Saturday, December 29, 2012
Who is at fault for current political instability?
Dear Prof Lohani
The fluid situation that we have today has to be firmly ascribed to the president for several reasons and he is the solely responsible for it. The way things are looking now he will have to keep on extending the deadline and in Ashadh 2070 he will accept another Ordinance for budget then the game will continue further. As the antonym of deadline is extension, extension of deadline week after week is like oxymoron.
Subsequent to dissolution of CA the president declared Bhattarai care taker PM with alacrity but failed to call under Article 38(1) for a PM with executive authority. This is his single most damaging failure on his part.
Then he started accepting a string of essential and non-essential ordinances including one arranging “Bonus” for himself after he demits the office of presidency. The latest blunder was to leave for India like a teacher leaving his students in a classroom with instructions for them to behave.
He should have issued call under Article 38(1) immediately after declaring Bhattarai care taker PM and should have refused to promulgate any ordinance. Maybe due to this action on his part the country would have had been without a budget for a few days or a week. The citizenry of this country would have happily faced a few days without budget instead of the present torture of having care taker PM who is not only unable to anything but also is not allowed to do things.
Let’s pray our Lord Pashupatinath that he give some prudence to these people.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com
Saturday, December 22, 2012
RE: Nepal pm on Hindustani auto
December 22, 2012 6:36
To: 'Mohan Lohani'
Cc: 'Upendra Gautam'; 'Madan Regmi'; 'Madan Dahal'; 'madhukar'; 'Dwarika Nath Dhungel'; 'Dipak Gyawali'; 'Dr. Bal Kumar K. C.'; 'rajeshwar acharya'; 'Basanta Lohani'
Dear Prof Lohani
The crux of the tragedy we are facing lies in the superficiality in people’s comment. Priyanka Pani has got right in as much as the statement “Development of hydropower can overcome the current power shortage” is concerned. But development of hydropower in Nepal will not “overcome the current power shortage” in Nepal if the power generated is exported. The hydropower projects mentioned in the write-up are export-oriented and, hence, these aren’t being planned for mitigation of power shortage in Nepal. Rather they are to “overcome the current power shortage” India. I trust the intellectuals in Nepal are able to discern this particular but significant difference.
Therefore, the likes of me are campaigning tooth and nail to abort these projects. We are not against these projects per se. meaning if these projects are developed not only to mitigate load shedding problem in Nepal but also to industrialize Nepal and electrify transportation, we will support these projects all out.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com
From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 17:58
To: Upendra Gautam; Madan Regmi; Madan Dahal; madhukar; Ratna Sansar Shrestha; Dwarika Nath Dhungel; Dipak Gyawali; Dr. Bal Kumar K. C.; rajeshwar acharya; Basanta Lohani
Subject: Re: Nepal pm on Hindustani auto
Dear Dr.Gautam,
Any layman knows well that development of hydropower can overcome the power shortage and could also generate revenues for Nepal.But how to translate this idea into action is our concern.Nepali PM has invited Indian investors to invest in hydropower sectors.There is nothing unusual about that.What are the terms on which they would like to invest and we are willing to sign the agreement? That is the crux of the problem.We have been talking about harnessing our water resources for over 5 decades and we have witnessed political changes from panchayat to parliamentary democracy and nobody knows what system is in store for hapless and helpless Nepalis.Load shedding hours,it is reported, are likely to be increased for 18 hours a day.We should all be prepared to go back to the Dark Age and should stop selling dreams to the people.People have lost interest in who is going to head the next govt that is expected to conduct the next CA elections(my impression was that CA election is once-in-a lifetime exercise).If people are helpless, who is the saviour of this country?
All the best and regds,
Mohan Lohani
From: Upendra Gautam
To: Madan Regmi ; Madan Dahal ; Mohan Lohani ; Dhrubahari Adhikari ; Kedar Mathema ; Bhishnu Nepal ; Prakash Lohani ; Hiranya Shrestha ; Surendra KC ; Keshab Paudel ; RP Acharya ; Surya Upadhyay ; Pushpa Pradhan
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:35 PM
Subject: Nepal pm on Hindustani auto
Nepal PM calls for Indian investments in auto, hydropower sectors
Priyanka Pani
Recently in Kathmandu:
Nepal Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai wants Indian investors to build and operate more hydropower and automobile sector projects in Nepal.
