2014 Archives - The India Climate Observatory

A report card on monsoon 2014

October 1, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

From the first week of June 2014 until the middle of September 2014, there have been floods and conditions equivalent to drought in many districts, and for India the tale of monsoon 2014 comes from a reading of individual districts, not from a national ‘average’ or a ‘cumulative’. [This article was published by the newspaper DNA.]

Despite the advances made by our agencies in weather forecasting and climate monitoring, the science of meteorology still remains to be effectively distilled so that it can be used by citizens and, wherever possible, expanded and given context by ground-based observation and recording. One sector in which this does take place – albeit at a level still far below its potential – is agriculture. The reason is clear: our crop staples (the cereals, pulses, vegetables and fruit) have their individual calendars for preparation, sowing, tending and harvesting.

This line chart tells some of the tale. It shows that for the first six weeks of monsoon 2014, most districts recorded rain below their ‘normals’ for those weeks. The lines are percentile lines; they tell us what percent of districts recorded how much rainfall in a monsoon week relative to their normals for that week. This chart does not show how much rain – it shows distance away from a weekly normal for districts.
The left scale is a percentage – higher percentages indicate how far above normal districts recorded their rainfall, negative numbers show us how far below normal their rainfall was. The dates (the bottom scale) are for weeks ending on that date for which normals and departures from normal were recorded. The P_01 to P_09 lines are the percentiles (10th to 90th) of all districts in every week.

And so we have an agricultural meteorology system that faithfully and reliably informs ‘kisans’ and cultivators in 641 districts what to expect from the weather for the next week. Thanks to mobile phones, weather alerts and crop advisories are distributed in all our major languages to a portion of the farming households working on 138 million farm holdings, (of which 117 million are small). But this is still only a portion, and is far from adequate in distributing the results of the work of our earth scientists and field staff.

Moreover, every other sector of development requires such raw data and location-specific analysis: the Department of Rural Development, the National Rural Health Mission, the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (for drinking water and sanitation), the food-based programmes (like the mid-day meals) for which the availability of ingredients and their supply is the essence of their work, the Central Water Commission and the Central Ground Water Board, whose work it is to determine the water flows and balances in river sub-basins and watersheds (there are 3,257), and districts administrations (which administer 232,855 panchayats) and municipal councils alike which must implement relief measures when drought sets in or must ration supply when there are shortages. This is but a small list of agencies whose work is directly affected by the Indian summer monsoon and its activity where they work.

A dense network of weather stations (more of these are being automated every month, but every taluka still does not have one) is complemented by dedicated satellites which provides continuous coverage of the sub-continent, the northern Asian land mass, the surrounding oceans southwards until beyond the Tropic of Capricorn.

The typical IMD map of ‘normal’ rainfall measured by the meteorological sub-divisions. The detailed weekly tables give us a very different picture

Methods to simply and accurately funnel this stream of real-time data and imagery are available, mostly at no cost, in order to aid local administrations, farmers and cultivators, and all citizens. It is this availability and relative simplicity of use (block-level weather forecasts for 72 hours are now available as local language apps on smartphones) that must be encouraged by the official agencies – for they simply do not have the persons to do so at the scale and detail required.

Consider the setting in early July 2014. India’s summer monsoon was already late, and where it was late but active it was weak (as shown by the chart). The indications from the central earth science agencies (including the India Meteorological Department), from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, from the National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting were that it would be end-June before the summer monsoon system settles over central India and the western Gangetic plains. This did not happen for another two weeks, until six of the usual 16 monsoon weeks had passed.

When in mid-July more rainfall was recorded in the districts, even then, as the chart shows, only 50% of the districts reached their ‘normals’ for that week only. Thereafter, the volatility of rainfall set in and while for those in our towns and cities there was relief from the searing summer temperatures the rains did not assure sowing conditions for farmers and cultivators, nor did it add, in July, to the stores of water in major and minor reservoirs.

That is why the IMD’s outdated and stodgy public outreach practice must be overhauled, completely. The bland map (see example) of sub-divisions is of little use when what we want to know pertains to tehsil and town. The Met Department’s rain adequacy categories must be replaced too by measures that are geared towards aiding alerts and advisories – ‘normal’ is rainfall up to +19% above a given period’s average and also down to -19% from that same average, a range that can make or break the efforts of a horticulturist.

This table illustrates the trend of weekly rainfall in 40 districts. These districts are selected as being home to the largest rural populations, two from the 20 major states (by population). The numbers by week and district describe how far from a ‘normal’ the recorded rainfall for that week was.
Several overall observations stand out. Districts with weeks coloured light rose dominate, for these show those that received much less rain than they should have. Districts with a shade of deeper blue are the next most frequent category, and those received excess rain. Taken together, this tells us that extremes – very much less or more – were common for this group of districts in India with large rural populations.
We can see the prolonged dry spells for districts in Haryana and Punjab; likewise the absence of rain for the first six monsoon weeks in Gujarat and Maharashtra; are examples of wide swings around weekly ‘normal’ in Giridih (Jharkhand), Muzaffarpur (Bihar), Haridwar (Uttarakhand), Mandi (Himachal Pradesh), Viluppuram (Tamil Nadu), and Mahbubnagar (Andhra Pradesh). The weeks ending 20 August in Bihar and the weeks ending September 3 and 10 in Jammu and Kashmir immediately stand out – the Kosi had breached its banks in Bihar and the Chenab submerged Srinagar and Jammu.

Likewise, excess is +20% and more, deficient is -20% to -59% and scanty is -60% to -99%. To illustrate how misleading these categories can be, the difference between an excess of +21% and +41% can be the difference between water enough to puddle rice fields and a river breaking its banks to ruin those fields. [Get a full resolution image of the table here, 1.85 MB.]

The yawning gap between the technical competence of India’s climate monitoring systems, and they ways in which they are used, must be bridged and this is best done through public participation and citizen initiative. The politics of monsoon and of water will continue, but must not be allowed to define how our systems are used. Nor must they detract from our long history of weather observation, which dates back at least to the ‘Vrhat Sanhita’ of Varahamihira.

It has only signalled policy confusion for central and state governments to have not declared districts and talukas as affected by drought – which they should have by late July 2014 – while at the same time quietly announcing to administrations, as the Ministry of Agriculture did, that “to deal with challenges posed by delayed and aberrant monsoon and in the wake of shortfall in sowing of major crops during kharif 2014, the government has initiated interventions”. These being a diesel subsidy for what is called ‘protective irrigation’ of crops, raising the ceiling on the seed subsidy, rolling out a drought mitigating programme for horticulture, boosting fodder cultivation through the flagship Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana.

The new government has stated time and again its desire to improve and strengthen governance. This must come to include a concerted drive to democratise the use of public domain information, including our monsoon and water, in order that we residents of 4,041 statutory towns (large cities included) and 3,894 census towns can judge for ourselves the relationships between the food we buy, they rain we receive, our individual use of about 70 litres of water a day, and the fluctuation of these trends from one monsoon to another. The moral of monsoon 2014 is that we must reclaim local measures for local use.

Rahul Goswami

Warm streets, cold summits

September 25, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

A part of the people’s march against climate change in New York, USA. Photo: Reuters / Eduardo Munoz

The United Nations Climate Summit 2014, held on 23 September, can be considered as a study in two contrasts. On the one hand was the People’s Climate March – an enormous gathering of concerned citizens in New York, USA, which may have seen a combined total of some 400,000 people. The marchers through their diversity and energy delivered one message in many creative ways. That message was: we citizens can and will rid the planet of fossil fuels and nuclear power, that such action will be demanding and difficult but we will do it at the grassroots and make a difference there.

On the other hand was the Climate Summit. This, said the UN, would serve as a public platform for leaders at the highest level, by which is meant all UN Member States, as well as finance, business, civil society and local leaders from public and private sectors. The gathering, said the UN, would “catalyse ambitious action on the ground to reduce emissions and strengthen climate resilience and mobilise political will for an ambitious global agreement by 2015 that limits the world to a less than 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature”.

Did it succeed? No and yes. If there has been a gain from the events of 23 September it is to strengthen their individual and community resolve to act locally in an effort to tackle both the effects and the causes of climate change.

Where the Summit itself is concerned, against the background of 22 years of negotiations and conferences on climate change (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came about in 1992) it proved to be atypical. There were a number of promises and resolutions made to add to the mountain of such promises and resolutions but this summit – like every single other summit before it – brought no significant response from the political establishment.

Unsurprisingly, this is not how the UN sees the outcome of its recent work, for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon summed up the Summit as “a great day, a historic day. Never before have so many leaders gathered to commit to action on climate change”. Ban said that the Summit he called “delivered” because the many leaders attending “reaffirmed determination to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius by cutting emissions”.

Such announcements underline the contrast between the desire on the street and the cold comfort of summit announcements (now in their 22nd year). On 23 September the UN tip-toed around the large global and regional corporations (and their financier special interests) whose business practices have deepened environmental and socio-economic emergencies all over the world, and which are responsible for worsening – much less alleviating – the vulnerabilities of populations exposed to the risk of climate change.

The UN has regrettably turned into a recurring practice this avoiding of issues central to climate change (see the summary document, pdf, 243kb). But, at the same time, the UN together with a host of organisations that have more or less to do with climate change (private, academic, industry fora and so on) repeated once more a worn roster of promises.

These are:
* “Strong support” for the Green Climate Fund, with one more total being pledged (precious little has been actually transferred) and still more being “committed” (these are all commitments with renewable expiry dates).

* “A new coalition of governments, business, finance, multilateral development banks and civil society leaders” (what happened to all the other coalitions announced grandly at every other summit?) which once again was quick to commit to providing US$ 200 billion “for financing low-carbon and climate-resilient development”, including banks which want a ‘Green Bonds’ market.

* That carbon pricing continues to be “one of the most powerful tools available for reducing emissions and generating sustainable development and growth”, which in the end is a promise to continue the commodification and financialisation of emissions, an extremely troublesome industry whose regulation has proved difficult.

Instead of such expensive jamborees whose recycled announcements do little more than provide a false sense of security to citizens, the UN should emulate the example of the marchers and encourage small, local and meaningful action.

After the sound-and-light show of the Climate Summit 2014 we advocate just as strongly as before that it is local development – of, by, and for the people – which finds and leverages appropriate technology, encourages open source collaboration, and focuses on pragmatic, technical solutions to our problems, that will make the difference. Such action alone will reduce our impact on the environment and hedge households and communities against natural disasters made worse by a ritual of inaction.

We need more than summits and marches to deal with climate change

September 22, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Ban Ki-moon with marchers. "There is no 'Plan B' because we do not have 'Planet B'." Photo: UN Photo / Mark Garten

Who is the man in the blue cap and why is he on the street? Ban Ki-moon with marchers. “There is no ‘Plan B’ because we do not have ‘Planet B’.” Photo: UN Photo / Mark Garten

On September 20 and 21, the gathering of what has been called ‘climate marchers’, including many youth, expresses a growing popular concern over the impact of global warming on the world’s environment. During the march in New York, USA, the largest of the several marches held in several cities and countries, the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, joined the marchers. On 23 September, the Climate Summit he has called is expected to draw more than 120 heads of government to, as the UN puts it, “galvanise action on climate change”.

Ban said he hoped the peoples’ voices will be “truly reflected to the leaders” when they meet. “Climate change is a defining issue of our time,” he added. “There is no time to lose. If we do not take action now we will have to pay much more.” There is widespread expectation that government delegations to the summit will have “concrete initiatives and that it will provide significant momentum for a global agreement on tackling climate change”.

All this has likely been of interest to the youth, but the expectation of a new push towards a global agreement on dealing with climate change needs to be balanced by even the most cursory examination of the last 20 years of climate negotiations, under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC), and particularly the last four years of an ever larger number of meetings all of which have singly and together contributed nothing to any hoped-for global agreement.

Nonetheless, climate change continues, the science gathers experience and the evidence accumulates. Moreover, it has become clear that a climate treaty (if and when it is signed) will not be about a single issue. Climate change is one amongst an inter-connected web of subjects related to development, sustainability, habitats and settlements, equity and justice, trade, public and social institutions, technology, investments and finance, innovation and national priorities. In many ways, the responses to climate change are directly influenced by thinking and practice in all these areas.

In a short new collection of working ideas, ‘The Way Forward in International Climate Policy: Key Issues and New Ideas 2014’, published and distributed by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, the thesis that is advanced is: “research suggests that economic and ecological aims can co-exist, and even reinforce each other”. This may be partly true but is also contestable. As the CDKN collection also has pointed out, political tensions persist between economic growth and development on the one hand (but these should more correctly be called business and industry interests), and environmental sustainability on the other.

The term ‘sustainable development’ has engaged policy-makers and academics for 40 years now, and remains central to a set of goals (and large numbers of ‘targets’ and indicators) which will be finalised by the UN this year. Much more swiftly, ‘green growth’ has come forward as a competing idea, because ‘growth’ sounds more powerful to industry and investors, whereas ‘sustainability’ seems to imply conservation and status quo.

Historical contributions to greenhouse gases and the socio-political Southern view.

