(Courtesy: Nick Meynen)
KATHMANDU, 10 June 2008 (MO) – Despite being the biggest receiver of foreign aid in South Asia, Nepal is still captured in a downward spiral of poverty. With a case pending at the Supreme Court, the Australian Snowy Mountain Engineering Company finds itself in the middle of this mess.
'Foreign aid hasn't managed to deliver any significant contribution towards eradicating poverty', according to the former Nepalese parliamentary chairman. The Maoists, immediately after their election victory, announced that from now on ‘aid projects will need to be approved by the people’. What is happening?
With an average income of less then one dollar a day, Nepal is the poorest country in South Asia. According to the UN Development Program, poverty in Nepal increased over the last three decades, especially in rural areas.
In the national budget for development, aid has increased from fifty percent in the nineties to seventy percent today, mainly in loans. The majority of that money comes from multilateral institutions like the World Bank (WB) or the Asian Development Bank (ADB), who in return demand free markets and privatization.
Research shows that this excessive liberalization is co-responsible for the growing gap between poor and rich while it weakens the economy. On top of this, the anti-corruption agency calculated that almost a billion dollars of aid money – mainly used to pay ‘experts’ in 4827 projects – escapes from their control.
Nobody Gives a Dam
A striking example of bad aid is that of the West-Seti dam, co-financed by the ADB. The Bank states that Nepal 'should develop in a social, environmentally friendly and sustainable way its huge potential for hydroelectric', which is the second largest of the world. Nevertheless, power is interrupted 8 hours a day in the dry season. Consumers pay for their electricity nine times as much as in Bhutan and five times more than in India or the US. This is not a concern for everybody: three quarters of the population still lives in the dark.
In order to ‘help’ Nepal, the ADB works together with the Australian Snowy Mountain Engineering Company (SMEC), Chinese banks and Indian firms to build the 1.2 billion dollar dam. This equals half the annual budget of Nepal.
With a height of 195 meters, it will be the highest Concrete Faced Rock Filled dam of the world. An expert in hydroelectric energy, Dr. A.B. Thapa, warns that this choice implies certain risks. Surya Shrestha from the National Society of Earthquake Technology, confirms his fear. ‘In West-Nepal, so much pressure has build up that a huge earthquake can't be far away.' SMEC responded to our inquiry that other types of dams were considered but rejected based on several criteria, amongst which the higher costs. SMEC guaranteed that it is impossible for the dam to collapse, but Shresta remarks that the only earthquake resistance studies are paid by SMEC.
According to a Japanese research institute, this large-scale energy project is not at all socially responsible neither sustainable. Their report shows that the population is hardly heard, informed or engaged during the planning. The only document the population got to see was written in English, a language not spoken in West-Nepal.
A poisonous Chalice
It’s not so hard to understand why the Maoist who threatened to kill anyone coming on the proposed construction site won the elections. Ninety percent of the electricity and all the water produced by the dam will go to India. Nepalese companies are not involved in the construction. Ratna Shrestha, ex board member of the national electricity company, calculated that 0.1 percent of the income of the West-Seti dam will be used to pay Nepalese wages. While the profit goes to India, China and Australia, the costs stay in Nepal.
The 13 000 inhabitants to be displaced are the first victims. The ones that will have to move to the south of the country will face big difficulties in their new, flat and culturally different environment.
After thirty years, Nepal gets the dam as a gift, although it will be a poisoned chalice. Because of the tremendous amount of sand borne by the rivers from the Himalayas, extra costs for maintenance will not be far away. After our inquiry, SMEC admitted there will be huge costs in about fifty years time.
For lawyer Rabin Subedi of the Nepalese Federation of Water and Energy-users, the West-Seti dam project is a project in which aid 'violates the human rights and the stakes of all the Nepalese'. He clarifies how the project bypassed parliament and violates the constitution. The reaction of SMEC on our inquiry gave him further proof for the pending case against them at the Supreme Court.
Foreign Aid or Aid to Foreigners?
Surprisingly, the huge budgets and high social and environmental costs of the dam are easily avoidable. Even the WB knows that local participation in the choice and design of a project gives a better chance of success.
Take the people from Palpa district. The electricity they produce from the micro-hydroelectric power station is ten times cheaper than what the government offers, without power cuts. Not one dollar of foreign aid was used. This is just one example that leads former minister for Water Resources Dipak Gyawali and others to argue that the main reason to choose mega projects can be found in the much bigger opportunity for corruption. He also writes in his book Aid Under Stress that 'private foreign actors as well as the nation state distrust the capacities of the local communities'.
Unfortunately, the West-Seti project is not an exception. Mega infrastructure projects are again becoming a mainstream strategy to help the world out of poverty. Donors and governments run this development industry together
Water Crisis or Aid Crisis?
The already infamous Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP) should quench the growing thirst of Kathmandu. The project is thirteen years behind schedule and will cost minimum 317 million dollars. Several politicians were convicted for diverting millions of dollars to their pockets. By 2003, a joint evaluation mission between the government and donors concluded that 'environmental, social issues and safety were not adequately represented in the first contracts, while in later contracts these issues were completely ignored.' Seventy percent of the five-year budget for water goes to the MWSP, but it benefits less then ten percent of the population. Thousands of people living downstream will see the water level decreasing by eighty percent, as a result of which their irrigation channels and water mills will not operate. The loans needed to build them are not yet paid back to the ADB. That doesn't prevent it from already making new loans available for the MWSP.
Small-scale Initiatives
In 2002, the WB withdrew citing that 'important options about the use of existing water resources in the Kathmandu valley were not researched', followed by the Norwegians and Swedes. In May 2007 the ADB threatened to withdraw if their most crucial condition, privatization of drinking water supply, was not immediately met. Hisila Yami, Maoist minister for infrastructure, objected.
The bank recommended the British Severn Trent as private water supplier, without competition. A campaign against the company succeeded, but privatization continued. Based on the insistence of the bank, the price of drinking water will multiply by three. After completion, half of an average Nepalese income will pay the minimum required drinking water for a household.
Recently, Transparancy International mentioned the project as an example of bad governance
Currently, seventy percent of the tap water in Kathmandu gets lost through leaks. Research confirms that collecting fifteen percent of the rainwater in Kathmandu should be sufficient to supply everybody with enough water. According to Gyawali, only one and a half percent of the surface in the Kathmandu valley is necessary as reservoir for catching water in order to fill the water table in the dry season. That would cost 7 million US $. Alternatives have in common that they are much cheaper, provide more jobs for less educated people, are faster to implement and do less damage to the environment. According to the president for social research, R.K. Baral 'the problem of water shortage is only caused by bad governance and donors, not by a lack of actual resources.' Human Right activist G. Siwakoti pushes it further in the Reality of Aid- study on Melamchi: 'The problem is not a lack of alternatives but the neglect of it by the Water Mafia and their thinking that is only directed towards mega projects.'
Will the Maoists Bring Any Change?
According to S.R. Dhakal, secretary of the Maoist headquarters in Kathmandu, ‘the time of the big international NGO's and the dictations of bilateral and multilateral aid are over.’ How the Maoists will realize this is less clear. Since Friday they lead the first republican government into a new era. Nepalese voters hope that the former rebels will bring international aid closer to its objectives: the reduction of poverty.
This contribution was made possible by the support of the Fonds Pascal Decroos for Investigative Journalism. Info: www.fondspascaldecroos.org
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
West Seti and the "One-Sided" Perspective
(Courtesy: Mr. Ratna Sansar Shrestha)
A reader, who claims to have read my paper on “West Seti Project – a Nepali Perspective” has sent me an email saying that 1) the “paper is one sided (completely ignored positive side of the project) and 2) is preventing the country's hydro power development 3) which will ultimately hamper economic development and 4) social upliftment of the country.” His taking the initiative to comment is appreciable and affords us an opportunity to continue with the dialogue and also continue the engagement process. This process will help Nepali people get to the heart of the matter. Because, the subject matter isn’t too easy to understand (even a highly educated person like him didn’t understand it – or rather I failed to make it clear to him in my first attempt) and it will not be surprising if some other people too take a little longer to understand (there already is a critical mass of intelligentsia who have under the “perspective” and have expressed their solidarity with me.
1) One Sided Paper
1.1) First of all, without feeling even a bit of embarrassment, I will confess that I am indeed one sided person in this respect and the objective is to secure the interest of my motherland (hope this does not come as a surprise to people like him!). I am rather proud to be one sided as such. I know of many people in Nepal who will not tire of proclaiming their patriotism and say that they are working for the best interest of Nepal and people in Nepal -g]kfn / g]kfnLsf] ;af]{Qd lxtsf] nflu_ but use every opportunity to betray the nation and the people no end. Just looking at the water resource sector – from Koshi through Mahakali treaties and the barrages/embankments that India has built near the border against the international law – one can easily draw this conclusion. These people misinterpreted and took out of context various national and international laws, treaties, conventions, precedents and practices to give away what is rightfully due to Nepal – all in the name of “best interest of Nepal and people in Nepal.”
However, I am not misinterpreting and taking out of context any national and international law, treaty, convention, precedent or practice as they are doing. I am merely doing my best to use/interpret national and international laws, treaties, conventions, precedents and practices in a manner such that Nepal will benefit; she will get what is due to her. I know (I am sure everyone knows) that that is what a person will do in order to secure his/her own property (actually in the matter of personal property some even go overboard in interpreting laws to ensure that they get more or get to keep more). However, I am not going about misinterpreting and taking out of context various national and international laws, treaties, conventions, precedents and practices, for that purpose. I am merely endeavoring to secure what rightfully belongs to Nepal. I don’t see anything wrong in this. To me going the other way – surrendering Nepal’s interest to serve the interest of the neighbor – is the betrayal of this nation (irrespective of whether done as such for personal gain or no such gain). I am unable to stand idly by while people are doing this.
I also think it is better to be one sided like me (to me, absolutely normal behavior) than the other extreme of one sidedness – there is no dearth of such people in Nepal – who announce their love for Nepal, euphemistically from the rooftop, while working to harm her interest.
