Understanding Transboundary Early Warning Systems and Their Cultural Context in The Kosi River Basin

Student thesis: Doctoral ThesisDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract

The Kosi River is a transboundary river that originates in China, passes through Nepal, and meets the River Ganges in India. It flows through a narrow channel in steep and fragile terrain in the upstream region, carrying sediments and debris downstream to the flat plains of Nepal and India. These sediment deposits obstruct the river’s flow and cause it to meander, resulting in regular floods during the monsoon season. In 1954, the governments of Nepal and India entered into an agreement known as the Kosi Agreement, which aimed to protect against floods in Nepal and Bihar state in India. The agreement included the construction of embankments to channelise the river into the Kosi Barrage, with the intention of controlling the river’s discharge and meandering. However, instead of resolving the flooding issue, the embankments trapped sediments within their walls and raised the riverbed, exacerbating flooding and making it more unpredictable.

Nevertheless, floods have significant linkages between upstream and downstream areas, and early warning systems can mitigate downstream losses by providing information in advance. An early warning system (EWS) is a comprehensive system that involves hazard assessment, monitoring, communication, and response to reduce the impact of hazards through timely information and action. Currently, there is no transboundary EWS in the Kosi River basin, but Nepal and India have their respective EWSs within their national jurisdictions. However, implementing an effective transboundary EWS in the Kosi River basin is challenging due to multiple institutions and approaches at the national level, geopolitical issues related to shared water resources at the transboundary level, and sociocultural factors at the community level. International disaster policies emphasise the importance of transboundary EWS in minimising disaster losses, and both countries are striving to establish such a system in the Kosi River basin. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how sociocultural, governance, and institutional factors interact and hinder the effectiveness of a transboundary EWS, as well as explore ways to overcome these constraints.

This research adopts the theory of pragmatism as a research paradigm and employs qualitative research methods in human geography. The study includes ethnography, 34 expert interviews, 12 focus group discussions, and 44 community-level interviews conducted in the transboundary region traversed by the Kosi River in Nepal and India.

The findings of this research suggest that the governance of EWS in the study area is characterised by central management, top-down approaches, a focus on disaster response, and a lack of participation from the at-risk population. While bilateral committees have been established at the transboundary level to facilitate collaborative action on flood risk management, they are also centrally led, water governance-focused, and fail to include the participation of at-risk individuals or representation from local government institutions. Consequently, the disaster risk management processes and transboundary early warning systems in the Kosi River basin are complicated by the geopolitics surrounding shared water resources. The recurring themes in this thesis are the lack of participation from at-risk individuals and a limited contextual understanding throughout the EWS processes. Furthermore, sociocultural norms and gender barriers, particularly those affecting women and marginalised groups, restrict access to warnings and prevent meaningful participation in the study area. The findings suggest that women perceived risks differently from men, as they were more concerned about the challenging living conditions and associated risks during flood evacuation, such as sexual harassment, animal attacks, snake bites, diseases, and theft. These concerns significantly influence their actions during flood disasters.

This study provides valuable insights into the constraints faced by transboundary Early Warning Systems (EWSs) in the study area by examining the currently operational EWSs. The findings indicate that the existing EWSs in Nepal and India predominantly rely on a unidirectional risk communication approach, prioritising technology over at-risk individuals’ needs, preferences, and contextual understanding. The current approaches overlook the importance of knowledge coproduction with the at-risk population in EWS. Moreover, the study highlights how geopolitics surrounding shared rivers introduces complexities, such as the securitisation of river data and the proliferation of myths concerning the causes of floods in relation to transboundary EWS. Additionally, the empirical findings suggest that internal politics and geopolitics influence transboundary EWS, underscoring the need for a comprehensive analysis of geopolitical influences. The study also emphasises the importance of considering gendered aspects in risk perception and access to risk communication within transboundary EWSs. Furthermore, an inclusive and contextually grounded approach to risk communication and information generation is crucial, addressing geopolitical complexities at the transboundary level, knowledge gaps, and gender-specific risk perceptions within transboundary EWS.

This study suggests that the process of generating risk information in transboundary EWS should be collaborative, aiming to co-produce knowledge as a sense-making process, while risk communication in transboundary EWS should be approached as a meaning-making process. It further suggests that transboundary rivers are politically significant resources, necessitating the inclusion of geopolitics in assessments. The study recommends that EWSs should be context-specific and participatory, providing specific policy and practice recommendations for the effective implementation of transboundary EWS.
Date of Award1 Sept 2023
Original languageEnglish
Awarding Institution
  • King's College London
SupervisorAmy Donovan (Supervisor) & George Adamson (Supervisor)

Cite this

'