“We have enough water to generate 85,000 mega watts (MW) of power that will be sufficient for domestic consumption. That apart, we can also look at selling the excess to several Indian states,” the Nepalese Prime Minister said while addressing a press delegation from Mumbai last week.
The development of the hydropower sector in Nepal could earn revenues for the country, thus boosting the overall GDP growth rate of the country, which has been hovering at a mere 3 per cent since the last four decades.
“We want to take this figure to a double-digit number in the next three years,” he said, adding that the Government is proactive in attracting Foreign Direct Investment to achieve high economic growth.
Power shortage
Development of hydropower can overcome the current power shortage in the country, speed up tourism and agriculture development, and enhance production capability of the country through rapid industrialisation, Bhattarai said. At present, the country faces a load shedding of 7-10 hours a day, thus impacting various other industrial and commercial activities.
The country has already got investments from Indian power and infrastructure major GMR to build a 900-MW project at Upper Karnali. Besides, the Government is considering a project in Western Seti, which is being developed by another Indian firm Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam. It has already signed power purchase agreements with both these companies. However, the project has been facing several hindrances and protests from the locals and the licence expired recently.
The Government has, however, allowed GMR to increase the authorised capital in its hydro power projects in Nepal to Rs 190 crore while also extending its survey licence by six months.
The Government also extended the survey licence of the 600-MW Upper Marsyangdi Power Projects which expired in November 2011. A meeting of the high-level Investment Board chaired by the Prime Minister took decisions to renew the licences.
Bhattarai also welcomed investments in the auto sector. The Government said that it will look into providing tax concessions so that Indian auto firms can set up manufacturing units.
“There is a large cigarette factory which is defunct and can be utilised as an auto manufacturing factory,” he added.
priyanka.pani@thehindu.co.in
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Re: Investment board and Nepal's water resources
December 19, 2012
Radhesh Pant
CEO Investment Board
Radhesh jee
Delighted to learn about your commitment to take necessary steps to secure Nepal's interest. However, the very approval IB has granted to "fix" capacity @ 900 MW ROR is detrimental to Nepal. Full potential of the site is 4,180 MW, storage. It should implemented as a multipurpose project. Pls spare sometime to study articles/paper on the subject.
You may be playing into Indian lobby that is trying to ensure that Nepal does not use Karnali water for consumptive use in dry season - best way to secure food security in Nepal.
I just hope that you don't do anything that will make you repent in future
Regards
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2012, at 11:06, Radhesh Pant wrote:
Dear Ratna Sasar jee:
As per my discussion with you and Dipakji earlier, Investment Board will take necessary steps to secure Nepal's interest. This will primarily be achieved through a thorough negotiations on the PDA. The decisions that has been made are just routine and administrative. Pls. be rest assured.
Best regards,
Radhesh
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Investment board and Nepal's water resources
To: Radhesh Pant
CEO Investment Board
Cc: 'Dipak Gyawali'; Lok B Rawat; 'Amar Narayan Mali'; 'Arun Chandra Gajurel'; 'Bharat Prasain'; 'Chakrapani Sharma'; 'Juddha Gurung'; 'Lok Bahadur Raut'; 'Shriman Gautam'; 'Tara Kumari Gharti'
Subject: Investment board and Nepal's water resources
Radhesh jee
We are saddened to read/watch news in today’s media about the captioned. I have learned with heavy heart that you are taking the very path we had requested you not to take when we (DipakG and I) came to meet you at your office some time back. This route will lead you only to failure, nothing more. We had hoped that you would learn from the history of previous incarnation of West Seti project.
Investment Board, under your leadership, is definitely on the wrong tangent. Specifically you have put your stamp of approval to resource colonization in the case of upper Karnali project. Looks like you didn’t peruse numerous articles/papers written on the subject. You could have learnt quite a lot by simply visiting my website. For example if you follow the link below you can learn a lot about it.
http://www.ratnasansar.com/2010/03/upper-karnali-uproar.html
http://www.ratnasansar.com/2012/04/blog-post.html
Do feel free to ask me if you need any clarification.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com
Friday, December 14, 2012
"The cost of energy" for Bhutan
"It’s that time of the year again when power generation dips to the lowest but demand peaks with thousands of heaters on.
Which means its time to complain of the energy bills, which is much higher than the summer bills when energy consumption is way lower.
But this winter it is not only households that are concerned of energy bills and working out ways to control consumption, even the government is doing the math and holding discussions.
For several years now, domestic demand has been higher than our overall winter generation which drops to less than 300 MW because there is less water flowing in the snow fed rivers. A significant increase in generation is not expected until 2017 when the Punatshangchu project is commissioned.
Most of the domestic consumption today is by industries in the southern belt. Domestic users or household consumption is less than 20 percent of the total demand. In recent years consumption has increased because of the rural electrification project and several hydropower projects that are under construction round the clock.
The country’s biggest cement plant in Dungsam, which is on the verge of commissioning, would alone require about 26 MW at any point of time.
This winter total import is expected to go up to 54 MW. In the past Bhutan never paid for electricity it imported in winter from India since it cancelled out with what was exported in summer but this time the modalities appear to have changed.
Some energy officials say for the first time domestic energy demand is far outstripping generation converting Bhutan to a net electricity importer in winter.
The complications arise because Bhutan has to import at a much higher rate from India while it exports to India in summer at a much lower rate.
The other option is bartering with a neighbouring Indian state the same quantity of energy during the lean and peak season. But this too is complicated because of the Unscheduled Interchange Mechanism. Under this mechanism if the importer consumes more or less than the agreed amount, the importer is penalized based on the frequency of extra or less energy consumed. The penalties are extremely high and energy authorities say its only possible to project consumption.
This mechanism has become the watchword for interstate electricity trade in India. Some experts say the mechanism is merely a penal and disciplinary tool to deter deviating from schedule but others say pricing by grid frequency keeps supply equal to demand and cancels out fluctuations.
If imports are going to entail higher costs who is going to pay for it? Will industries have to close for a few days every now and then or will it be passed on to the domestic consumer?
While a deal is being worked out the best that can be done is to switch off when not in use."
Courtsey: kuenselonline
http://www.kuenselonline.com/the-cost-of-energy/#.UMsTcKDQQtl
जलश्रोतको औपनिबेसिक दोहन
प्रकृतिले प्रदान गरेको श्रोतसाधनको दोहनबाट प्रत्येक देश समृद्ध÷सम्पन्न बन्दछ । पहिले “हरियो वन, नेपालको धन” भनिन्थ्यो, तर वन–जंगलको अत्यधिक दोहन भएर पनि समृद्धि÷सम्पन्नता आएन । त्यस्तै जलश्रोतमा धनी देशका एक चौथाई जनसंख्याकोमा धारा भएपनि पानी आउंदैन भने बांकी घरहरुमा धाराको अभावमा स्वच्छ पानी उपयोग गर्नु बिलासिता भएकोेछ । यसले गर्दा झाडापखाला देखि टाइफाइड सम्मका रोगहरु लाग्नाले जनशक्तीको उत्पादकत्व घटेकोछ । पिउन र सरसफाईको लागि स्वच्छ पानीे मात्र उपलब्ध भए वार्षिक दशौं अर्ब रुपैया औषधोपचार खर्च बच्नेथियो ।
मध्ययुगिन दोहन पद्धति
अर्को मुलुकको विकासको लागि आफ्नो मुलुकको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको उत्खनन्÷दोहन गर्नुलाई औपनिवेसिक दोहन भनिन्छ । भारत लगायतका उपनिबेसहरु स्वतंत्र नहुन्जेल यस्तो मध्ययुगिन पद्धतिमा दोहन हुन्थ्यो र उपनिबेसहरुको अर्थतन्त्र समृद्ध÷सम्पन्न भएको उदाहरण छैन । प्राकृतिक श्रोत आफ्नै देशको हितमा उपयोग गर्ने मुलुकहरु भने समृद्ध÷सम्पन्न छन् ।
१९२० मा महाकाली नदीमा शारदा बाँध निर्माण गरेर नेपालको जलश्रोतको औपनिबेसिक दोहन प्रारम्भ गरिएकोमा १९५० पछि कोशी तथा गण्डक सन्धीहरु अन्तर्गत बाँधहरु निर्मित भएर औपनिवेसिक दोहनले निरन्तरता पायो । यी आयोजनाको उद्देश्य बाढी नियन्त्रण, सिंचाई तथा बिद्युत उत्पादन हो । तर बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाईबाट नेपाल लाभान्वित हुन्न (नभएकोमा आश्चर्यचकित हुन आवश्यक पनि छैन) किनभने यी भारतमा बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाइको लागि निर्माण भएकोहो । तर डुबान र बिस्थापनको समस्या नेपालले भोगेर बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाइको लाभ भारतको पोल्टामा पार्नु जलश्रोतको औपनिबेसिक दोहन उत्कृष्ट नमूना हो । नेपालमा बिनास गरेर भारतलाई लाभ ।
महाकाली सन्धी अन्तर्गत पंचेश्वर आयोजनामा पनि औपनिबेसिक दोहनको प्रयास हुैदंछ । आयोजनाको जलाशयको लागि आवश्यक जमिन मध्ये ४५ प्रतिशत नेपालमा डुबाएर त्यसैको अनुपातमा स्थानिय बासिन्दा बिस्थापित हुन्छन् तर सिंचाईबाट भारत अत्यधिक लाभान्वित हुन्छ (नेपालमा ९३ हजार हेक्टरमा सिंचाई हुन्छ तर भारतमा १६ लाख हेक्टरमा) भने बाढी नियन्त्रणबाट पूर्णतः भारत लाभान्वित हुन्छ ।
जलबिद्युतको औपनिबेसिक दोहन
नेपालमा हजारौं मेगावाट बिजुली उत्पादन गर्न सकिन्छ, तर नेपालीहरु दशकौं देखि लोडसेडिंगको मारमा छन भने आधा जनसंख्याको बिजुलीमा पहुंच छैन । बिजुलीको अभावमा औद्योगिकरण नभएकोले बरोजगार युवायुवति बाध्यताबस् बिदेश पलायन हुन्छन, आर्थिक मात्र होइन, यौन शोषणमा पनि पर्छन र अझ मानव बेचबिखनको शिकार सम्म हुन्छन् । तर बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्ने गरेर अरुण तेश्रो, माथिल्लो कर्णाली, लिखु, आदि जलबिद्युत आयोजनाहरुको लाईसेन्सहरु दिइन्छ । नेपालमा औद्योगिकरण तथा रोजगारी श्रृजना गर्न बिजुलीको व्यवस्था गरिन्न । औपनिबेसिक दोहनको यो अर्को रुप हो ।
भारतीय दृष्टिकोणबाट यस्तो दोहन
भारतमा बिनास (डुबानमा तथा बिस्थापन) गरेर भएपनि भारतमै विकास (बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाई) गर्नु स्वाभाविक हो । तर नेपालमा बिनास गरेर निर्मित बाँधबाट भारतमा विकास गर्नु भारतीय हिसाबले प्राकृतिक श्रोतको दोहनको उत्कृष्ट पद्धति हो । दुष्प्रभाव (बिनास) जत्ति नेपालमा अनि लाभ (विकास) जत्ति भारतमा । यो पद्धतिलाई किन औपनिवेसिक दोहन भनिन्छ भन्ने आफै स्पष्ट हुन्छ ।
बेलायत जस्ता साम्राज्यबादी मुलुकहरुले भारत लगायतका उपनिवेशमा यहि पद्धतिमा प्राकृतिक श्रोतको दोहन गरेर आफू समृद्धिशाली बने भने यो पद्धतिसमेतको बिरोधमा क्रान्तीको लहर चलेकोले, दृष्टान्ततः कहिल्यै घाम नअस्ताउने भनिएको साम्राज्यबादी शक्ती संयुक्त अधिराज्यका केहि टापुमा खुम्चिएकोछ । अहिले छिमेकी मुलुकहरुप्रति भारतको यहि रवैया छ । भारत संरक्षित राज्य भुटानको परराष्ट्र तथा प्रतिरक्षा मामिला आफ्नो मातहतमा भएकैले भुटानको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहन हुनुमा कुनै आश्चर्य छैन । तर सार्वभौम मुलुक नेपालको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहन हुनु दुखःद हो ।