Someone even called me a biased person. In my considered opinion it is no crime to be biased in favor of one’s motherland. I would like to compliment Indian people who don’t, generally, betray their motherland as such. I have found them working really hard to ensure the interest of their motherland in every possible way. I will give one example. In a map portraying Koshi flood, India Today, a popular and established magazine, published in the week of September 8, 2008, included Nepal’s Terai in Indian Territory. I don’t believe in doing as such, and my endeavor is not to “cheat” India of what rightfully belongs to her. I am merely striving to make sure that Nepal gets what she deserves.
1.2) This person seem to have jumped to such a conclusion about me because, in his words, I have “completely ignored positive side of the project.” However he didn’t cite any example to substantiate the allegation. Looks like he had to make this comment for some – explicable or inexplicable – reason but was unable to find any basis to justify his own allegation.
Having studied the presentation made by Mr. Bill Bultitude, Managing Director of West Seti Hydro Ltd., it is clear to me, that I have not ignored any positive side of the project in my assessment. In slide # 4 he talks about “BOOT structure – asset transferred free of charge to GoN at the end of the license period.” In my paper I haven’t ignored this “benefit”. My only disagreement is with the unnecessary hype (which could mislead uninformed people) created about it in terms of “assets worth $ 1.2 billion.” I have merely proved that when this asset will be transferred to Nepal, it won’t be worth this much – neither in terms of present value, nor depreciated value or even practical value. On the contrary there is the issue of decommissioning which the project people, and both hydrocracy and donorcracy (bureaucrats of donors) have not only ignored but have failed to be transparent in this respect. I am glad this issue is now out in the open.
In listing “benefits to Nepal – the people” Mr. Bultitude talks of “creation of up to 3,000 jobs during 5.5-year construction period. However, in assessing the backward linkage I have used 5,000 jobs – a clear case of over estimation on my part. I am sure that this definitely doesn’t amount to my ignoring “positive side of the project.”
In the list of benefits Mr. Bultitude also includes “direct injection of funds by GoN into the Project Area Districts.” But this definitely is not a benefit that the people of Nepal derive from the project. Then he talks of training and skills development program, Nepali contractors getting work, development of infrastructure in the area, 8 MW power station for sale of energy for local consumption, 4% equity to be reserved for the local residences, direct employment opportunities, spin-off benefits, technology transfer, training, etc. It should not be too difficult to understand that the thrust of my paper is that there are better alternative approaches for the implementation of this project which will serve Nepal’s interest better (you will recall that, in my recommendation, I have suggested two models). As all the benefits Mr. Bultitude refers to will also accrue to Nepal even if one of my models is adopted, these “positive sides” are not special to the way this project is being envisaged to be implemented and neither have I ignored these benefits.
Mr Bultitude also goes on to list benefits from royalties. I definitely haven’t ignored this benefit. Under the heading of “fiscal linkage” I have taken this into account which, in my reckoning, is worth $ 4.4 million (about Rs 330 million) per year. It is clear that that this benefit will too be reaped by Nepal irrespective of whether the project is implemented as I have recommended or people succeed to implement it under which Nepal, in my opinion, gets short changed of revenue streams that she is rightfully entitled to, like recompenses for flood control in wet season, augmented flow in dry season, and carbon offset.
Moreover, in order to build a reservoir project, Nepal is required to sacrifice its land – 3,004 ha under the reservoir in this case. But projects without a reservoir are paying 7.5% energy royalty and Rs 400 per kW as capacity royalty (on top of 27% free equity in the case of upper Karnali project). In view of this the positive benefit from the West Seti project is definitely on the lower side substantially. Similarly in the case of free energy these projects are providing 12% and 21.9% (by Upper Karnali and Arun III respectively) compared to 10% from this project. In this backdrop the project’s positive side is severely on the lower side because, for this project Nepal, it seems, is getting her land submerged (hence sacrificing) for nothing. As the magnitude of positive benefit is much lower, it is incumbent on a person like me to question it. In this respect too, it is clear that I didn’t ignore the positive side, but merely pointed out that with better structuring Nepal could have received royalties and free energy at a higher level.
I am sure that people know about the tariff at which NEA imports energy and purchases from domestic Run of River projects and the tariff at which electricity from this project is planned to be exported. A project generating peak-in energy (which is not possible without submerging Nepali land) is planned to be sold at dirt cheap tariff. It is also clear that the quantum of benefit from royalties to Nepal would have been much higher if the tariff was fixed at a reasonable level. Looks like the project people would have preferred that I didn’t raise these questions, notwithstanding all these. Since I have already raised it, I am one sided in their eyes. Too bad!
2) “Preventing the Country's Hydro Power Development.”
2.1) I wonder how my raising a few questions as such could prevent country’s hydropower development. These people are making me feel really important. I doubt if my raising a few questions like these will stop the work as I am not an important person that people need to pay heed to. For me it’s just like “emperor’s new clothes” – when I see that the emperor (hydropower development) is actually not wearing any clothes – forget the fabled new clothes.
2.2) I wonder what kind of hydropower development people like him are referring to. In the way the project is structured, people will be soon become disenchanted/disheartened – once they start to understand – and begin saying that it’s better to not have hydropower development than have Nepal short changed on every pretext, at every opportunity. I have proved that even neglecting the downstream benefits, by better packaging of royalty and free energy Nepal could have benefited at a higher level than what SMEC is promising.
Since he wanted to talk about hydropower development, I wish that people like him were able to analyze the benefit of forward linkage due to use of electricity in Nepal to the macro economy, rather than exporting it. At the moment Nepal is suffering from energy famine and by the time the project will be commissioned Nepal will be in a position to use much of the electricity produced by it. But it will be going to India at dirt cheap tariff and Nepal will be forced to continue to import from India at double the tariff or resort to load shedding. This isn’t a prudent model of development of hydropower. The positives of using electricity in the industrialization of the country which will generate employment at higher level and its consequential positive impact on the economy are higher by a magnitude than by exporting it at dirt cheap tariff.
2.3 The model of hydropower development these people are partisan to also will develop Nepal’s hydropower but imagine at what cost. Nepal is required to relinquish its rights over augmented flow worth Rs 5.8 billion per annum and carbon offset benefit worth Rs 1.5 billion per annum, in total Rs 7 billion per year even without reckoning for flood control benefit. Properly/correctly structured the project can generate the amount the project people are saying – the correct amount, though – and additionally Rs 7 billion annually. I hope this isn’t too difficult for people to understand.
3) “Ultimately Hamper Economic Development”
People like him seem to believe that raising questions as such will hamper economic development. On the contrary the wrong model of what is called hydropower development will hamper the economic development of Nepal – export peak-in energy at dirt cheap tariff, receive royalties at very low rates and the lowest possible free energy, and, most importantly, sacrifice downstream benefits (worth Rs 5.8 billion per annum) and carbon offset benefit (worth Rs 1.5 billion). I doubt that for such a small economy like ours sacrificing over Rs 7 billion (at current price) each year will lead to economic development. All the developed and prosperous countries are where they are today because its people ensured that their country got almost all of what they deserved, not because they gave up what they were rightfully entitled to, in the name of ensuring best interest of their motherland.
Economic development of Nepal requires mobilization of huge amount of fund and giving up Rs 7 billion annually – which is not petty cash, even for rich countries – deprives Nepal of the much needed cash. Therefore, nobody has right to give up such an amount in the name of “economic development.” Well, some people – much pampered by the state that they are – may think that such amount could be given up. But most of the people, who have yet to see any semblance of economic development, need that kind of fund to undertake development work and Nepali people need to work hard to ensure that Nepal is not deprived of such amounts.
4) Hamper Social Upliftment of the Country.
It was also alleged that my approach will hamper social upliftment of the country. But I fail to see what kind of social upliftment the likes of him talking of when Nepal is getting short changed at every opportunity, on various pretexts.
Hence, one sided people, without being able to substantiate it, who call me one sided are just venting their frustration. Such frustration may have emanated from the fact that although they, proclaiming to be patriots, say that they are working in the interest of Nepal and people in Nepal, also know at their heart that their actions might have short changed Nepal of what rightfully belongs to her (probably a case of guilty conscience). It probably does not sit too easily on their conscience for having been involved in interpreting national and international law, treaties, conventions, practices such that it ends up benefiting a foreign country rather than Nepal.
A reader, who claims to have read my paper on “West Seti Project – a Nepali Perspective” has sent me an email saying that 1) the “paper is one sided (completely ignored positive side of the project) and 2) is preventing the country's hydro power development 3) which will ultimately hamper economic development and 4) social upliftment of the country.” His taking the initiative to comment is appreciable and affords us an opportunity to continue with the dialogue and also continue the engagement process. This process will help Nepali people get to the heart of the matter. Because, the subject matter isn’t too easy to understand (even a highly educated person like him didn’t understand it – or rather I failed to make it clear to him in my first attempt) and it will not be surprising if some other people too take a little longer to understand (there already is a critical mass of intelligentsia who have under the “perspective” and have expressed their solidarity with me.
1) One Sided Paper
1.1) First of all, without feeling even a bit of embarrassment, I will confess that I am indeed one sided person in this respect and the objective is to secure the interest of my motherland (hope this does not come as a surprise to people like him!). I am rather proud to be one sided as such. I know of many people in Nepal who will not tire of proclaiming their patriotism and say that they are working for the best interest of Nepal and people in Nepal -g]kfn / g]kfnLsf] ;af]{Qd lxtsf] nflu_ but use every opportunity to betray the nation and the people no end. Just looking at the water resource sector – from Koshi through Mahakali treaties and the barrages/embankments that India has built near the border against the international law – one can easily draw this conclusion. These people misinterpreted and took out of context various national and international laws, treaties, conventions, precedents and practices to give away what is rightfully due to Nepal – all in the name of “best interest of Nepal and people in Nepal.”
However, I am not misinterpreting and taking out of context any national and international law, treaty, convention, precedent or practice as they are doing. I am merely doing my best to use/interpret national and international laws, treaties, conventions, precedents and practices in a manner such that Nepal will benefit; she will get what is due to her. I know (I am sure everyone knows) that that is what a person will do in order to secure his/her own property (actually in the matter of personal property some even go overboard in interpreting laws to ensure that they get more or get to keep more). However, I am not going about misinterpreting and taking out of context various national and international laws, treaties, conventions, precedents and practices, for that purpose. I am merely endeavoring to secure what rightfully belongs to Nepal. I don’t see anything wrong in this. To me going the other way – surrendering Nepal’s interest to serve the interest of the neighbor – is the betrayal of this nation (irrespective of whether done as such for personal gain or no such gain). I am unable to stand idly by while people are doing this.