The marchers in New York may harbour some ideas about fairness, equity and the ethical issues surrounding climate change and those it affects. These concepts have indeed been highlighted by the IPCC climate change mitigation and adaptation reports. Although necessary, these concepts may be interpreted and implemented within the framework of national priorities and goals, yet the connections – between the concepts around equity, between what happens on the ground, and between the thickets of negotiating text – must be made.

Fairness between countries also underlies the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ which many of the so-called ‘developing’ and the so-called ‘less developed’ countries invoke during climate negotiations. It is a concept seen as being one of the key principles of the UNFCCC and a central element of fairness and equity discussions. But it has lead to intractable arguments that pit South versus North. Who should bear the burden of investments towards adaptation and mitigation and who should benefit? Without internationally agreed climate action costs continue to mount: how should these be dealt with? Unfortunately, these questions are debated in the UN and at international negotiations not by those affected but by the financial institutions and their technology providers.

The 23 September UN Climate Summit has already focused on public spectacle and visual stylistics in the days before the meeting, rather than outline the substantial and very delayed points of discussion. The UN headquarters has been lit up with what is described as “a spectacular 30-storey architectural projection show aimed to inspire global citizens to take climate action” which is to provide a “visual reminder of what is at stake”. This is wasteful and distracting – those who have been affected by climate change in its many forms have no need to be reminded by expensive spectacle half a world away.

That is why, 22 years after countries joined the UNFCCC, there remains a clear contrast between the urgency of the situation and the absence of any significant response from the political establishment. The urgency is:

(1) The hottest March-May period in the global record which has pushed numerous record spikes in the global measures this summer. By August, according to NASA, the global average had again climbed to new high levels. NASA showed that the Global Land-Ocean Surface Temperature Index had climbed to 0.70 degrees Celsius above the mid 20th century average and about 0.95 degrees Celsius above the 1880s average. The previous record high for the period was set in 2011 at 0.69 degrees C above the global 1951 to 1980 average.

(2) For the first time, monthly concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million (ppm) in April 2014 throughout the northern hemisphere. “This threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are responsible for the continuing increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming our planet.” All the northern hemisphere monitoring stations forming the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch network reported record atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the seasonal maximum. This occurs early in the northern hemisphere spring before vegetation growth absorbs CO2.

The contrast between urgency and the response of the world’s political leaders has occurred, in large part, due to the contradiction which climate negotiations carefully steer around – it is not possible to resolve climate change and other major environmental problems within the framework of a macro-economic system based on GDP growth and monetary expansion. For this reason, the perspective on which the People’s Climate March was organised offers no way forward and will contribute little to a lasting and fair climate treaty.

Five months ago the secretary general of the World Meteorlogical Organisation warned that “time is running out” when the 400 ppm was crossed. “This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving climate change. If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat trapping gases.” he said. Growth and consumption – green or sustainable or otherwise – is not the answer. And a recognition of that essential condition must be the starting point at the UN Climate Summit on 23 September 2014.

– Rahul Goswami

Dry tale of ten rain weeks

August 23, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

What a monsoon season is can no longer be judged by the over-simplified sums that assure the country about departures from an ‘average’ and the potential of ‘catching up’ as a season progresses. Since the 2009 drought, the awareness of farmers’ cooperatives and groups about the meteorological products and data available with the only provider of such measurements has grown. What has not grown is the willingness of government agencies on the one hand, and the consuming public on the other, to make similar investments in pursuing such clarity.

The area chart with its jagged stripes is the simplest indicator of the gap between the central government’s sanguine response to a very serious monsoon deficit, and the conditions that our districts have recorded since the first week of June 2014. The chart, based on the Indian Meteorological Department’s weekly district recordings of rainfall, plots 641 of these readings over ten weeks.

Our modified monsoon measure shows the overall trend, and made the case early for state and district level relief.

It is immediately clear that the green stripe (for ‘normal’) has at no point been significantly larger than any one of the other three important stripes, coloured deep red (for ‘scanty’), peach (for ‘deficient’) and blue (for ‘excess’).

In the seventh week of monsoon 2014 (17 to 23 July 2014) the number of districts that recorded normal rainfall for that week was 126, and that is the maximum number that have reported normal rainfall for a week. The next highest number of districts reporting normal for a week is 92, which was for the preceding week (10 to 16 July 2014).

