A massive deluge—a result of multiple natural and man made events— devastated Kedarnath in July and claimed some 580 lives. Heavy rainfall, too, formed a small lake in the north-west of the same valley and caused further damage. , and came down to Kedarnath town drowning everything on its path. Some 5,000 people are still reported missing

AT THE Rio Conference (1992) the crucial role played by mountain ecosystems was recognised by highlighting that the “livelihood of about 10 per cent of the world’s population depended directly on mountain resources such as water, forests and agricultural products and minerals” (U nited Nations, 2001). It was also added that the populations “living in valleys and plains depend on the mountains for water a many major rivers originate there” and the fact was stressed in the Agenda 21 which stated that about 40 per cent of the world’s population lived in adjacent medium and lower watershed areas. The vulnerability of mountain areas to environmental degradation pressures placed by increasing population growth, tourism and economic development, was also highlighted. Notably, Agenda 21 drew attention to ecological degradation in the Himalayan region resulting from the cultivation of marginal lands due to population growth. The environmental heritage of the Himalayan region is under pressure from natural and human-induced stresses such as earthquakes, landslides and construction activities and the impacts are illustrated by declining forest cover in the states of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim, the loss of wildlife habitat and the loss of life and property caused due to natural disasters. Deforestation has resulted in many species of flora and fauna of the region becoming endangered. DW talks to two experts, Harsh Srivastava, Chief Executive Officer of the World Development Forum and Sunita Narain, Editor of Down to Earth on whether India is paying the price for untrammeled growth?

HARSH SHRIVASTAVA// A problematic thing if and when we look at the issue of economic and social growth is that we pit it against the fragile ecology of the Himalayan states—the two are not either or in any way. Having said that, the approach to economic and social growth in areas of fragile ecology should be different. While the rest of the states may be able to afford the mass tourism approach, it will not work in a place like Uttarakhand. Instead of mass the focus should be on premium tourism. Yes, I realise that there are tourists who cannot afford a huge sum of money on journeys and that pilgrimages are an integral part of this travelling that we are referring to. However, pilgrimages of any sort are a matter of privilege in the world. Hajj is a privilege and it is strictly regulated by states and compensations and possibilities are made available to those who cannot afford it. But those who can, they are made to pay. Also, the journey to Amarnath (J&K) requires more than adequate money—it requires a person to be of a certain physical state. Why should the process be different in case of Uttarakhand? Because pilgrimages are sentimental and emotional journeys, the state’s role in this becomes imperative. The safety of pilgrims becomes tantamount, the place they are travelling to is not just a destination, it is one which is important to the tourists who travel there. High mountain, adventure, biodiversity and nature tourism is the most obvious route to economic development in the Himalayas. This tourism is greatly dependent on the ecology of the region. If the environment degrades, tourism will also be impacted. On the other hand, tourism has impacts on the environment, if not carefully managed. The Uttarakhand flood teaches us that we must learn to build sustainable models for pilgrim-based tourism in the fragile hills. Think the myriad problems—pollution, litter and solid waste disposal—in most high Himalayan tourist sites. Construction activity is unchecked; in most cases hotels and lodges come up in the most fragile areas. And though on most months the places remain next to empty on three to four months of every year they see a manifold rise in the population level which a place is obviously not used to. Thus we actually need to put in place policies for sustainable urbanisation of mountains. I realise that most of the valley or plain states do not have these policies in place, but the need is imperative. Cities on the Himalayas are growing and thereby they are being plagued by the same problems of the (plain) cities–from mountains of garbage and plastic, untreated sewage, chronic water shortages, unplanned urban growth and even local air pollution because of vehicles. These towns need to be planned, particularly keeping in mind the rush of summer tourists and the fact that tourists do not pay for municipal services. Many states have experimented—from banning plastics, to taxing tourists—to better respond to these issues. But they need support and new thinking on everything. Harsh Shrivastava is the Chief Executive Officer of the World Development Forum. Before the World Development Forum, Shrivastava was a part of the Planning Commission, the Prime Minister's Office and the Confederation of Indian Industry. He is now the CEO of the World Development Forum, which brings governments, businesses, and civil societies from around the world.

SUNITA NARAIN// The Himalayas have seen two distinct phases of its rich forest resources—the first phase was the extraction of forests for “development”, which led to widespread deforestation in the region and increased vulnerability to landslides as well as deprivation among people dependent on forests for their basic survival. These concerns led to the first directive against green felling—the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act in the 1980s and the subsequent directives of the Supreme Court to check forest-based industry in the Himalayan states, particularly the Northeast. But these actions, however important, have not considered how forests can be used to contribute to the economy of the region. State revenue from forests has declined. Local anger against forest departments has increased. Clearly, we need a different development strategy, which is based on the use of the region’s important resource for development and local livelihood security. Instead, what we are seeing is that large tracts of forests are being diverted for hydropower and road projects, without focus on compensatory afforestation. The recent events in Uttarakhand have shown, more than ever, that we need a development strategy for the Himalayas that takes into account the vulnerability of the region and the need for environment protection. There is no doubt that the region needs economic growth. But this development cannot come at the cost of the environment. It will only make the already risk-prone and ecologically fragile region more vulnerable and development more “deadly”. We also know that climate change will exacerbate the vulnerability of this already fragile ecosystem. The question is what should be the development strategy for this region? A pan-Himalayan strategy which allows states to evolve common policies. It is also clear that these strategies will have to be based on the region’s natural resources—forests, water, biodiversity, organic and speciality foods, nature tourism— but will need to address the specific threats so that growth does not come at the cost of the environment. Let's explore the different sectors and the questions that need to discussed and resolved. For that we will have to build tourism that is not destructive. Some ways to do that would be to build an inventory of key pilgrimage sites in the state, with an understanding of its ecological capacity based on location and fragility. Immediately control the number of visitors to important pilgrimage sites. These restrictions on the key and most important pilgrimage sites can be done immediately and can be further revised based on the carrying capacity estimates. Ban construction of roads for the movement of pilgrims and tourists to within 10km of the high-altitude pilgrimage areas in order to create an ecological and spiritual buffer. These areas, like national parks and sanctuaries, should be maintained as special areas, which are maintained with minimal human interference to help us connect with nature Similar to sanctuaries and national parks, create a provision of buffer areas, surrounding the pilgrimage sites, where development is restricted. To build local interest in these areas, strictly enforce rules to give communities living in the area advantage of the pilgrimage activities. Use the carrying capacity action plan to create facilities for tourists, particular facilities for sanitation and for garbage disposal Make it mandatory for expeditions to remove and take back all non-degradable items. This can be enabled through a security deposit and check on the items being carried for the expedition. Create local community interest in management of these sites. Promote homestead tourism, instead of five-star tourism, based on policy incentives. These incentives would include fiscal benefits provided to houseowners for providing tourist related facilities. Regulate homestead tourism through a third-party audit and certification programme, which would promote good practices in the tourist complexes. Use the certification programme to include rating of key environmental sustainability guidelines – like reuse and recycling of waste and energy efficiency and renewables. This will involve tourists also in understanding the special needs of the Himalayas and their role in protecting its beauty. Increase the rate of entry tax charged by all hill towns. This tourism tax for entry into fragile ecosystems should be increased substantially and across the board in all towns of the Himalayas. The fund created from this tax should be used for a dedicated purpose of increasing facilities for tourists. (For instance, Costa Rica has a tourist surcharge, charged from every hotel based on its occupancy for eco-development). Impose high charges for parking of private vehicles in markets and fragile areas of hill towns, which will also restrict the number of vehicles being allowed into the areas and reduce pollution.