I also think it is better to be one sided like me (to me, absolutely normal behavior) than the other extreme of one sidedness – there is no dearth of such people in Nepal – who announce their love for Nepal, euphemistically from the rooftop, while working to harm her interest.
Someone even called me a biased person. In my considered opinion it is no crime to be biased in favor of one’s motherland. I would like to compliment Indian people who don’t, generally, betray their motherland as such. I have found them working really hard to ensure the interest of their motherland in every possible way. I will give one example. In a map portraying Koshi flood, India Today, a popular and established magazine, published in the week of September 8, 2008, included Nepal’s Terai in Indian Territory. I don’t believe in doing as such, and my endeavor is not to “cheat” India of what rightfully belongs to her. I am merely striving to make sure that Nepal gets what she deserves.
1.2) This person seem to have jumped to such a conclusion about me because, in his words, I have “completely ignored positive side of the project.” However he didn’t cite any example to substantiate the allegation. Looks like he had to make this comment for some – explicable or inexplicable – reason but was unable to find any basis to justify his own allegation.
Having studied the presentation made by Mr. Bill Bultitude, Managing Director of West Seti Hydro Ltd., it is clear to me, that I have not ignored any positive side of the project in my assessment. In slide # 4 he talks about “BOOT structure – asset transferred free of charge to GoN at the end of the license period.” In my paper I haven’t ignored this “benefit”. My only disagreement is with the unnecessary hype (which could mislead uninformed people) created about it in terms of “assets worth $ 1.2 billion.” I have merely proved that when this asset will be transferred to Nepal, it won’t be worth this much – neither in terms of present value, nor depreciated value or even practical value. On the contrary there is the issue of decommissioning which the project people, and both hydrocracy and donorcracy (bureaucrats of donors) have not only ignored but have failed to be transparent in this respect. I am glad this issue is now out in the open.
In listing “benefits to Nepal – the people” Mr. Bultitude talks of “creation of up to 3,000 jobs during 5.5-year construction period. However, in assessing the backward linkage I have used 5,000 jobs – a clear case of over estimation on my part. I am sure that this definitely doesn’t amount to my ignoring “positive side of the project.”
In the list of benefits Mr. Bultitude also includes “direct injection of funds by GoN into the Project Area Districts.” But this definitely is not a benefit that the people of Nepal derive from the project. Then he talks of training and skills development program, Nepali contractors getting work, development of infrastructure in the area, 8 MW power station for sale of energy for local consumption, 4% equity to be reserved for the local residences, direct employment opportunities, spin-off benefits, technology transfer, training, etc. It should not be too difficult to understand that the thrust of my paper is that there are better alternative approaches for the implementation of this project which will serve Nepal’s interest better (you will recall that, in my recommendation, I have suggested two models). As all the benefits Mr. Bultitude refers to will also accrue to Nepal even if one of my models is adopted, these “positive sides” are not special to the way this project is being envisaged to be implemented and neither have I ignored these benefits.
Mr Bultitude also goes on to list benefits from royalties. I definitely haven’t ignored this benefit. Under the heading of “fiscal linkage” I have taken this into account which, in my reckoning, is worth $ 4.4 million (about Rs 330 million) per year. It is clear that that this benefit will too be reaped by Nepal irrespective of whether the project is implemented as I have recommended or people succeed to implement it under which Nepal, in my opinion, gets short changed of revenue streams that she is rightfully entitled to, like recompenses for flood control in wet season, augmented flow in dry season, and carbon offset.
Moreover, in order to build a reservoir project, Nepal is required to sacrifice its land – 3,004 ha under the reservoir in this case. But projects without a reservoir are paying 7.5% energy royalty and Rs 400 per kW as capacity royalty (on top of 27% free equity in the case of upper Karnali project). In view of this the positive benefit from the West Seti project is definitely on the lower side substantially. Similarly in the case of free energy these projects are providing 12% and 21.9% (by Upper Karnali and Arun III respectively) compared to 10% from this project. In this backdrop the project’s positive side is severely on the lower side because, for this project Nepal, it seems, is getting her land submerged (hence sacrificing) for nothing. As the magnitude of positive benefit is much lower, it is incumbent on a person like me to question it. In this respect too, it is clear that I didn’t ignore the positive side, but merely pointed out that with better structuring Nepal could have received royalties and free energy at a higher level.
I am sure that people know about the tariff at which NEA imports energy and purchases from domestic Run of River projects and the tariff at which electricity from this project is planned to be exported. A project generating peak-in energy (which is not possible without submerging Nepali land) is planned to be sold at dirt cheap tariff. It is also clear that the quantum of benefit from royalties to Nepal would have been much higher if the tariff was fixed at a reasonable level. Looks like the project people would have preferred that I didn’t raise these questions, notwithstanding all these. Since I have already raised it, I am one sided in their eyes. Too bad!
