial and human-made environments among several others. Around two billion, which is 38 percent of the world population, live in flood-prone areas. Globally flooding is a result of storm surges and cyclones impacting 2 percent of landmass which is home to 13 percent of the world’s population (Molina, 2016).

In India, floods are a prominent cause of loss of lives, livelihoods, and displacement (The majority of the population of India is concentrated in the riverine and coastal regions, leading to increased flood vulnerability of lives and livelihoods). From 2008-2019, approximately 3.6 million people were displaced due to floods.  According to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), more than 40 mha of the total geographic area of the country is prone to floods. It’s a prominent recurring event with an increasing trend of damage and loss. On average annually around 75 lakh hec of land are affected by floods, 1600 lives are lost and multi-million worth of infrastructure is damaged including housing and public utilities.

Flood Variability

The diverse topography, geomorphology, riverine system, and precipitation pattern across the country contribute to the different kinds of floods in the country (Mohanty, et. al, 2020). The impact of floods is determined by the magnitude, frequency, and duration of floods which are dependent on geomorphological and meteorological conditions. Based on these, four types of floods are identified in India: flash floods, single peak floods, multiple peak floods, and synchronized floods. In India, floods are generally attributed to monsoon rainfall. However, there is significant variability in spatial terms evident, where some areas always receive more than above average rainfall. Also, inter-annual variation in rainfall is characteristic of monsoon. This variation influences the spatial-temporal inconsistency of rainfall which results in flooding in various parts of the country. State-wise data on flood-affected regions exist since the 1950s.  The increasing trends of flooding in various parts of the country in recent decades have also been attributed to anthropogenic activities (Valdiya, 2004). Other causes include floods by successive weather events, seasonal floods, coastal floods, and estuarine floods, caused by a dam failure, and melting of snow or glaciers (Dhar & Nandargi, 2003). The contemporary discussion on floods is not complete without mentioning the challenges brought by flooding in urban areas.

Urbanization increases the flood risk increases by three times, resulting in flooding (peak flow) quickly impacting a large number of people residing in dense clusters that are characteristic of city life (Dhar & Nandargi, 2003). Also, flooding of cities due to cyclones and storm surges is intensified by rapid urbanization. Rapid urbanization and its processes have resulted in modification of land use and livelihood in the past decades and also affect riverine tempos. The risk of flood has increased due to silting of natural water courses and the lowering of water tables, followed by salt intrusion or land subsidence. The construction of new roads, bridges, and infrastructures has made it harder for rainwater to drain through the soil causing frequent flash floods. The loss of mangroves and sensitive ecosystems on urban fringes has increased the risk of coastal erosion and exposure to stormwinds and waves. In addition to this deforestation on hill slopes within cities has generated instability making areas more prone to landslides (UN-Habitat, 2012). When factors of increasing floods are connected to ever-increasing agglomeration in coastal urban areas, the result will be a large number of people impacted by floods (Reid, A.2016).

Indian Institutions for Flood Management

The country has a dual hierarchy structure for flood management at 1) State level and 2) Central Government. The institutional structure requires coordination and cooperation among the agencies at different levels (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

The primary responsibility of controlling floods lies with the state government and several states have taken diverse measures to manage floods, thus making ‘flood management’ a state subject.  At State Level flood management is generally under the purview of the Irrigation department. However, some states have set up different flood control boards. The public works department (PWD) is tasked with the construction and maintaining structures for flood control. Lastly, the disaster management authorities are responsible for post-flood response, relief, and recovery activities (Mohanty, et. al, 2020). The state governments and their agencies are tasked with the responsibility to plan, investigate, and implement flood management schemes while the Central Government works in an advisory capacity through various committees, task forces, and policies to guide the state with technical and financial support.

Flood management at the central level is the result of coordination between various ministers such as the Ministry of Jal Shakti, the Department of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation; these generally are seen to take on supervisory roles. To monitor flood control several other committees and agencies have been set by the central government. The most prominent is the Central Water Commission (CWC) which is the nodal body for planning, management, and design of water resources development. It is the primary agency that provides technical advice on flood control to the state governments. The Government of India set up the Ganga Flood Control Commission (GFCC) in 1972 and the Ministry of Water Resource (MoWR) (then Ministry of Irrigation) set up statuary bodies like Brahmaputra Board under Brahmaputra Board Act, 1980 to provide specific attention to major river basins in the country. Apart from these the National Disaster Management Authority also contributes to policy and action plan formulation for states and their agencies to manage disaster, provides guidelines, capacity building, and enforce action plan for preparedness activities (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

Existing Flood Management Programmes

India follows a twin approach to managing floods, specifically flood control and flood preparedness. While flood control focuses on activities to reduce flood impact through structural measures such as embankments, reservoirs, check dams, etc. Flood preparedness is about prevention to reduce vulnerability through non-structural activities like flood forecasting, flood hazard zonation, flood proofing, and disaster preparedness. These approaches have been reflected in various schemes and programs implemented by the GoI.

Flood Management Programme in the XI-five-year plan covered state-level projects related to flood proofing, drainage development, anti-sea erosion, rehabilitation and restoration projects, river management, flood control, river erosion, and such activities that would assist the states in building structures for flood protection. The MoWR approves projects by the states according to the FMP guidelines. The River Management Activities and Works Related to Border Areas (RMABA) is a central government scheme initiated by the MoWR in Xth five-year plan to improve flood management. Under this several activities such as field surveys, investigation and preparation of Detailed project reports (DPRs) for dams, maintenance work for rivers on broader, flood protection on international borders, and flood forecasting operations in collaboration with neighboring countries on three systems Ganga, Brahmaputra, and Indus river systems were covered (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

The Central Government had also constituted committees such as Rashtriya Barh Aayog (RBA) in 1976 for flood control and The National Water Policy of 1987, 2002 & 2012 for creating a sustainable flood management system. In the RBA the state governments were recommended to assess flood-prone and protected areas in their region every five years.  The 2012 National Water Policy suggested states study the river morphology for planning and construction of flood control structures on major rivers. Another significant recommendation has been the preparation of flood inundation maps for flood-prone areas to develop flood management strategies. The mathematical models for flood forecasting provided by CWC would be used for the mapping. Flood forecasting was launched by CWC in 1958 and since then the system has evolved and grown significantly with 226 stations (in 2018) in the country. These stations provide information on water level and discharge forecasts to local and reservoir operating agencies for flood mitigation activities. Even though the current flood forecasting system is not extensive as the requirement in India, however as a non-structural measure it is vital for complementing flood management measures (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

Along with several other measures, Dam safety for flood protection is also under the purview of GoI, which established the Dam Safety Organization in CWC in 1979 and evolved into the National Committee on Dam Safety in 1982 tasked with the responsibility of formulating the guidelines for the development and implementation of Emergency Action Plans in 2005. The NDS has suggested the states regularly undertake pre and post-monsoon inspections of the dams and share reports with the Dam Safety Organisation. The MoWR in 2012 launched the Dam Rehabilitation and Improvement Project to provide technical solutions and regulations, rehabilitation material, training, and capacity building for dam authorities. Other initiatives by CWC such as the National Register of Large Dams to regularly maintain information on large dams and the Dam Health and Rehabilitation Monitoring Application by MoWR are also well known (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

Challenges with the existing measures

Though these initiatives have been implemented and planned with the aim of flood prevention and preparedness, they remain riddled with several gaps and face obstacles in execution. A decade after the FMP implementation, only 297 projects were completed of the 517, even when guidelines clarified that the project period is only for 2-3 years from the time of sanctioning. The state government was unable to provide its share of funds and there were delays in the timely submission of proposals. Also, the states have been unable to follow FMP guidelines such as disbursement of funds to the competent authority within 15 days of receiving the funds leading to several delays in completion. Several such guidelines and rules have been violated since the implementation of FMP. Similarly, the implementations of RMABA have seen interruptions in the completion of preliminary works of the projects. The projects suffered delays due to law and order issues and disagreements between India and the other countries on the issues of water sharing. Further, the delay in investigation, finalization of DPRs, and implementation impacted the time of project completion. The mechanism of finances was not smooth which impacted the protection measures. The suggestion of RBA to the states to assess, identify and update flood-prone areas every five years has not been done proactively by any states. Several states have claimed the frequency-based flood inundation maps suggested by NWP, in 2012 have not been completed due to the unavailability of funds to obtain the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) from NRSC. There is general neglect seen in states in realizing the importance of non-structural measures for flood protection. The state agencies concentrate on flood control through hard measures (structural) ignoring the efficiency of soft measures. The current flood forecasting systems are challenged by the inadequate number of stations and malfunctioned systems. Only 41 percent of established stations are functional due to incorrect setup issues, equipment malfunction, and theft that has affected the provision of reliable data for accurate forecasts (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

