When the mountain breaks: Nepal’s disaster and the failure to act together

The devastating Himalayan disaster that struck Nepal in 2024 serves as a grim reminder of the escalating climate crisis in the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region, often called the 'Third Pole' for its vast ice reserves. This catastrophe — primarily driven by Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) and massive landslides — is not merely a natural calamity but a stark exposition of systemic governance failures in disaster preparedness and transboundary cooperation. The Hindu Kush Himalaya spans eight countries — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan — and feeds ten major river systems including the Ganga, Brahmaputra, and Indus, sustaining nearly 2 billion people downstream. Yet, despite shared geography and interdependent hydrology, regional mechanisms for early warning and joint risk reduction remain critically weak. The roots of this failure trace back to missed opportunities in institutionalizing cooperation. The 2014 Kathmandu Declaration, adopted at the Third Regional Consultation on Disaster Risk Reduction in the Hindu Kush Himalaya, called for a unified regional early-warning system, data sharing, and joint capacity building under the aegis of ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development), headquartered in Kathmandu. However, a decade later, most provisions remain unimplemented due to political mistrust, bureaucratic inertia, and the absence of a binding legal framework. ICIMOD's 2023 assessment warns that under current emission trajectories, two-thirds of Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2100, exponentially increasing GLOF risks. Over 200 potentially dangerous glacial lakes have been identified in the region, with several in eastern Nepal posing direct threats to downstream Indian states like Bihar, West Bengal, and Sikkim. For India, the stakes are profound. The 2021 Chamoli disaster in Uttarakhand — triggered by a rock-ice avalanche — and recurring floods in the Kosi and Gandak basins (both originating in Nepal) underscore India's vulnerability to upstream events. Yet, India's National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP), revised in 2019 under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, lacks specific protocols for cross-border GLOF events. The Act, enacted under Entry 23 of the Concurrent List (Social security and social insurance) and supported by Article 253 (legislation for implementing international agreements), empowers the Centre to create national plans, but does not mandate transboundary coordination. The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), chaired by the Prime Minister, has guidelines for GLOFs (2020), but these are domestically focused. Meanwhile, the India-Nepal Joint Committee on Water Resources (JCWR) and the Koshi and Gandak Treaty mechanisms remain limited to water sharing and flood control infrastructure, not real-time glacial hazard monitoring. Constitutionally, disaster management falls under the State List (Entry 1, List II) for 'relief and rehabilitation', but the Centre's role is derived from Article 355 (duty to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbance) and Article 256 (obligation of states to comply with Union laws). The 2005 Act created a three-tier structure — NDMA, State DDMAs, and District DDMAs — but cross-border disasters expose a critical gap: no constitutional or statutory mechanism compels intergovernmental data sharing with Nepal. The 1950 India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship allows free movement and economic cooperation but lacks environmental or disaster clauses. Regionally, the failure reflects a broader governance deficit. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has a Disaster Management Centre (SDMC) in New Delhi, but it remains underutilized due to India-Pakistan tensions. BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), which includes Nepal and Bhutan, offers a more functional platform but lacks a dedicated Himalayan disaster protocol. Climate change, now recognized as a 'threat multiplier' in India's National Security Strategy, demands treating the Himalaya as a single ecological unit — not a borderland. Future implications are alarming. Without a binding Himalayan River Basin Treaty — modeled on the Mekong River Commission or the Alpine Convention — and a real-time, satellite-linked GLOF early-warning network sharing data across borders, the 2024 Nepal disaster will repeat, with escalating human and economic costs. India must leverage its 'Neighbourhood First' policy to propose a Himalayan Disaster Resilience Framework under BIMSTEC, integrating ICIMOD's science, NDMA's operational capacity, and the Ministry of External Affairs' diplomatic reach. The 15th Finance Commission's allocation of ₹32,000 crore for disaster preparedness (2021–26) should incentivize cross-border projects. Ultimately, the Himalaya does not recognize political borders — only physics. Governance must catch up.