2) “Preventing the Country's Hydro Power Development.”
2.1) I wonder how my raising a few questions as such could prevent country’s hydropower development. These people are making me feel really important. I doubt if my raising a few questions like these will stop the work as I am not an important person that people need to pay heed to. For me it’s just like “emperor’s new clothes” – when I see that the emperor (hydropower development) is actually not wearing any clothes – forget the fabled new clothes.
2.2) I wonder what kind of hydropower development people like him are referring to. In the way the project is structured, people will be soon become disenchanted/disheartened – once they start to understand – and begin saying that it’s better to not have hydropower development than have Nepal short changed on every pretext, at every opportunity. I have proved that even neglecting the downstream benefits, by better packaging of royalty and free energy Nepal could have benefited at a higher level than what SMEC is promising.
Since he wanted to talk about hydropower development, I wish that people like him were able to analyze the benefit of forward linkage due to use of electricity in Nepal to the macro economy, rather than exporting it. At the moment Nepal is suffering from energy famine and by the time the project will be commissioned Nepal will be in a position to use much of the electricity produced by it. But it will be going to India at dirt cheap tariff and Nepal will be forced to continue to import from India at double the tariff or resort to load shedding. This isn’t a prudent model of development of hydropower. The positives of using electricity in the industrialization of the country which will generate employment at higher level and its consequential positive impact on the economy are higher by a magnitude than by exporting it at dirt cheap tariff.
2.3 The model of hydropower development these people are partisan to also will develop Nepal’s hydropower but imagine at what cost. Nepal is required to relinquish its rights over augmented flow worth Rs 5.8 billion per annum and carbon offset benefit worth Rs 1.5 billion per annum, in total Rs 7 billion per year even without reckoning for flood control benefit. Properly/correctly structured the project can generate the amount the project people are saying – the correct amount, though – and additionally Rs 7 billion annually. I hope this isn’t too difficult for people to understand.
3) “Ultimately Hamper Economic Development”
People like him seem to believe that raising questions as such will hamper economic development. On the contrary the wrong model of what is called hydropower development will hamper the economic development of Nepal – export peak-in energy at dirt cheap tariff, receive royalties at very low rates and the lowest possible free energy, and, most importantly, sacrifice downstream benefits (worth Rs 5.8 billion per annum) and carbon offset benefit (worth Rs 1.5 billion). I doubt that for such a small economy like ours sacrificing over Rs 7 billion (at current price) each year will lead to economic development. All the developed and prosperous countries are where they are today because its people ensured that their country got almost all of what they deserved, not because they gave up what they were rightfully entitled to, in the name of ensuring best interest of their motherland.
Economic development of Nepal requires mobilization of huge amount of fund and giving up Rs 7 billion annually – which is not petty cash, even for rich countries – deprives Nepal of the much needed cash. Therefore, nobody has right to give up such an amount in the name of “economic development.” Well, some people – much pampered by the state that they are – may think that such amount could be given up. But most of the people, who have yet to see any semblance of economic development, need that kind of fund to undertake development work and Nepali people need to work hard to ensure that Nepal is not deprived of such amounts.
4) Hamper Social Upliftment of the Country.
It was also alleged that my approach will hamper social upliftment of the country. But I fail to see what kind of social upliftment the likes of him talking of when Nepal is getting short changed at every opportunity, on various pretexts.
Hence, one sided people, without being able to substantiate it, who call me one sided are just venting their frustration. Such frustration may have emanated from the fact that although they, proclaiming to be patriots, say that they are working in the interest of Nepal and people in Nepal, also know at their heart that their actions might have short changed Nepal of what rightfully belongs to her (probably a case of guilty conscience). It probably does not sit too easily on their conscience for having been involved in interpreting national and international law, treaties, conventions, practices such that it ends up benefiting a foreign country rather than Nepal.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
They Just Don't Get It!
(Courtesy: Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal)
The constitution drafting process has not begun even after the six months of the Constituent Assembly (CA) election. While Puspa Kamal Dahal and his men are busy enjoying the power, for the likes of Bam Dev Gautam, it is business as usual. The Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) does not appear very much interested in pushing Madheshi issues, which it cashed in successfully during the CA election forward. For now, Upendra Yadav is happy to be, where he is. As long as he is in power, Madheshi issues will remain on the back burner.
While the parties that are in power are enjoying the limelight and the power, the Nepali Congress (NC) that ruled the country for the last one and a half decades appears bewildered, bitter, and directionless. The party leaders seem to have run out of fresh ideas. All they do these days is -- regurgitate how big of a threat the Maoists are to democracy in Nepal. Are the Maoists really a threat to democracy? Absolutely yes! I, for one, never believed that the Maoists were for multiparty democracy. It is not just me; the Maoists themselves have time and again reiterated that their ultimate goal is to establish a communist state. The misinterpretation of the Maoists' strategic intent always came from the very people that are now charging the Maoists for being threat to democracy.
While in the corridor of power, it never occurred to Girija Prasad Koirala, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, and Ram Sharan Mahat that the Maoists were a threat to democracy. While we were questioning the Maoists' strategic end goal, these were the very people telling the Nepali people that the CPN (Maoist) was a reformed force that wanted a safe landing and were in the process of getting mainstreamed.
