Flash floods from a glacial collapse in Nepal’s Bhotekoshi river have destroyed multiple hydropower projects and transmission lines, wiping out over 431 MW of capacity and exposing the vulnerability of energy infrastructure in the fragile Hindu Kush Himalaya.
The article argues that energy security must be redefined to embed disaster resilience, climate risk assessment and transboundary cooperation into every stage of planning.
The devastating flash floods triggered by glacial collapse in Bhotekoshi River, Nepal raises an extremely important concern for energy security. The flash floods have destroyed major hydropower infrastructure across Rasuwa, Nuwakot and Dhading districts, turning critical infrastructure essential for energy security into debris. About 12 hydropower projects downstream have been wiped out resulting in the loss of 431.1 MW of power capacity. Moreover, damage has been caused to 15 hydropower projects currently under construction. Transmission lines along the Trishuli 220 KV 3B hub sub-station in Nuwakot, Nepal have also been completely destroyed causing electricity disruptions in Rasuwa district and parts of Nuwakot, Dhading and Gorkha. Such catastrophic disruption raises a fundamental question: can infrastructure built to sustain energy security coexist with building disaster resilience in a region as environmentally fragile as the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region?
Energy security cannot be measured only by the quantum of transmission capacity and power generation capacity; it must also be measured by introspecting whether the heavy infrastructure built in the fragile mountains can withstand the impacts of rising climate-induced and anthropocentric hazards. The HKH region has been susceptible to such catastrophic events, with similar events occurring during the 1985 Dig Tsho outburst in Nepal, Bhutan catastrophe of Lugge Tsho flood in 1994, Kedarnath floods of 2013 triggered by the collapse of Chorabari lake and the recent Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) 2023 in Sikkim. Such catastrophic events have caused huge damage to energy infrastructure in the past. For instance, the GLOF that occurred in Sikkim in 2023 completely destroyed the 1200 MW Teesta-III Hydroelectric Project (HEP) dam at Chungthang. Similarly, the 2021 glacial collapse in Chamoli, Uttarakhand wiped out the Rishiganga Hydropower project. Following the aftermath of Kedarnath disaster in 2013, Supreme Court had set up an expert committee to study the role of hydropower projects that has resulted in environmental degradation. It significantly highlighted the impact of 23 HEPs on the biodiversity of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins and recommended that there should be a complete ban on further clearance of HEPs in wildlife protected areas, Gangotri eco-sensitive zone and areas with critical wildlife habitats and biological diversity.
The recent report by ICIMOD (2026) on the study of HKH from 1990 to 2020 reveals that between 1990 and 2020, glaciers in the HKH region have experienced a 12 per cent reduction in total area and a decline of 9 per cent in estimated ice reserves. The study mapped 63,761 glaciers across the HKH region, covering an area of 55,782 sq kms and 5735.79 cubic kms of estimated ice reserves. The most substantial glacier losses have affected smaller glaciers, particularly in the eastern and central parts of the region. Glaciers smaller than 0.5 km2 are the most affected and the damage has also resulted in the fragmentation of large glaciers into smaller units. Significant damage has occurred in the Ganga and Brahmaputra River Basin, resulting in losses of 21per cent and 16 per cent, respectively. This makes the region fragile and less capable of withstanding the impacts of increasing infrastructure development undertaken to strengthen energy security.
Disaster resilience and energy security should co-exist and must take into account the carrying capacity of fragile natural resources, potential hazards likely to cause damages and the need to build resilient infrastructure to ensure inter and intra-generational equity and justice. The ecosystem of Indian subcontinent encompassing the SAARC region and China is dependent on the fragile HKH for its water, energy and ecological security. Therefore, any havoc caused in this fragile ecosystem can have cascading consequences that spread across borders. It is important that the legal framework for environmental clearances must address the potential disaster risks associated with large infrastructure projects and adequate steps should be taken to strengthen disaster resilience.
Disasters does not understand the language of political borders nor do they preserve territorial sovereignty. Any damage caused can have cascading consequences, as witnessed in the recent catastrophe in Nepal. Huge volumes of debris carrying humans and nonhumans have been swept downstream by strong river currents into border areas in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Managing these hazards is extremely important through transboundary disaster diplomacy based on continuous monitoring, information sharing across borders and early-warning systems. This can be strengthened through regional intergovernmental frameworks such as the SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters which was conceived to allow effective cooperation in developing and implementing measures for disaster risk reduction. However, the operationalization of this agreement as well as SAARC Disaster Management Centre has been paralyzed by geopolitical concerns and its non-binding mandate.
Energy security and disaster resilience must not be understood in silos. The framework of resilience must instead be embedded within the very conception of energy security, so that it respects the carrying capacity of land and anticipates the cascading impacts of hazards. This can only be done through a well-planned system of transboundary disaster diplomacy that has coordinated disaster risk planning, information sharing and early warning systems in place.
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth