By Tamanna Dalal, Senior Research Associate, Adaptation and Resilience, Sustainable Futures Collaborative, India

Cities across India are witnessing a higher number of intense heatwave days, which come earlier than usual and stay for a longer part of the year. It is taking a toll on people’s health, economy, and livelihoods. According to official estimates, India saw 48,000 cases of suspected heatstroke in 2024, with some estimates putting the death toll at 159, though the actual number is likely much higher.

Heat has also shaken day-to-day life. Schools close when classrooms become too hot to teach in. Street vendors and construction workers push through sweltering afternoons because losing a day’s income is not an option. Homes in informal settlements trap heat well into the night, leaving little relief for those without fans or air conditioners. Livelihoods in farming, fishing, construction, waste picking, and other outdoor sectors are particularly exposed. This could have a substantial impact on the country’s economy, with the International Labour Organisation estimating that by 2030, heat stress could lead to work-hour losses equivalent to 34 million jobs, reducing India’s GDP by up to 2.4 per cent.

Heat impacts are felt unequally. Vulnerability is shaped by where people live, what work they do, whether they can afford cooling, and whether they have access to reliable water, electricity, and healthcare. Those without adequate social security nets or access to state services are the most at risk and usually left to fend for themselves.

India’s main policy tool for managing extreme heat is the Heat Action Plan (HAP), developed at the state, district, and city levels. These plans outline actions to be taken by various implementing departments before, during, and after heatwaves. Short-term actions include issuing heat advisories, setting up drinking water stations, and adjusting work or school timings. Longer-term actions include increasing tree cover, promoting cool roofs, and building permanent cooling shelters.

While the list of solutions is impressive, major gaps remain in implementation. First, HAPs fall short in studying local impacts, whether in understanding the type of heat a region experiences or identifying the most at-risk populations. A CPR review of 37 HAPs found that most were ill-suited to the local context, and only two included a vulnerability assessment that could help identify and target the most vulnerable.

Second, the idea of who is most at risk is handled with vagueness. Most plans identify broad categories such as children, the elderly, outdoor workers, and pregnant women as vulnerable. They do not account for overlapping disadvantages that could make some within these groups more vulnerable than others. For example, informal outdoor workers face worse heat impacts than those with workplace protections. Similarly, a migrant woman living in informal settlements may face greater risks at work, during her commute, and at home. Such intersectional vulnerabilities, as well as others such as caste and age, are rarely addressed in the plans.

The situation on the ground is similar. Our recent report assessing heat actions in nine of the most at-risk cities found that more than 70 per cent of reported measures were short-term, such as awareness campaigns, temporary water provision, and altered work schedules. Only 13 per cent qualified as long-term, and even these were often fragmented or implemented without explicit heat resilience goals. For example, greening initiatives were common but rarely targeted at neighbourhoods with low tree cover or designed using species most effective for cooling. Short-term measures were also usually not targeted toward specific groups, missing the mark and creating space for inefficient use of government resources. Some important long-term measures were entirely absent, such as improving cooling access for the most vulnerable or integrating social protection measures like affordable health insurance for informal workers. Implementation, then, seems to be passing the vulnerable by. This will probably have long-term effects on equity in these communities.

Some things have started to change. The NDMA recently released guidelines on protecting informal and gig workers, asking employers to ensure drinking water and cooling at workplaces. But it will take more than an advisory to change conditions on the ground. A few innovative solutions have emerged, such as parametric insurance to cover wages lost due to heat, and community-focused dissemination of heat advisories. However, scaling these will require careful planning by the state.

As the planet continues to warm up, these risks will only grow, and short-term fixes will not keep pace. Without long-term targeted interventions for vulnerable communities, existing inequalities will deepen, and the health and economic costs of heat will escalate. There is an urgent need to rethink how we develop in a warming world, whether it is the way we build our cities, our houses, and our public health systems, and to prioritise those most at risk explicitly.

Recommendations:

1. Localised vulnerability assessments to identify high-risk groups and areas at the neighbourhood level, considering housing, occupation, gender, and access to services
2. Targeted interventions linked to social protection and development schemes such as MGNREGA, PM Awas Yojana, and crop insurance, ensuring that support reaches the most vulnerable
3. Inclusive governance through regular community stakeholder engagement in the design and review of HAPs
4. Institutional and legal strengthening by giving HAPs legal authority, dedicated funding, and clearly defined departmental roles
5. Capacity building for implementers to understand and respond to the needs of at-risk populations across sectors.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of AIDMI.