By Peeyush Tiwari
It seems that the new government is all set to outdo the previous one in the water resources sector, especially hydropower development. First, there was the promise of generating 25,000 MW in 20 years. Then the Ministry of Water Resources was split into the Ministry of Irrigation and the Ministry of Energy, the latter being a body solely dedicated to hydropower development. The ink hadn’t dried on the paper since the commitment to generate 10,000 MW in 10 years was made, and here we go —there’s a newer and more ambitious plan but with no concrete groundwork and planning to support it. When the pledge made by the previous government was being criticized by experts as an overly ambitious and far-fetched dream, the one who came up with this slogan of 12,500 MW in 10 years (dubbed 25,000 MW in 20 years) should have at least thought twice about what it was saying.
After the restoration of democracy, it was the National Water Resources Strategy (NWRS) followed by the National Water Plan (NWP) that provided a concrete strategy and action plan for efficient and effective use of our country’s water resources. After spending millions of dollars and almost a decade of study by probably the best brains in this sector, the strategy offered a roadmap to development in the water resources sector for social and economic progress of the nation. The NWRS/NWP had categorized hydropower development, among others, into three subcategories:
Short-term goal: Generation of 700 MW of hydroelectricity by 2007. Medium-term goal: Generation of 2,035 MW of hydroelectricity by 2017. Long-term goal: Generation of 4,000 MW of hydroelectricity by 2027. It must be noted, however, that these goals were not just raw commitments. The NWP provided a detailed action plan along with project portfolios for meeting each of the goals within the stipulated timeframe. By 2008, there came a new 10-year commitment from the Maoist-led government. When the NWP had not been disowned, i.e., its mandate was still active, making a new commitment without meeting the goals set forth by the previous strategy was by far a misplaced step. The new government is one move ahead in making the same error that the previous government made.
It must be noted that though the leaders may change, and with them their commitments, there are some who remain the same —the experts. Be it the experts who drafted the NWP or the Somnath Committee which drafted the action plan for 10,000 MW, and the would-be committee that would probably draft the 25,000 MW plan; the people who work on it are the same and so are the suggestions put forth by them. So it would have been wise to follow in the footsteps of the previous government and continue the development work where they had left off instead of shelving everything that came before and start from scratch.
The previous government should have stuck to the NWP, and so should this coalition government. It would be deserving of applause if that 4,000 MW goal set by the NWP was met in say five years before announcement of the 10,000 MW in 10 years or anything like that. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal has said that he was inspired by the way Muhammad Mahathir developed Malaysia and would follow the same model here. The secret, according to Mahathir himself, is that when he needed to make any decision, he always consulted with his panel of experts and acted accordingly. So if we are really inspired by the model of Mahathir and wish to follow suit, the experts must be consulted on every matter, and their advice must be heeded.
Moreover, there is an indispensable aspect to Nepal’s hydropower development —India. It has been realized that active participation of public/private enterprises is essential for the development of hydropower in Nepal, and I need not elaborate anything on that. During his Aug. 18-22 visit to India, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal expressed commitment to generate 25,000 MW in 20 years and sought the active participation of India’s private and public sectors in investment on this front (Joint Press Statement, Article 29). Such commitments made by a head of government is a national commitment. So, when seen from the Indian viewpoint, the national stance on the issue should be the same. It should not be 10,000 MW then, 25,000 MW now and maybe 30,000 MW later.
It would have provided an assurance to potential investors if the prime minister had expressed his support to the previous commitment and pledged to continue on the trail that has been laid. For instance, during the last power summit, we went to great pains to convince investors about our commitment and enthusiasm to meet the 10-year goal. During a televised interview, Indian State Minister for Energy and Commerce Jairam Ramesh expressed his solidarity, enthusiasm and anticipation for achieving this goal. Now when the next power summit will be held, how are we going to convince potential investors that this goal too will not be shelved by the next government in favour of its own agenda?
The issue of national development must be a common agenda for all parties. The political ideologies may differ, but when it comes to the issue of development, there must be one viewpoint of the entire political fraternity. For example, in a relay race, the race cannot be continued without passing the baton to the next player; similar is the case with national development: There can be no progress unless the successor takes on the national commitments made by the predecessor.
Lastly, I would like to quote John F. Kennedy who said, “One who solves the problem of water is worth two Nobel prizes; one for peace and one for science.” It’s been over three decades since Kennedy expressed his view over the gravity of the problem related to water. However, it seems that our leaders still consider it child’s play. The problems related to water are multidimensional —economic, social and political. Even the immediate cause of World War II was related to water —the issue of access to the Polish Shipping Corridor.
In our case, the problems range from economic (finding investors) and social (rehabilitating project-affected families) to political (ties with neighbouring countries; especially India). So it would be wise if our leaders understood the gravity of the issues surrounding the proper use of our water resources before blurting out new slogans time and again. Since the restoration of democracy, the pace of development has been basically sluggish. There have been too many commitments, but the number of commitments that have been met can be counted on the fingers of the hand. As far as hydropower development is concerned, progress has been almost stagnant. So, if we are to reach somewhere, progress must be made, even if it is slow. When development issues are in question, our motto should be “Go slow but go always”. For now, we’ve all talked the talk. So maybe, it’s now time to walk the walk.
Loading ...