More serious is the district-level reporting for the following three weeks – ending 30 July, 06 August and 13 August – which show the number of districts that reported normal rain for each week was less than 20% of the number of districts that reported deficient, scanty or excess rainfall. It was during this period that central government ministries and agencies did not publicly disclose the widespread monsoon deficiency and which did not act, by alerting the consuming public, to the short and medium term consequences of the monsoon crisis.

The modified monsoon measure (which has been advocated as a method to prime local administrations towards early recognition of the need for relief and remedial action in drought and drought-like conditions) displays to greater effect the glaring imbalance between ‘normals’ and their absence in the districts. In every one of the ten weeks, the light red bar (the ‘deficient 2’ measure, for rainfall of 21% less and lower) dominates.

Otherwise it is the dark blue bar (the ‘excess 2’ measure, for rainfall of 21% more and above) which is next most prominent. This is the clearest signal from a close reading of the district rainfall reportage that volatility in rainfall quantities is the feature most visible throughout monsoon 2014.

The IMD’s running table of the distict rainfall departures confirms this trend for monsoon 2014. In many of the 36 meteorological sub-divisions, weeks of scanty and deficient rainfall are broken by normal or excess rainfall, only to return to scanty and deficient. Taking the districts of Odisha and of western Madhya Pradesh as examples, this volatility can be seen at a glance, and is in concurrence with the overall trends that the modified monsoon measure has been indicating for the last two months.

The IMD’s shaky monsoon math

August 7, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Over eight weeks of recorded monsoon rain, the district-level data available with the India Meteorological Department (IMD) portrays a picture that is very different from its ‘national’ and ‘regional’ advice about the strength and consistency of rainfall.

In its first weekly briefing on the monsoon of August 2014, IMD said: “For the country as a whole, cumulative rainfall during this year’s monsoon (01 June to 30 July 2014) has so far upto 30 July been 23% below the Long Period Average.” Out of 36 meteorological sub-divisions, said the IMD, the rainfall has been normal over 15 and deficient over 21 sub-divisions.

Readings for each district that has reported rainfall consistently for eight weeks. The columns represent the percentage value of actual rainfall for each district against their normal rainfall for eight weeks.

However, we have compiled a far more realistic reading of the monsoon season so far, from the IMD’s own data. For the 614 individual readings from districts that have regular rainfall readings, we have the following: 86 districts have registered scanty rainfall (-99% to -60%); 281 districts have registered deficient rainfall (-59% to -20%); 200 districts have registered normal rainfall (-19% to +19%); and 47 districts have registered excess rainfall (+20% and more).

Moreover, using our running weekly district-level monsoon meter – the details of which and the reasoning for which you will find in here – we see that there was a substantial dip in the number of districts registering ‘deficient 2’ rainfall, which is less than 21% of the normal and lower, during the seventh week of rain, that is the week of 17 to 23 July. But the general trend returned the following week, 24 to 30 July.

What this means, and the bar chart we have provided to illustrate the 614 individual values leaves us in no doubt, is that 367 out of 614 districts have had meagre rain for eight weeks. This also means that over eight weeks where there should have been rainfall that – as the IMD predicted in early June – would be around 95% of the ‘long period average’, instead three out of five districts have had less than 80% of their usual quota.

Our running weekly district-level monsoon meter to aid governance decisions shows the overall trend has not changed substantially in the last fortnight despite good rains during the seventh monsoon week.

Unfortunately, the press and media – in particular the business and financial media – persist in reporting ‘national’ deficits and whether monsoon 2014 will ‘make up’ the average in the remaining period. This approach must be corrected by the IMD’s departmental divisions as it incorrectly makes popular the notion that total rainfall over a designated number of weeks is the most important monsoon metric (See ‘Why there is no ‘normal’ in our monsoon’). Of course it is not so, as different crops follow their own crop calendars according to the agro-ecological regions they are grown in, and require optimum rain at certain times during their respective crop calendars.

The following examples show why such reporting can be misleading:

From Reuters: “August rains hold the key to India’s major summer crops such as rice, soybean, cane and cotton, after a wet end to July failed to make up fully for a dry start to the four-month monsoon season. A late revival shrank the shortfall in rain to around 10 percent below average in July, the India Meteorological Department’s update showed on Thursday, a sharp improvement from the 43 percent deficit in the first month of the season.”

From Bloomberg: “Monsoon crops are sown from June and harvested from October. The country had less than 40 percent of average rains in the first six weeks of the monsoon season that runs through September. The shortage shrank to 23 percent by end-July. Oilseed planting in India is poised to slump as much as 24 percent to the lowest since 2002 after a weak start to the monsoon.”

