The Himalayas are becoming increasingly vulnerable to cascading disasters. Rising atmospheric temperatures, glacier retreat, permafrost degradation and expanding glacial lakes are contributing to the destabilization of high mountain environments. Melamchi Flood (2021), Thame GLOF (2024), Bhotekoshi GLOF (2025) and now the recent disasters in the Bhotekoshi and Budhi Gandaki river systems have demonstrated how a sudden glacial collapse, rock–ice avalanche or landslide-dam breach can generate devastating floods and debris flows, threatening settlements, infrastructure and livelihoods far downstream. Along with their increased frequency and intensity, its with urgent priority the action should be taken immediately.
These events expose a fundamental gap in Nepal's disaster preparedness. While Himalayan hazards travel through interconnected river corridors, our emergency preparedness and response mechanisms remain largely organized around administrative boundaries. This conventional approach, primarily dependent on rain-induced disasters, is increasingly inadequate for disasters that originate in remote mountain catchments mainly triggered by ice-temperature dynamics and propagate rapidly across multiple municipalities and districts.
Nepal urgently needs a River Corridor-Based Disaster Security and Incident Command System across all snow-fed rivers with utmost urgency, led by the concerned National Authority, with the operational engagement of the frontline security forces; Armed Police Force, Nepal Police, Nepal Army, Department of Hydrology, Department of Meteorology, and provincial and local governments.
As Nepal's apex disaster risk reduction and management authority, NDRRMA should take responsibility for developing a National Himalayan River Corridor Emergency Preparedness Framework. Rather than establishing another parallel institution, this framework should strengthen existing disaster management structures through corridor-specific contingency planning, interagency coordination and operational readiness.
Based on the level of risk and the potential magnitude of hazards originating in the upper catchments, each major snow-fed river corridor should have a dedicated risk profile, a pre-established emergency response plan, clearly defined incident command arrangements, and designated multi-agency response task forces. Lead authority should coordinate these arrangements nationally, ensuring that scientific institutions, experts, security forces and local governments operate under clearly defined responsibilities and shared operational protocols.
Revised interest rate corridor system introduced
Importantly, preparedness must be guided by the magnitude of potential disasters rather than historical experience alone. Scientific assessments should estimate the volume of potentially unstable glaciers, glacial lakes and rock–ice masses, together with possible flood discharge, debris entrainment, flow velocity and downstream impact.
The destructive potential of an event cannot be determined solely by the size of a glacial lake or collapsing glacier. Channel characteristics, sediment availability and valley confinement may substantially amplify its intensity. Therefore, corridor-specific hazard scenarios should determine where response forces are positioned, what equipment is required and how quickly evacuation must begin. This approach would not only strengthen preparedness and significantly reduce disaster-induced loss and damage, but also enable a more coordinated, timely, and effective response without requiring the full mobilization of central authorities and the entire government structure, unlike in the past. A dedicated corridor-specific task force should be sufficiently empowered to manage the initial response, with additional forces and resources mobilised as needed to provide targeted support.
From Reactive Rescue to Proactive Deployment
All three security forces have demonstrated considerable capacity in emergency rescue operations. However, responding after a high-velocity debris flow has already reached populated settlements may be too late. Under NDRRMA's national coordination, priority corridors should have designated emergency response teams, strategically pre-positioned equipment, evacuation routes, communication systems and operational command arrangements. A risk-tiered preparedness approach would be more practical than permanently deploying large numbers of security personnel along every river. High-risk corridors could maintain forward-positioned teams during critical periods, supported by mobile units and national reserves.
An effective Incident Command System should integrate scientific monitoring, early warning, security mobilization, evacuation, logistics and emergency communications. Clearly defined activation thresholds must allow authorized agencies to take immediate action without unnecessary administrative delays. Similarly, both Departments of Hydrology and Meteorology along with other technical institutions should coherently contribute scientific monitoring and hazard forecasts, while NDRRMA ensures that the resulting information is translated into preparedness decisions and coordinated operational action.
A National Priority Across Nepal's Himalayan Rivers
There must be a mechanism initiated for nationwide assessment of major snow-fed river corridors and their implications in each basin. The Bhotekoshi–Trishuli, Budhi Gandaki, Kali Gandaki, Seti Gandaki, Dudh Koshi, Tama Koshi, Sun Koshi, Arun, Marsyangdi and all other glacier-fed systems deserve particular attention, subject to vulnerability mapping along with scientific risk assessment and prioritization.
The immediate priority should be to identify the most vulnerable corridors, prepare scenario-based emergency plans, establish interagency incident command arrangements and conduct joint simulation exercises involving security forces, technical agencies and local communities.
Given the transboundary nature of several Himalayan watersheds, authority should also strengthen coordination with relevant national institutions for upstream hazard information exchange with neighbouring countries.
Nepal cannot prevent every glacier collapse, glacial lake outburst or catastrophic debris flow, given the frequency and intensity that are on the rise. But it can at least anticipate their potential consequences and prepare its institutions before disaster strikes. The time has come for NDRRMA to move beyond coordinating disaster response towards institutionalizing a proactive, scientifically informed and operationally prepared river corridor security system. The security forces, humanitarian agencies, international development partners and other responders must be integral to this mechanism, but its strategic direction, national coordination and accountability should rest firmly with the authority like NDRRMA.
The next major Himalayan disaster should not be the event that reminds Nepal of the need for preparedness. It should be the event for which Nepal is already prepared.
With expertise in climate and disaster resilience, the author is currently associated with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Nepal and serves as a Loss and Damage expert.
