Article 1: A seismic decision

Why in news: The Centre rolled back the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) earthquake zoning revision after concerns over methodology, higher construction costs, and development impacts, highlighting tensions between scientific risk assessment and economic feasibility.

Key Details

• BIS proposed new seismic zoning using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) model.
• The framework introduced Zone VI, covering Kashmir, Himalayan regions, Kutch, and the north-east.
• Stricter seismic standards could increase construction costs by 20–33%.
• Concerns that higher costs may slow infrastructure development and expand informal housing.
• Multiple ministries and regulators opposed the revision due to implementation and financial challenges.

Rollback of India’s Earthquake Zoning Revision

• The Centre rolled back the revision to India’s earthquake zoning proposed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) after experts raised concerns about the methodology used.
• Some engineers argued that the revised zoning was not aligned with site-specific seismic evaluations.
• However, the rollback was mainly driven by concerns over massive costs and implementation challenges.
• The decision has major implications for urban planning, disaster preparedness, and climate resilience in India.
• As India undergoes rapid urban infrastructure expansion, getting the earthquake zoning framework right is crucial to make cities and infrastructure safer.

Importance of the Earthquake Zoning Framework

• The zoning exercise provides an opportunity to strengthen disaster resilience across cities and infrastructure.
• It can help earthquake-proof key assets such as cityscapes, power infrastructure, dams, highways, homes, and offices.
• With India’s rapid urbanisation, integrating disaster preparedness into infrastructure planning is essential.
• A robust zoning framework can reduce long-term damage from earthquakes and protect lives and investments.
• Therefore, designing an accurate and practical zoning system has become more important than ever.

Scientific Debate on Earthquake Risk Assessment

• The core issue is the scientific estimation of potential earthquakes and their intensity.
• This estimation must be balanced with the capacity of buildings and infrastructure to withstand seismic shocks.
• Most advanced economies now use Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA).
• PSHA uses probability-based simulations of ground motion to estimate earthquake risks more dynamically.
• India has traditionally relied on a simpler fixed seismic zoning model, which is less sophisticated.

BIS Proposal and the New Zone VI

• The BIS attempted to adopt the PSHA-based approach, aligning India with global seismic risk assessment practices.
• However, the revisions notified in November 2025 were later withdrawn on March 3.
• The proposal introduced a new highest-risk category called Zone VI.
• This zone included most of Kashmir, parts of the Himalayan region, Kutch in Gujarat, and the north-east.
• The move was seen as scientifically progressive but operationally controversial.

Concerns About Economic and Developmental Impact

• Urban planners fear stricter zoning could slow infrastructure development in already economically fragile regions.
• It may also push more housing into the informal sector, which already accounts for nearly 80% of homes in India.
• Construction costs could rise significantly with stricter seismic standards.
• A one-zone increase may raise building costs by about 20%, while two zones could increase costs by nearly one-third.
• For large infrastructure projects like metro rail, dams, and power stations, the costs could be even higher.

Institutional Pushback Against the Revision

• Opposition to the revised zoning came from both the private sector and government bodies.
• Key institutions raising concerns included:
  • Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Central Water Commission
  • National Dam Safety Authority
• These stakeholders highlighted the financial and operational burden of implementing stricter standards.
• The pushback ultimately contributed to the Centre’s decision to withdraw the revision.

Climate and Sustainability Dimension

• The construction sector in India is a major source of carbon emissions.
• Stricter earthquake-resilient construction could increase material use, potentially affecting climate mitigation goals.
• Therefore, the earthquake zoning revision must consider both disaster resilience and environmental sustainability.
• A balanced approach is required to avoid increasing emissions while strengthening infrastructure safety.
• Integrating climate considerations with seismic safety is becoming increasingly important.

Need for a Holistic and Implementable Framework

• Revising earthquake zoning is necessary for improving disaster preparedness in India.
• However, it requires extensive consultation with ministries, regulators, engineers, and industry stakeholders.
• Policies must address affordability, implementation challenges, and climate commitments simultaneously.
• A well-designed and practical framework can ensure safer infrastructure without hindering development.
• Ultimately, a holistic and implementable seismic policy is essential for strengthening India’s disaster resilience and sustainable growth.

Conclusion

Revising India’s earthquake zoning framework is essential to improve disaster preparedness as urbanisation accelerates. However, seismic safety must be balanced with economic feasibility, housing affordability, and climate commitments. A transparent, science-based approach with wider consultations among engineers, ministries, and industry stakeholders is necessary. Only a holistic and implementable framework can strengthen infrastructure resilience while ensuring sustainable and inclusive development.

Descriptive question:

Q. Discuss the implications for disaster resilience, urban development, and climate commitments in India. (250 words, 15 marks)