From The Hindu: “With the country receiving good rain in July, monsoon deficiency has gone down to 23 percent, the MET department on Friday said. While the monsoon deficiency at the national level in June was 43 per cent, by July end it has come down to 23 per cent. Central India, which saw little rain in June, has by now seen some good rain. It received 402.2 mm of rainfall as compared to expected rainfall of 477.7 mm with a deficiency of 16 per cent, much lesser compared to other parts of the country.”

From Business Standard: “According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), the rains managed to recoup much of the June losses due to strong revival over the central and western regions, and parts of northern India. Weather officials said the momentum of July would continue till about August 10 and then slacken a bit.”

From Mint: “India’s July rain deficit narrowed to 10% of the long-term average for the month, marking a recovery from the driest June in five years, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said, as kharif crop sowing picked up in tandem. The shrinking of the rainfall deficit in July comes at a time when policymakers have been concerned about the impact of a below-average monsoon on foodgrain production and inflation. The June-September monsoon accounts for more than 70% of the annual rainfall in India and irrigates crops grown on half the country’s farmlands.”

Seeing the local in six rain weeks

July 23, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

RG_ICP_20140723_pic We urge the Ministry of Earth Sciences, the India Meteorology Department and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to cease the use of a ‘national’ rainfall average to describe the progress of monsoon 2014. This is a measure that has no meaning for cultivators in any of our agro-ecological zones, and has no meaning for any individual taluka or tehsil in the 36 meteorological sub-divisions. What we need to see urgently adopted is a realistic overview that numerically and graphically explains the situation, at as granular a level as possible.

Using a revised categorisation of rainfall sufficiency levels (the method and the reasoning is available here) we find that for the fifth and sixth weeks of monsoon, there has been a small improvement which does not lower the high likelihood of drought conditions becoming prevalent in districts and scarcity of water for our settlements. The full-size chart is available here as an image, and explains in detail the rainfall that districts are reporting.

The fifth monsoon week is 03 to 09 July 2014 and the sixth monsoon week is 10 to 16 July 2014. There has been a small addition to the revised normal rainfall category (-5% to +5%), rising from 18 districts recording normal rainfall in the 4th week to 22 in the 5th and 28 in the 6th. There has also been an improvement in the number of districts recording deficit-2 levels of rainfall (-21% and more) with 437 in the 4th week, 411 in the 5th week and 385 in the 6th week. For the remainder of July the likelihood of more rainfall in the districts that have recorded normal or excess-1 (+6% to +20%) is small, according to the available forecasts, and this means that monsoon 2014 will begin August with far fewer districts registering normal rainfall than they should at this stage.

Decoding reservoirs for the rest of us

July 21, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

Every week, the Central Water Commission releases to the public and to government departments the numbers that describe how much water is stored in 85 reservoirs in India. These are the reservoirs designated as nationally important, because of their roles in providing water for large irrigated command areas and for generating hydro-electric power (37 of these dams).

These readings are taken as the authoritative compilation of the current weekly state of water storage, and are widely used in government. Amongst the uses is to recommend the rationing of water consumption in the states and urban settlements. Another use is to help determine what advice to broadcast to our farmers about when they can sow seeds (if their fields are irrigated by the canals that radiate outwards from these dams).

But of course these are only 85, even if they are the biggest. Whether Bargi in Madhya Pradesh is half full does not interest in the least a farmer in Purnea, Bihar. Whether Tungabhadra in Karnataka is filling up well in the last two weeks is of no consequence to the residents of Rohtak in Haryana. That Yeldari in Maharashtra has water at a level very much lower it should be at this time of the year does not affect the cultivators of Virudhanagar, Tamil Nadu.

Bihar has 24 large dams (and groundwater) and Tamil Nadu has 116 while Madhya Pradesh has 898 large dams other than Bargi, but we have no weekly or monthly information about how much water these hold, in the first week of June or at end July. And this is what we don’t know for all the 4,839 dams – in the national register of large dams – that are not amongst the list of 85. The Central Water Commission tells us that it uses the combined readings for the 85 large dams because, with their total of about 155 billion cubic metres (bcm) of water storage (if they are all full), they form a large portion of the approximately 254 (bcm) of total reservoir storage available in India (excluding tanks, ponds and traditional water storage structures). But, for the smallholder cultivator and the town council of a Class 2 urban settlement, it is the 50 million cubic metres reservoir in the next taluka that they depend on for water, not on any of the big 85.

