Report on Environmental Displacement and Institutional Inaction in Khadehtar Village

Executive Summary

A case study involving Non-Commissioned Officer Suram Singh of Khadehtar village highlights significant failures in disaster risk management and institutional responsiveness, leading to severe socio-economic and environmental consequences. The loss of over 60 kanal of fertile land and a family home due to preventable soil erosion underscores a critical disconnect between administrative promises and action, directly undermining several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Impact Assessment through the Lens of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The incident reveals profound challenges in achieving key SDG targets:

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.1 (Safe and Affordable Housing): The collapse of Mr. Singh’s Rs 40 lakh home, his primary life investment, and the subsequent displacement of his family to a neighbour’s residence, represents a failure to ensure access to safe and adequate housing.
  • Target 11.5 (Disaster Risk Reduction): The administration’s failure to act for six years following the initial 2019 landslide demonstrates a lack of proactive disaster risk reduction. The predictable erosion was not mitigated, leading to catastrophic and preventable economic and property loss. The relocation of a second family (Nek Ram) indicates a wider systemic vulnerability.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  • Target 1.5 (Building Resilience of the Poor): The erosion destroyed Mr. Singh’s primary assets—his house and fertile agricultural land—severely impacting his family’s economic stability and resilience. The lack of institutional support has pushed a self-sufficient family towards economic vulnerability, directly contravening the goal of building resilience among those in vulnerable situations.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  • Target 15.3 (Land Degradation Neutrality): The loss of over 60 kanal of fertile agricultural land and orchards to progressive soil erosion constitutes a severe case of land degradation. The failure to implement protective measures after the rivulet’s course was altered has contributed to the loss of productive terrestrial ecosystems.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.6 (Effective, Accountable, and Transparent Institutions): The case exemplifies institutional failure. Despite acknowledgements from high-level officials and the completion of all required formalities by Mr. Singh, his file for land rehabilitation has remained unprocessed for over three years, indicating a lack of accountability and responsiveness from the Revenue Department.

Chronology of Institutional Failure

1. August 2019: A landslide alters the course of the Jabbar rivulet, initiating erosion towards Mr. Singh’s property.
2. Post-August 2019: Mr. Singh approaches the local administration. The Deputy Commissioner of Kangra, Nurpur SDM, and a local MLA visit the site and assure assistance, but no action is taken.
3. 2019: Following intervention via the Prime Minister’s Office, state officials identify alternative land for rehabilitation.
4. 2020-2021: Mr. Singh completes all required formalities, including securing No Objection Certificates (NOCs), and a file for land exchange is submitted to the Revenue Department.
5. February 2023: Mr. Singh personally follows up at the Secretary Revenue Department, only to find the file has not been processed.
6. 2024: After three days of heavy rain, Mr. Singh’s house collapses, and his family is displaced.

Current Status and Conclusion

The newly appointed Nurpur SDM has confirmed the family’s relocation to a safer, temporary location and has escalated the matter. However, this reactive measure comes after six years of inaction resulted in irreversible loss. This case serves as a critical report on the urgent need to strengthen institutional accountability, streamline bureaucratic processes, and integrate disaster risk reduction strategies aligned with the SDGs to protect vulnerable citizens and vital ecosystems from climate-related hazards. An immediate intervention is required to provide the promised land allotment and restore faith in public institutions.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.5: By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters.
     
     Explanation: The article highlights the vulnerability of Suram Singh’s family, who lost their home and agricultural land due to a landslide worsened by heavy rainfall, a climate-related disaster. This event pushed them into a precarious situation, forcing them to seek shelter with neighbours, demonstrating a lack of resilience to such shocks.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.
     
     Explanation: Suram Singh’s “pucca house” collapsed, and his family was forced to “take shelter in a neighbour’s home.” Another family was “temporarily relocated to a government school building.” This directly relates to the loss of adequate and safe housing.
   • Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses… caused by disasters… with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.
     
     Explanation: The article details the number of people affected (Suram Singh’s family and Nek Ram’s family) and the direct economic losses (a house built with “Rs 40 lakh” and “60 kanal of fertile agricultural land”).

3. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
     
     Explanation: The disaster was a landslide “worsened by bureaucratic apathy” and exacerbated by “three days of relentless rainfall.” The family’s subsequent loss and the administration’s slow response indicate a failure to build resilience and adaptive capacity to such natural disasters.

4. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by… floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.
     
     Explanation: The core issue is the loss of “more than 60 kanal of fertile agricultural land” due to “soil erosion caused by a massive landslide.” This is a clear case of land degradation, which this target aims to combat and reverse.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article is a testament to institutional failure. Phrases like “bureaucratic apathy,” “delayed administrative response,” and a file “still gathering dust” after more than three years, despite assurances from high-level officials, point to a lack of effective and accountable institutions.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. For Targets 1.5 and 11.5

   • Indicator: Number of people affected by disasters.
     
     Evidence from article: The article explicitly mentions two families being affected and displaced: “Suram Singh’s family” and “another family in Tika Nagrota, belonging to Nek Ram.”
   • Indicator: Direct economic loss attributed to disasters.
     
     Evidence from article: Specific economic losses are stated, including a “pucca house” built with “around Rs 40 lakh” and “more than 60 kanal of fertile agricultural land.”

2. For Target 11.1

   • Indicator: Number of people living in temporary or inadequate housing due to disaster.
     
     Evidence from article: It is stated that Suram Singh’s family was “forcing his family to take shelter in a neighbour’s home” and Nek Ram’s family was “temporarily relocated to a government school building.”

3. For Target 15.3

   • Indicator: Amount of land degraded.
     
     Evidence from article: The article quantifies the land degradation as “more than 60 kanal of fertile agricultural land” lost to “soil erosion.”

4. For Target 16.6

   • Indicator: Time taken for administrative processes for citizen grievances.
     
     Evidence from article: A key implied indicator of institutional inefficiency is the time delay. The article notes, “After waiting for more than three years, my file is still gathering dust,” which measures the lack of effective response.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: tribuneindia.com