Transcript What, when, who and how of Experiencing Floods as a Disaster.

What, when, who and how of
Experiencing Floods as a Disaster
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Flood Management History in India
Before independence: Damodar experience
1948: The DVC Act
1954: National Flood Policy
1963: Farakka construction starts
1980: Report of National Floods Commission
1979-80: Flood forecasting starts
1999: Report of the National Commission on
Integrated Water Resources Development
• 2002: ILR proposals to solve flood problem
• 2004: PM’s Task Force on Floods
• 2004: Proposal for NE River Valley Authority
The Govt responses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Embankments
Dams
Dredging
Spurs, revetments
(Flood forecasts, warning)
ILR
Disaster Management
Relief, (insurance)
Committees
How flood affected area has been going up
State
Bihar
UP
W Bengal
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Area prone to floods (m
ha) as assessed by
NCF
10th Plan working
(1980) Group-2002
4.26
6.88
7.34
7.34
2.65
3.77
0.12
3.15
3.82
Average annual damage due to floods in Bihar
(Source: NCF, 1980)
Period
1950-65
Total Area
affected,
Lakh Ha
8.81
Crop Area
affected, Lakh
ha
4.43
Total damage at
constant prices,
Rs Lakh
861.92
1966-70
1971-78
10.82
21.30
5.85
8.85
1184.08
4588.57
Average annual damage due to
Floods in Uttar Pradesh
(Source: NCF, 1980)
Period
Total Area
affected, Lakh
Ha
Crop Area
affected, Lakh
ha
Total damage at
constant prices,
Rs Lakh
1950-65 16.80
7.84
1229.48
1966-70 20.12
10.42
1730.16
1971-78 30.00
16.64
4550.81
Brahmaputra floods in India
Period
Average Annual
Area flooded ( m
ha)
Total Cropped
Flooded
crop area
as % of
total
inundate
d area
Average
Annual
no of
people
affected,
m
Average
annual
damage
Rs M
1953-59
1.013
0.1
8.85
0.86
58.6
1960-69
0.75
0.16
21.33
1.52
75.7
1970-79
0.87
0.18
20.69
2.00
151.8
1980-88
1.43
0.40
28.05
4.55
1445.2
1999-2005
1.07
0.38
35.65
4.586
7171.7
Embankments: Experience so far
• Change the character of floods
• Silted rivers: Raised riverbeds
• People trapped within the embankments vs those
outside
• Sand casting
• Water logging
• Prolonged flooding
• False Sense of security: Breakdown of coping
mechanisms
• Inadequate maintenance
• No role for the people
• Govt response: Bigger, stronger embankments
• No Independent assessment of performance of
embankments
Some official views on Embankments
• NCF: “The annual benefits from embankments were,
therefore, by and large, a matter of overall opinion of
some individual, with no supporting data. We were,
therefore, reluctant to draw any conclusion from the
trend of such opinions.”
• W Bengal Govt to NCF about Embankments: “It is at
best a temporary measure, where river water carries a
heavy silt charge, the embankment by shutting off the
spill areas on either side hastens raising of river bed
with consequent rise in flood levels. This phenomenon
creates potential danger of breach of embankments. A
vicious race starts at that stage between the rise of the
river bed and raising of the embankments in which the
latter has not even a remote chance to win.”
Experience with Large Dams
• Farakka: Impact in Malda, Murshidabad,
upstream in India, downstream in
Bangladesh
• Damodar Valley
• Kangsabati
• Mayurakshi
• 2006 experience elsewhere in India
The Proposed dams in GBM
• Under Construction: Pagladiya, Subansiri
Lower, Kameng, Teesta (at least 3)
• Under Approval process: Tipaimukh,
Teesta (at least 4)
• In the pipeline: Pancheshwar, SaptakoshiSunkoshi, Karnali, Dibang, Siang, Subansiri
Middle, Subansiri Upper, 50 others
Can ILR solve flood “problem”?
• According to President (speech on 110505) flood
affects 8 major basins, 40 m ha and 260 m people
• ILR is to have Lined Canals with 1:3,000 to 1:5,000
slope or 0.33 to 0.20 m per km. Maximum flow velocity
2 m/s. A 100 m wide & 10 m deep lined canal can
carry about 1,000 cumecs.
River
Peak flood
discharge(cumecs)
Water to be diverted
through ILR canal(cumecs)
BRAHMAPUTRA
GANGA
60,000
1,500 (2.5%)
1,000 (2.0%)
50,000
(Figures thanks to SG Vombatkere, ILR figures from official website: www.riverlinks.nic.in)
•ILR can clearly not help solve flood problem
What do experts say about ILR and Floods?
• Dr. Bharat Singh, Professor Emeritus at the Water
Resources Development Training Centre at the IIT,
Rourkee, and Member of the National Commission for
Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (199699), has said, “any water resources engineer will
immediately discard the idea of the inter-linking of
rivers as a flood control measure” (A big dream of little
logic, The Hindustan Times, 9 March 2003).