What can we then do with the weekly reservoir storage bulletin from the CWC? My approach is to treat it as an indicator of the collection of rainfall by reservoirs in the same meteorological region and agro-ecological zone. When the list is divided into ten groups, by reservoir size, we see far more clearly the effect of the last two weeks of rainfall on the storage levels. Until we can persuade state and central governments to invest in widespread and cheap monitoring of as many of our water storage receptacles as possible, we may use the CWC bulletin as an indicator.

By Rahul Goswami

The panel of charts shows water storage ranges (at full capacity of the dams) for the groups of reservoirs. Starting with the smallest first: 56 million cubic metres (mcm) to 176 mcm (tenth group); 184 mcm to 380 mcm (ninth group); 399 mcm to 523 mcm (eighth group); 524 mcm to 735 mcm (seventh group); 767 mcm to 927 mcm (sixth group); 935 mcm to 1.436 billion cubic metres (bcm) (fifth group); 1.456 bcm to 1.994 bcm (fourth group); 2.171 bcm to 2.676 bcm (third group); 3.046 bcm to 5.378 bcm (second group); 5.649 bcm to 9.745 bcm (first group).

Government readies drought plan

July 18, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

The drought management information system is in place and working.

The Ministry of Agriculture through the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation has released its national drought crisis management plan. This is not taken as the indicator that drought conditions are expected to set in, but to prepare for them where they are identified. In the fifth week of the South-West monsoon, the trend continues to be that week by week, the number of districts that have recorded less rainfall than they normally receive outnumber those districts with normal rainfall. When this happens over a prolonged period, such as four to six weeks, drought-like conditions set in and the administration prepares for these conditions. [Links to the documents are at the end of this posting.]

There are a group of ‘early warning indicators’ for the kharif crop (sowing June to August) which are looked for at this time of the year. They are: (1) delay in the onset of South-West monsoon, (2) long ‘break’ activity of the monsoon, (3) insufficient rains during June and July, (4) rise in the price of fodder, (5) absence of rising trend in the water levels of the major reservoirs, (6) drying up of sources of rural drinking water, (7) declining trend in the progress of sowing over successive weeks compared to corresponding figures for ‘normal years’.

On this list, points 1 and 2 are true, 3 is true for June and July until now, 4 and 5 are true, we have insufficient information for 6 and 7 but from mid-May there have been a number of media reports on water scarcity in the districts of peninsular, central and northern India. Thus the state of the ‘early warning’ indicators taken together have triggered the issuing of the government’s drought crisis management plan.

“The identified priorities of CMP are to clarify the goals and define the roles and responsibilities of various responders (ministries / departments, organisations and individuals) involved in crisis management, and putting together a communication process for quickly notifying the public in the event of a crisis,” the ministry has explained. “The plan outlined in this document does not replace the emergency procedures or contingency action plans already drawn by different agencies, but has been developed to address crisis situations that have the potential for a much greater impact on the nation.”

The reason we have plans at the national and state level, and contingency plans for each district in the event of drought, drought-like conditions, and water scarcity is the combination of several factors:

Every year more than 50 million people are directly exposed to drought and its effects, with 16% of India’s total area considered prone to drought.
In four out of every ten years rainfall in India is erratic.
Drought in varying degrees affects 68% of the sown area.
Regions with annual rainfall of 750-1,125 millimetres account for 35% of the land area and are drought prone.
Most of these zones lie in the arid (19.6%), semi-arid (37%) and sub-humid (21%) regions of India.
Up to three-quarters of the annual average rainfall occurs over 120 days of the year. A third of the total land area receives less than 750 mm of rainfall and is chronically drought prone.

In this ‘warning phase’ – which many districts have entered – the crisis management plan calls for short-term water conservation measures by municipal and district agencies, water-budgeting by the Ministry of Water Resources (Irrigation), the Ministry of Urban Development and by the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation. Municipal and town councils are instructed to identify alternative sources of water when the town is in a ‘warning’ period and the supply of water may be restricted to 70 litres per person per day (about half of the normal 135). Water rationing and restricted use become urgent with municipal and town councils instructed to ensure that drinking water is not used for other purposes (like washing cars, watering gardens, and so on).

State governments have in place standing instructions of designating officers responsible for meeting the needs of rural and urban citizens during drought and drought-like conditions. This document contains the list of nodal officers of the line ministries and departments, and of the Ministry of Agriculture’s drought management division, with their contact details. The full crisis management plan of the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, is here.