As long as they were in power, they didn't utter a word about the Maoist intentions. Then Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula looked the other way when the Maoists committed heinous crimes (the murderers of Jitendra Shah and the Young Communist League thugs that thrashed Dr Gyanendra Giri never got punished) and former finance minister Ram Sharan Mahat exhibited his sense of entitlement on national coffer by disbursing 330 million to the ex-members of the legislature-parliament. He never told the public, whose money he was handing over to the Maoists, that he had records of whether or not their hard-earned money were being put to good use by the Maoists.
All of a sudden now, these very people who put our freedom into the clutches of the Maoists, are trying to convince us that they are the ones, who understand the threat to democracy from the Maoists and are actually capable of getting us out. Isn't that ludicrous? Why would anyone want to go to a doctor, who misdiagnosed the problem in the first place?
There is plenty of room to suspect the motives of the trio -- Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat. Are they really for democracy or simply playing the 'democracy' card to bounce back to the power? After getting wedded in a submissive relationship for three years, these people are opening up their mouth now. Should the Nepalis believe them when they say they understand that radical communism poses a threat to democracy and are actually capable of defending people's freedom?
What did Koirala and his henchmen in the cabinet do to ensure the victory of democratic forces in the CA election? Actions speak louder than words. You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
In a nation where a third of people live on less than a dollar, a mere use of a "noun," a "verb," and the word democracy in political speeches won't convince people. And, if you were one of the happy campers that allowed the Maoists reduce the peace process to appease process, forget about it. For these poor, there was no democracy to begin with. They never got a chance to enjoy the dividends of democracy or else they would not be such a massive support for the Maoists amongst the poor and the downtrodden. For another 40 percent or so, it is all about jobs, good education for their children, and better access to health care. If anyone can assure them of that, they will readily side with that person or the party and that is what is precisely happening in Nepal. The poor are happy dreaming about the prosperity that the Maoists have promised them. By the time the younger generation that is rallying behind Dahal actually understands what communism is capable of delivering; there will be no Puspa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai, and the likes. The Maoists henchmen will have played their innings by then.
What percentage do educated and economically well off people that value democracy and freedom make up in Nepal? Ten percent would be a generous estimate. Do the people in this ultra minority actually believe that Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat really stand for liberal democracy and freedom that educated class cherishes for? Had the answer been in affirmative, people like Professor Krishna Khanal would not be deserting the NC. When people like him jump off a ship, it is time to know that either the ship has a hole on it or the sailors are a bunch of drunkards, who have no clue about where they are sailing the ship to.
Is the game over? Not yet, but it has definitely gotten increasingly difficult. Personally, I don't have confidence on the very people who lacked the judgment on what the Maoists stood for and what they were actually up to. If they knew it, then they were not being honest about it. In any case, they are not the kind of leaders Nepal needs to consolidate democracy.
We need new faces to confront new challenges that we are facing. There still exists an opening.
Freedom and democracy can still be snatched from the clutches of the Maoists. But for that to actually happen, we need young politicians that believe in democracy to come out and take political centre stage. The mainstream media is still up for democracy in Nepal. So, with media on your side, you can obscure the Maoists' propaganda with clear and concise message. But all this has to come from someone clean and credible, not from phonies, who pose as democrats. Not from someone who got us into the Maoists' lap, and are now posing as saviors.
The sheer regurgitation of the phrase "democracy in peril" will not be sufficient to defeat the Maoists, who want to destroy people's right to choose whether they want to send their kids to a private or public school and which hospital they want to visit and which doctor they want to see, when ill. If the Maoists have their ways, like in Cuba, specialised diagnostic studies (e.g., CT scans, endoscopies, ultrasound, etc.) and treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, etc.) will have to be approved by bureaucrats. Ask general Nepalis if that is what they want.
The Maoists have been clamouring that they would transform the country in the coming decades by attracting foreign investments. Who would invest in a country where union militancy is promoted by the party that runs the government and where the largest faction of the coalition government has a brigade or brigands that can take laws into their hand and operate without impunity? Who will invest in a country whose finance minister openly threatens private sector ordering that private school and hospital owners should look for investment alternatives? Ask these questions to the Maoists that are selling dreams without being challenged.
It is important for people to understand that, what the democrats in Nepal have to offer is, far better than what the Maoists are promising. The sheer regurgitation of "democracy in peril" will not do the trick. The more you regurgitate it, the more you will look stupid and out of touch with reality.
The constitution drafting process has not begun even after the six months of the Constituent Assembly (CA) election. While Puspa Kamal Dahal and his men are busy enjoying the power, for the likes of Bam Dev Gautam, it is business as usual. The Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) does not appear very much interested in pushing Madheshi issues, which it cashed in successfully during the CA election forward. For now, Upendra Yadav is happy to be, where he is. As long as he is in power, Madheshi issues will remain on the back burner.