• John Bricoe, Senior Water Resources Expert of the
World Bank has said, "River linking per se will do little
to reduce flood damage since the size of the link
canals would usually be miniscule compared to flood
flows." Junaid Ahmad, Senior Manager, Social
Development, World Bank was also said ILR won’t
help flood problems.
Responses to ILR
 Bihar
 W Bengal
 Assam
Bangladesh
Nepal
Civil Society
Experts
North East Valley Proposal
• What is the proposal: Development of NE as a
River Valley on the lines of TVA
• What it means: Large dams, big hydropower
projects, treating water, rivers and forests as a
resource
• Who are behind it: the PM, the World Bank
• What has been the response so far: Arunachal
Pradesh, Civil Society
Nepal: Some recent Developments
• 2002: Water Resources Strategy finalised by
WECS, Govt of Nepal
• Tenth Plan (2003-8) has major focus on
Disasters: Natural and Human induced,
including a policy on disaster risk reduction
• 2005: National Water Plan with specific focus
on water induced disasters
• 2006: Water Induced Disaster Management
Policy includes strategy of preservation of
rivers, river-basins and environment for
sustainable use
Indo Nepal Issues
• Sarada, Koshi, Gandak, Mahakali agreements
& implementation
• Big dams: Pancheshwar, Koshi, Karnali,
Bagmati, Kamala, West Seti
• Embankments: Laxmanpur, others
• 16 committee when last counted
• Perceptions
• Floodforecasting
Bangladesh: Some Recent Developments
•
•
•
•
1993-4: Agitation on FAP
1995: Flood and Water Management Strategy Report
1998: National Water Policy
2000: National Water Resources Database created at
WARPO- Water Resources Planning Organisation
• 2004: National Water Management Plan final by
WARPO, Ministry of Water Resources (Netherlands
involvement)
• 2003-2008: Integrated Planning for Sustainable Water
Management, implemented by Bangladesh Water
Development Board
Indo Bangladesh issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
Farakka
1977-1996 treaty and thereafter
ILR
Tipaimukh
Tessta, 52 other rivers
Joint River Commission: functioning and non
functioning
• Push for mutilateralism on Nepal Dams
• Perceptions
The World Bank Role in the Region
• Early 1990s:
o SSP in India
o Arun 3 in Nepal
o FAP in BD
• History: Funding DVC
• Now pushing the NE Valley Authority on the
lines of TVA
• Pushing large dams under the 2002 WRSS,
calling them high risk, high reward projects
Some Other Players
• ADB
• Bilaterals like DFID, JBIC, USAID, SIDA,
Netherlands, DANIDA
• China, Bhutan, Myanmar
• SAARC
• Attempts at multilateralism
• Corporate bodies
• Experts, Academics
• NGOs
• Climate Change
Flood Forecasting
•
•
•
•
•
•
Started in 1980
Info not in public domain
CWC the main agency
Performance in 2006 shows the problems
No independent performance appraisal
Climate Change makes flood forecasting even
more relevant
The factors that help convert floods into disaster
• Destruction of forests
• Destruction of water retention, percolation
systems in the catchment
• Construction (roads, railways, canals,
embankments, urban & industrial estates)
without necessary drainage in the catchment
• Inadequate maintenance of embankments
(once they have been constructed, that is)
• Improper operation of dams (once they have
been constructed, that is)
Some Advocacy Issues
• Advocacy for National Drainage Policy, National
Drainage Commission
• National & Regional Watchdog Network on
flood management in particular and WRD in
general
• The Network can take up monitoring role to
begin with
• Advocacy for transparency and accountability in
Flood Management
Some Functions of the proposed watchdog
• Critical monitoring of CWC performance on flood
forecasting
• All flood forecasting data (including those shared
between nations) should be in public domain
• Take up some flood forecasting in selected areas
• Advocacy for norms on drainage provision while taking
up roads, railways, canals, urban and other
developments that can congest drainage
• Use RTI (this even those involved in Flood relief can
take up) to make govt transparent, accountable on
flood management issues
• Demand transparency in functioning of international
committees, commissions
• Advocacy on National Plans (e.g. 11th Plan AP)
Watchdog functions - 2
• EMBANKMENTS
Review performance of selected embankments as
case studies
Demand transparency in planning, decision making,
construction and maintenance of embankments, use
RTE
Advocacy for community role in embankment
maintenance, take up some specific embankment to
focus
Advocacy for decommissioning of select
embankments after proper studies
Use Public Hearings to highlight problems with
embankments
Watchdog functions - 3
• DAMS
Critical examination of dams proposed for flood control
Critical examination of performance w.r.t. flood control
of dams already constructed
Demand implementation of WCD like guidelines in
planning, decision making and implementation of
Dams and other projects
• NORTH EAST VALLEY PLANS
Critical review and advocacy
Research and documentation of DVC experience
Critical review of existing projects in NE
Thank you
• South Asia Network on
Dams, Rivers & People
• [email protected]
• www.sandrp.in
• September 2006