Content

1. Uttarkashi Tragedy and the Urgent Call for Sustainable Development
2. World court’s advisory opinion boosts climate action

Uttarkashi Tragedy and the Urgent Call for Sustainable Development

Geographical & Ecological Context

• Location & Terrain
  • Uttarkashi district lies on the southern slope of the Western Himalaya.
  • Characterised by steep slopes, narrow valleys, and glacially fed rivers like the Bhagirathi.
• Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)
  • Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone (BESZ) notified in 2012, covering 4,100 sq km between Gaumukh and Uttarkashi.
  • Objective: Restrict unregulated development, preserve ecology, regulate construction, and safeguard river systems.
• Himalayan Fragility
  • Highly prone to landslides, flash floods, avalanches, and GLOFs (Glacial Lake Outburst Floods).
  • Climate change amplifies risks due to glacial retreat, permafrost melt, and altered precipitation patterns.

Relevance : GS 1(Geography ) , GS 3(Disaster Management )

Practice Question : Examine the role of unregulated infrastructure development in amplifying disaster risks in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem, with special reference to the Uttarkashi floods of August 2025.(250 words)

Sequence of the August 5, 2025 Disaster

• Three Major Events in a Short Stretch
  • 1:00 pm – First flood in Dharali (initially suspected as cloudburst; IMD later denied).
    • Swept away houses, hotels, bazaar area, Kalp Kedar temple.
  • 3:00 pm – Second flood downstream of Harsil.
  • 3:30 pm – Third flood submerged Harshil helipad, hindering relief efforts.

• Casualties & Damage
  • 4 confirmed deaths, 60–70 missing (including 9 Army personnel).
  • Destruction of 20–25 hotels/homestays, shops, apple orchards.

• Cause (as per scientists like Navin Juyal)
  • Not cloudbursts, but three near-simultaneous avalanches triggered by:
    • Melting snow from rising temperatures.
    • Heavy monsoon rains.
    • Release of debris from cirques (hanging glaciers full of moraines).
  • Avalanches carried ice, boulders, and water down steep deodar-covered slopes into streams.

Underlying Structural & Policy Failures

• Weak Enforcement of BESZ Norms
  • Infrastructural projects (roads, hotels) built in floodplains and on unstable slopes.
  • Government ignored MoEF&CC monitoring committee warnings.
• Char Dham Highway Expansion
  • Plans to widen the Gangotri highway through BESZ for tourism.
  • High Powered Committee (HPC) Recommendation:
    • Avoid cutting deodar forests.
    • Consider elevated highway closer to river to prevent slope destabilisation.
  • Status: Ignored – 6,000 deodar trees marked for felling.
• Tourism-Driven Overdevelopment
  • Rapid construction without carrying-capacity studies.
  • Encroachment on river corridors and para-glacial zones.
• Ignored Precedents
  • Kedarnath flood (2013).
  • Raunthi Gad avalanche destroying Tapovan-Vishnugad HEP (2021).
  • Joshimath land subsidence (2023).
  • GLOF in Teesta Valley (2023).
  • Himachal monsoon landslides (2023–24).

Scientific & Climatic Dimensions

• Climate Change Amplifiers
  • Rising temperatures accelerate snow/glacier melt → more avalanches.
  • Intense monsoon bursts increase flood risk.
• Hydrological Instability
  • Small streams in Himalayas can swell suddenly, change course, and breach banks.
• Glacial Morphology Factors
  • Cirques & hanging glaciers act as reservoirs for debris and water.
  • Unstable moraines are prone to collapse under heat + rain stress.

Governance & Preparedness Gaps

• Early Warning Deficiencies
  • Lack of dense automatic weather station network in high altitudes.
  • Inadequate satellite-based real-time monitoring for avalanches & GLOFs.
• Disaster Response Bottlenecks
  • Constant rain + unstable muck hindered rescue operations.
  • Loss of critical infrastructure (helipads, roads) during disaster slows aid.
• Policy Disconnect
  • No integration of climate change adaptation into infrastructure planning.
  • Disaster risk assessments often post-facto, not pre-emptive.

Key Lessons & Imperatives

• Respect Mountain Ecology
  • Avoid major HEPs in para-glacial zones.
  • No road widening on slopes >30°.
  • Keep human settlements away from flood-prone streams.
• Enforce BESZ Regulations
  • No exemptions for tourism or “strategic” projects without environmental clearance.
• Infrastructure Rethink
  • Elevated roads, slope stabilisation, tunnelling where feasible.
  • Limit tree felling; prioritise native forest conservation.
• Carrying-Capacity Studies
  • Mandatory before approving any large tourism or urban expansion project.
• Climate Resilience Measures
  • Expand automatic weather & avalanche detection systems.
  • Satellite + AI-based early warning dissemination to villages.
  • Community-led disaster preparedness training.
• Policy Integration
  • Link climate change science → hazard mapping → development planning.
  • Apply Supreme Court’s precautionary principle in Himalayan projects.

Broader Message

• The Himalayas are not just tourist backdrops, but a living, fragile system central to India’s water security, biodiversity, and climate stability.
• Unsustainable development = amplified disaster risks, where natural hazards turn into human tragedies.
• “Respect the Mountain” is not rhetoric – it’s a survival imperative for people, ecosystems, and the economy.

World court’s advisory opinion boosts climate action

Background: Role of ICJ & Nature of Advisory Opinions

• ICJ (International Court of Justice) – principal judicial organ of the UN; also called the World Court.
• Advisory Opinions:
  • Not legally binding like judgments in contentious cases.
  • Authoritative interpretations of international law → carry significant moral, political, and legal weight.
  • Can generate international pressure on states to align behaviour with legal norms.
  • Example: UK’s eventual handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius after ICJ advisory opinion (2019).
• Context: Small Island Developing States (SIDS), facing existential climate threats, led the UN General Assembly initiative to seek this opinion.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Practice Question : The recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice marks a paradigm shift in interpreting states’ obligations under climate treaties. Critically analyse its potential impact on global climate governance and the Global South–North divide.(250 words)

Key Legal Findings of the ICJ

• States have legal obligations under international law to:
  • Protect the climate system.
  • Prevent significant harm.
  • Cooperate internationally to address climate change.
• Obligations are universal – transcend politics; states cannot ignore them.
• Failure to comply has legal consequences, even without binding treaty enforcement mechanisms.

Interpretation of Climate Treaties

• ICJ interpreted UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement as a coherent whole.
• Integrated best available scientific consensus (e.g., IPCC findings) and COP decisions.
• Paris Agreement temperature goal:
  • Official: “Well below 2°C” with efforts toward 1.5°C.
  • ICJ interpretation: 1.5°C threshold is the relevant binding benchmark given current science.
• Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs):
  • States do not have unfettered discretion.
  • NDCs must reflect “highest possible ambition”.
  • Duty of due diligence → states must take measures reasonably capable of meeting NDCs.
  • Rejection of the argument that NDCs create no binding obligations.

Global North–South Divide & Climate Justice

• Reinforced Common But Differentiated Responsibilities & Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC):
  • Action standards vary based on historical emissions, development level, and national circumstances.
• Developed countries’ obligations:
  • Legally bound to provide climate finance and technology transfer to developing nations.
  • Applies to both mitigation and adaptation.
  • Financial support obligation interpreted in light of:
    • Temperature goal.
    • Subsequent climate agreements (e.g., COP commitments).
  • Compliance judged on good faith and due diligence standards.

Rejection of “Self-Contained Regime” Argument

• Some states (including India) argued climate treaties operate as a self-contained regime, excluding general international law principles.
• ICJ rejected this, affirming:
  • Climate obligations also arise from:
    • Customary international law.
    • Other environmental treaties.
    • Law of the Sea Convention.
  • Duties include:
    • Duty to prevent significant harm.
    • Duty of cooperation.
    • Duty of due diligence.
  • Climate change impacts human rights, especially of vulnerable groups.
    • Obligations extend to ensuring a just transition without human rights violations.

State Responsibility & Causation

• ICJ rejected the claim that causation is too hard to prove.
• Modern science enables attribution:
  • Each state’s historical + current emissions can be calculated.
  • Enables individual responsibility for contribution to climate harm.
• Withdrawal from climate treaties (e.g., US withdrawal from Paris Agreement under Trump) does not remove obligations under customary international law.

Implications for Global South & Strategic Litigation

• Legal victory for small island states – strengthens accountability mechanisms.
• Potential to:
  • Bolster climate-related human rights litigation (e.g., Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India).
  • Pressure major emitters to raise ambition.
  • Demand greater climate finance and technology transfer.
  • Challenge disproportionate burden on developing countries.
• Provides leverage in climate negotiations and disputes.

Broader International Legal Significance

• Climate change framed as cross-cutting legal obligation under multiple regimes, not just environmental treaties.
• Establishes due diligence + highest ambition as legal standards.
• Aligns legal interpretation with evolving scientific consensus.
• Strengthens link between climate action and human rights protection.
• Supports the development of customary international law on climate obligations.