While the parties that are in power are enjoying the limelight and the power, the Nepali Congress (NC) that ruled the country for the last one and a half decades appears bewildered, bitter, and directionless. The party leaders seem to have run out of fresh ideas. All they do these days is -- regurgitate how big of a threat the Maoists are to democracy in Nepal. Are the Maoists really a threat to democracy? Absolutely yes! I, for one, never believed that the Maoists were for multiparty democracy. It is not just me; the Maoists themselves have time and again reiterated that their ultimate goal is to establish a communist state. The misinterpretation of the Maoists' strategic intent always came from the very people that are now charging the Maoists for being threat to democracy.
While in the corridor of power, it never occurred to Girija Prasad Koirala, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, and Ram Sharan Mahat that the Maoists were a threat to democracy. While we were questioning the Maoists' strategic end goal, these were the very people telling the Nepali people that the CPN (Maoist) was a reformed force that wanted a safe landing and were in the process of getting mainstreamed.
As long as they were in power, they didn't utter a word about the Maoist intentions. Then Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula looked the other way when the Maoists committed heinous crimes (the murderers of Jitendra Shah and the Young Communist League thugs that thrashed Dr Gyanendra Giri never got punished) and former finance minister Ram Sharan Mahat exhibited his sense of entitlement on national coffer by disbursing 330 million to the ex-members of the legislature-parliament. He never told the public, whose money he was handing over to the Maoists, that he had records of whether or not their hard-earned money were being put to good use by the Maoists.
All of a sudden now, these very people who put our freedom into the clutches of the Maoists, are trying to convince us that they are the ones, who understand the threat to democracy from the Maoists and are actually capable of getting us out. Isn't that ludicrous? Why would anyone want to go to a doctor, who misdiagnosed the problem in the first place?
There is plenty of room to suspect the motives of the trio -- Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat. Are they really for democracy or simply playing the 'democracy' card to bounce back to the power? After getting wedded in a submissive relationship for three years, these people are opening up their mouth now. Should the Nepalis believe them when they say they understand that radical communism poses a threat to democracy and are actually capable of defending people's freedom?
What did Koirala and his henchmen in the cabinet do to ensure the victory of democratic forces in the CA election? Actions speak louder than words. You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
In a nation where a third of people live on less than a dollar, a mere use of a "noun," a "verb," and the word democracy in political speeches won't convince people. And, if you were one of the happy campers that allowed the Maoists reduce the peace process to appease process, forget about it. For these poor, there was no democracy to begin with. They never got a chance to enjoy the dividends of democracy or else they would not be such a massive support for the Maoists amongst the poor and the downtrodden. For another 40 percent or so, it is all about jobs, good education for their children, and better access to health care. If anyone can assure them of that, they will readily side with that person or the party and that is what is precisely happening in Nepal. The poor are happy dreaming about the prosperity that the Maoists have promised them. By the time the younger generation that is rallying behind Dahal actually understands what communism is capable of delivering; there will be no Puspa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai, and the likes. The Maoists henchmen will have played their innings by then.
What percentage do educated and economically well off people that value democracy and freedom make up in Nepal? Ten percent would be a generous estimate. Do the people in this ultra minority actually believe that Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat really stand for liberal democracy and freedom that educated class cherishes for? Had the answer been in affirmative, people like Professor Krishna Khanal would not be deserting the NC. When people like him jump off a ship, it is time to know that either the ship has a hole on it or the sailors are a bunch of drunkards, who have no clue about where they are sailing the ship to.
Is the game over? Not yet, but it has definitely gotten increasingly difficult. Personally, I don't have confidence on the very people who lacked the judgment on what the Maoists stood for and what they were actually up to. If they knew it, then they were not being honest about it. In any case, they are not the kind of leaders Nepal needs to consolidate democracy.
We need new faces to confront new challenges that we are facing. There still exists an opening.
Freedom and democracy can still be snatched from the clutches of the Maoists. But for that to actually happen, we need young politicians that believe in democracy to come out and take political centre stage. The mainstream media is still up for democracy in Nepal. So, with media on your side, you can obscure the Maoists' propaganda with clear and concise message. But all this has to come from someone clean and credible, not from phonies, who pose as democrats. Not from someone who got us into the Maoists' lap, and are now posing as saviors.
The sheer regurgitation of the phrase "democracy in peril" will not be sufficient to defeat the Maoists, who want to destroy people's right to choose whether they want to send their kids to a private or public school and which hospital they want to visit and which doctor they want to see, when ill. If the Maoists have their ways, like in Cuba, specialised diagnostic studies (e.g., CT scans, endoscopies, ultrasound, etc.) and treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, etc.) will have to be approved by bureaucrats. Ask general Nepalis if that is what they want.
The Maoists have been clamouring that they would transform the country in the coming decades by attracting foreign investments. Who would invest in a country where union militancy is promoted by the party that runs the government and where the largest faction of the coalition government has a brigade or brigands that can take laws into their hand and operate without impunity? Who will invest in a country whose finance minister openly threatens private sector ordering that private school and hospital owners should look for investment alternatives? Ask these questions to the Maoists that are selling dreams without being challenged.
It is important for people to understand that, what the democrats in Nepal have to offer is, far better than what the Maoists are promising. The sheer regurgitation of "democracy in peril" will not do the trick. The more you regurgitate it, the more you will look stupid and out of touch with reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)