Oped»
36,000 MW by 2030?
- NOTE OF DISSENT
JUL 18 -
The centenary of the country’s first hydro-electricity plant at Pharping set up during the rule of Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher was observed a few months ago. The plant that supplied power to the Rana elite was, nonetheless, the trend setter for the country; and it helped many to become aware of the hidden wealth of hydropower in the country. It is said that the country has the potential to produce over 83,000 MW of hydropower, though only half of it—some 42,000 MW—is said to be commercially feasible. In the period of 100 years between the time the Pharping power station began generating electricity and today, the combined—hydro, thermal and even solar—power output of the country is less than 1,000 MW, leading to unbearable power rationing and the resultant negative impact on the industrial and agricultural sectors. Now we have plans, according to media reports, to produce more than 36 times the present power output within the next 20 years. From less than 1,000 MW today, the country will have more than 36,000 MW by 2030. That is, if everything goes according to plan, and if beggars were to become choosers.
Nothing, if Napoleon is to be believed, is impossible—30,000 MW in 20 years is not unattainable. But please look at this country’s present situation. The nation’s economy is in the doldrums; the political situation in the country does not look like taking a turn for the better given the positions taken by so-called large parties—so-called because they do not behave in keeping with their size; there are doubts that the constitution of the country may not be drawn up and adopted in time; and the environment for foreign investment is far from friendly. Doubts about the timely promulgation of the constitution arise because of the almost fatal squabbling that has been going on for the past two years for the seat of power.
If the parties can fight so strongly among themselves and for so long for temporary state power, one can well imagine how long it would take for the differences among them to be narrowed down when it comes to issues relating to restructuring the state through a new constitution that would be acceptable to all the political parties, particularly the big three parties. The three parties appear to be guided more by worn-out ideological clichés than by a pragmatic approach to issues that have a direct bearing on the state. Each of the three parties, not to speak of other smaller parties, would want the state structuring and system of governance to be such as would prove helpful to their ideological stances.
And for all the parties to agree and reach a consensus on these issues that are crucial for the future of the country is bound to be difficult. But this may have been possible if the parties had spent as much time and effort in the real constitution making process as they did on the formation of the government. If wisdom had dawned on the parties and they had concentrated on the nuances and finer points of the constitution allowing real discussions in the CA and among the public, instead of each party doggedly sticking to their own guns, one just might have seen the light, no matter how dim, at the end of the tunnel. But this was not to be, and this means that it affects all spheres of national life including infrastructure development. Political instability in the country has rendered all future plans and programmes, including hydropower development, irrelevant. Who is to guarantee that a duly elected government under the yet-to-be-written constitution will follow the plans drawn up by interim governments and committees formed by such governments?
Maoist leader and former prime minister P.K. Dahal once talked of generating 10,000 MW of hydropower within the next 10 years. He was a political leader adept at selling impossible dreams, and he can be forgiven for promising so much in so little time and in such an investment-unfriendly environment as he can be forgiven for promising to make Nepal another Switzerland in the east within the next 10 years. But the prospects of 36,000 MW in the next 20 years have been put forward by an expert committee, and this means that only 5 to 6,000 more MW of commercially feasible power would to be utilised after 20 years. One must take this with a pinch of salt, and indeed the report of the experts seems to have indicated as much pointing to political instability and an unfriendly and insecure foreign investment environment.
But there are more obstacles to the smooth and uninterrupted implementation of power projects in this country. The biggest obstacle is to search for a market with the only obvious one being India. Bhutan has prospered because of the hydropower projects undertaken by India and sold to India. Are we also willing to do the same under the same terms and conditions as those of Bhutan? If so, why didn’t our past rulers including the Panchayat ones, who faced virtually no opposition, opt for the Bhutan line? There must be more to the Bhutan-India tie-up in hydropower than meets the eye.
The World Bank betrayed this country—I can describe it in other terms—when at the very last moment refused to fund the 400-plus-MW Arun III. The bank and other international agencies have to be taken into consideration when building upstream power or irrigation projects. There have been instances in the past when our projects have been objected to by these organisations because of the impact it will have on the water flow to the south. (It is a wonder of wonders that these very same organisations deem it prudent to sit silent when constructions are erected south of our border that directly and adversely affect the people of this country.) Perhaps the hydropower committee on the 20-year plan has done a good job in pointing to the possibility of generating 36,000 MW in 20 years, but it would have been in keeping with the times and the situation of the country if a more pragmatic plan had been put forward—first directed towards meeting real and projected domestic demand now, and for the coming 20 years by selecting projects that can be financed by the government or Nepal’s own private sector and those that will not have to face any obstacles because of possible bilateral disputes.
The plan for 20 years is no doubt needed; but for such plans to fructify, the political leadership should be competent and be aware that the needs of the people come first, and also that there is a need for general public consensus on the terms and conditions for selling power to other countries. Plans are made for implementation, otherwise it is a mere waste of public money to assign committees to draw up plans that will be shelved. Let’s hope that the outgoing M.K. Nepal government has decided to draw up the 20-year plan with all sincerity and not to provide employment to the unemployed party faithful or those close to those in power. If not, why not start implementing the plan?
Posted on: 2010-07-19 08:22
Headlines
Advertisements
