When a bridge is washed away by a flood, a road is destroyed by a landslide, a settlement is destroyed by an earthquake, or a flood caused by the bursting of a Himalayan mountain village causes great damage, we often use the same word - 'natural disaster'.
The term is widely used in media news, government announcements, television reports, and general conversation. But there is a fundamental problem with this.
There is no such thing as a natural disaster.
Earthquakes, floods, landslides, avalanches, avalanches, flash floods (floods) and heavy rainfall are natural hazards (hazards).
But only when such risks interact with people, infrastructure, livelihoods and vulnerable communities can they take the form of disasters.
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has also advanced the concept that while hazards may be natural, disasters themselves are not natural.
This may seem like a mere debate of words. But this is not such a common topic. How we define a disaster determines how we understand it and how we prepare for it.
Nature creates risk, we determine the amount of risk
A glacier collapse in the high Himalayas does not necessarily mean that no one will die. In remote mountain areas, glaciers may break and flood, but may not affect people or infrastructure.
An earthquake may occur in a deserted area, but not a single building may collapse. A river may overflow its banks in a remote location, but this need not constitute a national crisis.
A physical event is a hazard.
But when people, property and infrastructure fall under its grip and cannot withstand its effects, then it becomes a disaster.
Disasters arise from the interrelationship of risk, vulnerability, vulnerability and coping capacity. That is, disaster is not a natural phenomenon; It is created by the relationship between natural hazards and human society.
This understanding is more important for Nepal.
We live in a country where climate, vegetation, mountains and rivers are constantly changing. Temperature and environmental conditions are changing, especially in the high Himalayas. We cannot prevent all landslides, floods or glacial hazards.
But we can decide where to build houses, where to build roads, how to build infrastructure, whether or not to have early warning systems and whether or not to develop in risky areas. In the event of a mountain disaster, cross-border cooperation and data sharing with China located in the upper watershed area is indispensable.
It is also our decision whether to make a hydropower project based on today's flood or to take into account even bigger floods that may come in the future.
These are all human decisions. So disaster risk is also partly human-made.
Another major weakness is the understanding of the Himalayas as a static landscape. In the past, we have done risk mapping by measuring the area and condition of a glacier to place it in a certain category of risk, identify landslides or determine flood zones.
But the Himalayas are not static. Glaciers are melting and thinning. New glaciers are forming while old glaciers are expanding or shrinking. Permafrost (permanent snow/frozen condition: refers to a layer of soil, or rock below the surface of the ground for two consecutive years or more, which remains frozen year-round at temperatures of zero degrees Celsius or below) is changing. Rainfall patterns are also changing.
Along with this, the expansion of infrastructure in the Himalayan region is rapid. Roads and settlements are expanding into deep Himalayan valleys. Hydropower projects, transmission lines, bridges, tourism infrastructure and other structures are being built in such valleys and mountains where natural geo-processes have been taking place for thousands of years.
The result is clear—a combination of changing risk and increased human risk.
This situation can increase the risk of disaster in the future.
We are entering an era of gradual and multi-risk
Understanding the disaster as a single event is another big weakness of ours.
Glaciers can collapse. It can cause an avalanche. Avalanches can fall into rivers or lakes. Floods can then occur and floods can take the form of destructive geogran flows, carrying large amounts of rock, mud and geogran.
It can wash away bridges, roads and other infrastructure and cut off communities from electricity, communications and transport.
That is, one event can lead to another event.
The 2024 Thame Himtal explosive flood in Solukhumbu and the incidents seen in the Nepal-China border region in recent years have shown how the risk generated in the high Himalayan region can gradually spread downwards.
So it is no longer enough for us to see floods or landslides as isolated events. We need to understand cascading and compounding risk.
Responsibilities can overwhelm natural disasters
Calling an event a natural disaster can lead to the assumption that the destruction caused by it was inevitable.
The flood came - blame nature.
Landslides - Blame heavy rains.
There was an earthquake - blame the earthquake.
But our question should not end there.
The important question we have to ask is, why did that natural hazard become so devastating?
Were the homes built in flood prone areas?
Was the road built by cutting unstable hills or without scientific study?
