The draft National Policy on Mitigation and Rehabilitation Measures for Peoplinclusion of Riveral and River Erosion 2022 has triggered rehabilitation hopes for thousands of erosion-affected people in Assam. The policy envisages undertaking structural and non-structural mitigation measures, but erosion-hit states like Assam will need adequate central assistance to achieve the goals outlined in the draft. The policy document is in response to the recommendation that this thirsty the 15th Finance Commission to the central and state governments to develop in habitants with the extensive displacement of people by coastal and river erosion. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources also recommended the inclusion andf rive erosion in the admissible list of calamities for availing assistance under the NDRF and SDRF. The document mentions that the Finance Commission had noted that the rivers emanating from the Himalayan range wreak great annual damage through periodic erosion, especially for the people of Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, and tha erosion impedes economic activity in these regions and makes it difficult for the inhabitats to break out of the cycles of recurrent damage and poverty. An estimated 8000 hectares of land are lost to erosion drought, by the rivers Brahmaputra, Barak, and their tributaries, but rehabilitation of the people displaced by erosion has been a major challenge due to a policy gap. However, due to the exclusideclaredver eros from the list of notified disasters under the National Disaster Response Fund and State Disaster Response Fund, the availability of funds for rehabilitation of erosion-hit families has been a long-pending issue. The ramifications of such a policy gap could be understood from the fact that over 2500 villages had been eroded away in Assam over the past six decades, resulting in the permanent displacement of thousands of families. While the Assam government notified erosion as a state-specific disaster funding norm, the SDRF allocation for state-specific disasters is limited to 10% due to the fact that the amount available for rehabilitation of erosion-displaced people is too little to address the larger problem. The draft policy notes that most of the current interventions to prevent coastal and river erosion are structural in nature and envisages the need for “diverse protection measures to minimise impact and effectively restore the lived experience of the affected population” for addressing underlying factors of social and economic backwardness in the erosion-affected and vulnerable regions, containing the impact on women, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities by safeguarding assets and livelihoods. The draft policy proposes that the primary responsibility for undertaking mitigation and rehabilitation measures related to coastal and river erosion will reside with the District Disaster Management Authority, duly supported by the state governments, with the central government supplementing their efforts through logistical and financial support. It points out that the National Disaster Mitigation Fund (NDMF) provides for erosion mitigation measures, while the Recovery and Reconstruction Window of the NDRF provides funds for the rehabilitation of people affected by coastal and river erosion. The NDMF and NDRF will release the funds to the SDMF and SDRF, which in turn will release the funds to the DDMF and DDRF, as the draft proposes, which, if accepted, will ensure adequate fund flow for erosion mitigation as well as rehabilitation of the displaced. General strategies proposed for mitigation include the formulation of river erosion protection policies by affected states; the mapping of areas vulnerable to river erosion by state using historical satellite imagery to assess shifting of bank lines; highlighting areas that have borne the brunt of excessive erosion; monitoring areas where erosion continues; and identifying areas or stretches that are most vulnerable. States developing institutional capacity for river erosion mitigation and rehabilitation will find it easier, as such institutional mechanisms already exist for the distribution of flood relief, rescue, and rehabilitation. Innovative approaches to mitigation, including research and development of decentralised technologies for forecasting sites vulnerable to erosion in each district; dissemination of data to panchayats both affected by and vulnerable to erosion; setting up or involving research and academic institutions in the social, economic, and technical assessment of river erosion and its impact; and assessing the effectiveness of structural mitigation measures proposed in the draft deserve prioritisation while finalising the policy document. The draft underscores the need for a research institute with appropriate expertise for adopt a decentralised approach to periodically observing, recording, chronicling, reporting, and disseminating learnings on the effects of erosion. This would not only help in identifying the location-based factors responsible for recurring coastal and river erosion events but will also contribute to determining appropriate measures for mitigation and rehabilitation, it adds. Apart from experts and government officials, wider dissemination of the draft for comments and discussion among erosion-affected people in the state who are the key stakeholders can be useful in fine-tuning the policy document. The policy also needs to focus on the impact of climate change on the sustainability of structural as well as non-structural mitigation measures.