Recommendations

Flood preparedness is incomplete without people and community participation in flood protection measures and training for emergency actions. Hence it is vital to adopt non-structural measures such as flood forecasting, land-use planning, flood warning, and flood plain mapping, along with a participative approach for all stakeholders including people, civil society, and private and government agencies. Following global paradigms of multi- target policies and programs, similar action is also suggested for flood management that aligns with flood risk reduction, water resources management, development, and environment protection (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

Flood risk management involves land use and environmental planning mechanisms. Traditional land-use planning however often neglects the hazard characteristics of the land. The integration of land use risk-based planning in development can make resilience more sustainable. There is increasing emphasis on the link between local comprehensive planning and disaster management. Land-use and environmental planning concentrating on wetland areas, water retention areas, and permeable surface design provide a strategy for reducing flood risks. Further integrating drainage systems with land-use planning provide another strategy to create robust flood resilience (YuS  2016).  However, flood risk prediction involves several uncertainties. This includes both geological causes and the changing nature of social interactions that make hazard prediction difficult. At the same time, flood risk assessment neglects those most vulnerable to floods, such as landless farmers in rural areas or urban poor in informal settlements that are frequented by floods and storms (Reid, A. 2016). Poor land reform and land ownership issues are the root causes of flood risk vulnerability in India.

Managing flood risk also entails ensuring accessibility of information about flood hazards to the public in an easily understandable manner, which includes creating flood maps, and conveying flood information to the community to enable them to undertake preparedness. The design of existing structures makes them frequently overwhelmed by recurring flood events above their capacity. However, with the increase in instances of extreme and frequently occurring rainfall events due owing to the changing climatic conditions planning for various low-probability and high-intensity flooding scenarios would need to be adopted.  It is important to look at lessons from past disasters rather than just investment in infrastructure development for risk reduction. The residual risk from structural measures can be reduced by adapting binding non-structural measures with the structural measures, as they ensure a higher degree of flood preparedness and prevention of exposure to flood water (Mohanty, et. al, 2020).

The integration of local knowledge in governance can enable people to state their own actions. Consequently, the application of local knowledge in flood management and risk reduction has brought in “agency and voice” in the community. It paves the way to encourage leaders in risk reduction and management bodies along with the opportunity to apply and support their own agenda of disaster governance. They would voice opinions, present original perspectives complementary to exercise and promote governance, and ultimately influence better participation in disaster governance. This is reflected in the early warning system where communities decide their own procedures for risk communication and preparedness mechanism. The integration also provides local population ownership and identity as the process of governance provides a way for engaging in practice learned from ancestors. Disaster governance is not just based on expertise or scholarship on disaster studies but also engages with the existing capacities of people. Therefore flood risk governance needs a wide-ranging, inclusive, multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary, and multi-stakeholder approach (Molina, 2016).

Reference:

1. Valdiya, K. S. (Ed.). (2004). Coping with natural hazards: Indian context. Orient Blackswan.
2. Dhar, O. N., & Nandargi, S. (2003). Hydrometeorological aspects of floods in India. Natural Hazards, 28(1), 1-33.
3. Mohanty, M. P., Mudgil, S., & Karmakar, S. (2020). Flood management in India: a focussed review on the current status and future challenges. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 49, 101660.
4. https://public.wmo.int/en/bulletin/flood-and-drought-management-through-water-resources-development-india
5. Chintraruck, A., & Walsh, J. (2016). Bangkok and the Floods of 2011: Urban Governance and the Struggle for Democratisation. In Disaster governance in urbanising Asia (pp. 195-209). Springer, Singapore.
6. Ng, S. (2016). Governance beyond the government: Responding to a reactionary flood governance regime in Ayutthaya, Thailand. Habitat International, 52, 11-19.
7. Molina, F. G. J. (2016). Intergenerational Transmission of Local Knowledge Towards River Flooding Risk Reduction and Adaptation: The Experience of Dagupan City, Philippines. In Disaster Governance in Urbanising Asia (pp. 145-176). Springer, Singapore.
8. Reid, A. (2016). Building cities in a subduction zone: Some Indonesian dangers. In Disaster Governance in Urbanising Asia (pp. 45-59). Springer, Singapore.
9. Su, Y. S. (2016). Discourse, Strategy, and Practice of Urban Resilience against Flooding. Business and Management Studies, 2(1), 73-87.
10. Un-Habitat. (2012). Enhancing urban safety and security: Global report on human settlements 2007. Routledge.