Was the infrastructure designed keeping in mind the changing climate and environmental conditions?
Was the community notified in a timely manner? Was there a way to safety?
Was the information given by the scientists ignored?
These questions can be uncomfortable. But they are necessary. Because most calamities do not just happen on that day. Its basis lies in development and planning decisions made years ago.
Nepal cannot rely only on rescue after a disaster
Nepal has developed remarkable capacity in rescue and relief after disasters. Security agencies, local communities, volunteers and government mechanisms are mobilized immediately. Many people risk their own lives to save the lives of others.
But rescue should not be the main criterion of disaster preparedness.
Our aim should be to reduce the need to rescue people from disasters.
For this, we need to move from disaster response to disaster risk reduction.
For example, it is not enough to simply map the glaciers, they must be constantly monitored to see how their conditions are changing.
While building infrastructure, not only past floods, but future extreme events and successive risks should also be taken into account. Multi-risk should be included in the development plan and scientific research should not be limited to research papers but should be taken to the policy making and local level.
Climate change adds to the challenge
With climate change, this issue has become more serious.
The increase in temperature is causing changes in the Himalayan cryosphere (glaciation) and this is affecting the environment in which various Himalayan hazards arise.
But it is not scientifically correct to say that every event is caused by climate change without proof.
We need to distinguish between the immediate triggers/causes, the enabling environmental conditions, long-term climate change and the human risks that are affected by it.
Climate change may change the nature of risk. Development can increase vulnerable people and infrastructure. Poverty, inequality and poor planning can increase vulnerability.
When all these come together, a natural physical event can turn into a major disaster.
After a disaster, we need to change the question
After a disaster, we often ask - 'What happened?'
Now it's time to ask another question-
'Why did this disaster happen?'
'Could its impact be reduced or not?'
These questions lead to solutions.
If a settlement is flooded again and again, rebuilding houses on the same place is not the only solution. If a bridge collapses again and again, building another bridge in the same design is not just preparation. If a road is repeatedly blocked by landslides, removing the soil every year and waiting for next year's monsoon is not a long-term solution.
Rebuilding for the better is not just rebuilding a broken structure; It also means addressing the root cause of the risk.
Nepal's development should be taking risks into account
Nepal is now rapidly expanding its roads, hydropower, cities, transmission lines and tourism infrastructure. Many structures built today will last for decades.
If we ignore changing risks, we may be building tomorrow's disasters within today's development.
Therefore, risk-sensitive land-use planning, strong infrastructure standards, effective early warning systems, real-time risk monitoring, cross-border collaboration and coordination between scientists and policy makers are essential.
These are not additional costs of disaster management.
These are investments in sustainable development.
A bridge that can withstand a major flood is not a disaster management success; It is also an example of successful development.
A community that was moved to safety before the flood did not fail to rescue; Life was saved.
Monitoring avalanches before they become dangerous is not an unnecessary expense; It is an investment to prevent possible future destruction.
Nature cannot be stopped, but risks can be reduced
Using the term natural disaster instead of divine disaster is considered more scientific and neutral.
Earthquakes are not unusual.
It is not unusual for a river to overflow its banks.
Glacier collapse is also not unusual.
All of these are part of Earth's dynamic natural systems that are being accelerated by climate change.
But it does not mean that people have to die when such incidents happen. Bridges don't have to collapse over and over again. It is not always necessary to rebuild settlements in vulnerable areas.
Nor should we always be surprised by risks that science has already identified. Nature continues to create risk. The Himalayas keep changing. Climate change continues to add new uncertainties. But whether or not those risks become disasters depends largely on the decisions we make before the event occurs.
Therefore, Nepal should reconsider the easy but misleading terminology of natural disaster. Not that nature is innocent. Nature is powerful. But disaster is not inevitable.
When we define disasters only as natural, we run the risk of thinking of them as inevitable.
But the truth is – risk can be natural; Disasters are shaped by how a society lives, how it builds, and how it prepares.
And if our decisions can create risk, we also have the power and responsibility to reduce it through the right decisions.
Dr. Khadka is a researcher and scientist in the field of glaciology and mountain disasters.