Gauging four weeks of rain in the districts

July 8, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

We now have rain data for four complete weeks from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) and for all the districts that have reported the progress of the monsoon. The overall picture is even more serious than reported earlier because of the falling levels of water in the country’s major reservoirs. [05 to 11 June is the first week. 12 to 18 June is the second week. 19 to 25 June is the third week. 26 June to 02 July is the fourth week.]

Using the new measure of assessing the adequacy of district rainfall (and not the meteorological gradations that is the IMD standard), in the fourth week of the monsoon the number of districts that reported normal rains in that week (+5% to -5%) is 16; deficient 1 (-6% to -20%) is 31; deficient 2 (-21% and more) is 437; excess 1 (+6% to +20%) is 17; excess 2 (+21% and more) is 113; no data was reported from 25.

Why there is no ‘normal’ in our monsoon

July 4, 2014 by Climate portal editor Leave a Comment

The idea of a ‘revival’ of a delayed and weakened monsoon is a misleading one and the country’s earth science agencies must advise against the term being used. In particular, our news media must cease using this term as it implies, incorrectly, that rainfall can be ‘made up’ even though current ‘averages’ are low.

This group of maps of the 2014 monsoon is in three parts. Each part is composed of four separate but linked maps, two each in two rows.
This is how you read each of the three sets: the top left map in a group of four shows the anomaly (in millimetres) of rainfall for the days measured. In this map, ochre yellow and dark browns are regions with the least rain compared to what they should have received, while those shaded in blues have received more than they normally do. The second map, top right, shows the percent of normal rain – light and dark browns being percentages very much lower than normal and greens and blues above.
The lower left map in each group shows the accumulated rainfall for the measured days in millimetres, with green then blue and then orange showing the increasing levels of accumulated rain. In contrast, the lower right map shows the normal cumulative rainfalls for the same period.
As with the group of four maps for the seven day period, the groups for the ten and 30 day rainfall measurement cycles follow the same pattern. In this panel, the seven day period is 26 June to 02 July 2014, the ten day period is 23 June to 02 July 2014 and the 30 day period is 03 June to 02 July 2014.
The maps are by the Climate Prediction Center, NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, USA.

This is simply not so. A normal monsoon is certainly not one that can statistically be called ‘normal’ on the basis of cumulative rainfall for a region – such as any one of our 36 meteorological sub-divisions – adding up to what is expected over four weeks after a few heavy showers in the last few days have helped tilt the reading from ‘below normal’ to ‘normal’. The three panels of maps alongside convincingly explain why.

Yet senior meteorological department officials, including those at the National Weather Forecasting Centre at the India Meteorological Department, issue statements such as “the monsoon has revived in many parts of central and north India”. This may be meant to assuage the concerns especially of farming and cultivating households, but in fact they only distract from the recognition a continuing climatological crisis urgently needs.

The evidence till now is extremely worrisome. June’s rainfall was 43% below average (a ‘national’ statistic that has no meaning in a district, but which helps in a small way to describe the degree of dryness) and this makes June 2014 the worst first month for recorded rainfall since 2009, a year in which the monsoon was the worst after the dreadful dry of 1972.

Especially given the growing evidence of the effects of climate change in India – from rising sea levels, to increasing meltwater from Himalayan glaciers causing torrents in hilly and mountainous districts, to rising mean temperatures in peninsular and north India – there is reason enough to set aside the usual measures such as the date of what is called ‘the onset of the rains over Kerala’ which is pegged to 01 June, and then a progress of the rain up the peninsula based on patterns of 40, 50 and more years ago. These time-tables no longer stand. [A full resolution set of the maps used here is available as a zip archive (2.68 MB).]

What continues to stand in the food staples calendar is the sowing that takes place in July and August but although there is more cooperation between the official earth sciences agencies and the Ministry of Agriculture, the central government has continues to link, in recent statements, the rising prices of food staples to the probability that these will continue should the monsoon be inadequate – which is what all the indicators are pointing to at this time.

This insistence is a contradiction, for a late and weak monsoon (or even an uneven and heavy monsoon that is statistically ‘normal’) will not help the usual sowing time-table and that is why agricultural contingency plans for every district are readied at the first indication of a wayward monsoon. The role of the central and state governments at times like these is not to blame poor rains for volatile and rising food prices but to help determine crop time-tables that match the circumstances.

By Rahul Goswami