औपनिबेसिक बौद्धिकता
भारतले नेपाललाई कहिल्यै पनि उपनिवेश त के संरक्षित राज्य सम्म पनि भन्ने आंट गरेको छैन । तर १९५० को सन्धी अन्तर्गत विशेष सम्बन्धको जामा पहि¥याएर नेपालको प्राकृतिक श्रोतमा हालिमुहालि गर्ने अभिलाषा तथा आंकाक्षा राखेकैछ । नेपालको जलश्रोतमा भारतको असीमित पहुंचको प्रत्याभूतिको शर्तमा १९९० को जनआन्दोलनलाई मत्थर पार्न सहयोग गर्न खोजेकोमा तत्कालिन राजाले बरु आप्mनै जनतालाई सार्वभौम बनाएर भारतीय महत्वाकांक्षामा तुषारापात गरे ।
बरु जनआन्दोलनबाट स्थापित कृष्णप्रसाद भट्टराईको अन्तरिम सरकारले भारतीय नाकाबन्दी खुलाउने क्रममा नेपालको नदी नालालाई दिल्लीमा “साझा” घोषणा गर्नपुगे । तर आम निर्वाचनमा प्रधानमन्त्री भट्टराई पराजित भएकोले त्यसलाइर्, शौभाग्यबस्, औपचारिकता दिने काम हुनसकेन । त्यस्तै २००९ मे महिनामा प्रधानमन्त्री पदबाट राजिनामा गर्ने अवस्था आउंदा प्रचण्डलाई नेपालको जलश्रोतमाथि भारतको पनि हक लाग्ने अवधारणा मानेको भए राजिनामा गर्न नपर्ने स्थिति बनाउने आश्वासन दिइएको थियो । तर प्रचण्डले राजिनामा गरेर जलश्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहनको बिपक्षमा आफूलाई खडा गरे ।
तर कतिपय बुद्धिजीवि, राजनीतिकर्मी, कर्मचारीतन्त्र, व्यापारी, बैंक तथा वित्तिय संस्थाका संचालकहरुलाई प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेशिक दोहन स्वीकार्य देखिन्छ र यसको बिपक्षमा उभिनेलाई विकास बिरोधीको बिल्ला भिराएर नवसाम्राज्यबादको तावेदारी गर्ने गरेको देखिन्छ । यो तप्काले घरमा बत्ति बाल्दा सडक उज्यालो हुनेसंग जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाको तल्लो तटीय लाभलाई तुलना गरेर बौद्धिक दरिद्रता प्रदर्शन गर्छन, नेपालमा बिनास गरेर भारतलाई लाभान्वित गर्ने प्रपञ्च रच्छन् ।
विश्व बैंक, एशियाली बिकास बैंक तथा कतिपय बैदेशिक तथा स्वदेशी गैर सरकारी संस्था पनि बिनास जति नेपालमा र छिमेकि मुलुकको बिकास हुनेगरेर प्राकृतिक श्रोतको दोहनको पैरबी गरेर प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिबेसिक दोहनमा सघाउंछन् ।
आयोजना विशेष कार्यान्वयन हुने कुरा संचार माध्यममा संप्रेषण भएपछि त्यसबाट नेपालको स्वार्थ सम्बद्र्धन हुन्छ कि हुन्न भनेर विश्लेष्ण गर्दा यो तप्काले चित्त दुखाउंछ, आयोजना बन्नै लाग्दा राष्ट्रघातको कुरा उठायो भनेर । अमूर्त तथा भावनात्मक राष्ट्रियताको कुरा मात्र नभएर राष्ट्रलाई आर्थिक÷वित्तिय घाटा पर्ने नैं भएर राष्ट्रघातको चर्चा गर्दा असहिष्णु प्रतिकृया जनाउनु औपनिवेसिक बौद्धिकता हो । यिनले भारतीयले लगानि गरेको आयोजनाको बिजुली भारत निकासी निर्विकल्प मान्छन् । तर चीनले लगानि गर्ने पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाको बिजुली चीन नलग्ने हुनाले यिनको निर्विकल्पता स्खलित भएकोछ ।
कोहि बुद्धिजीवि “भारतले आफ्नो लगानि सुरक्षित गर्न आवश्यक सुरक्षा आफैले गर्नुपर्ने पस्ताव पेश गर्नसक्छ । शक्ति राष्ट्रहरुद्वारा यस्ता प्रस्ताव राख्नुलाई अस्वाभाविक भन्ने गरिंदैन” भनेर सार्वभौम नेपालको भूभागमा भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मीको उपस्थिति स्वीकार्य ठान्छन् भने कोहि नेपालमा भुटान मोडेलमा जलबिद्युत विकास गर्ने पैरबी गर्छन, भुटानले जस्तै परराष्ट्र तथा प्रतिरक्षा मामिला भारतलाई बुझाएर भएपनि । अर्काथरी त नेपाली सेनाको भरण पोषणको जिम्मा भारतलाई दिएर भएपनि जलबिद्युत विकास गर्नुपर्ने मान्यता राख्छन् । अझ अर्को तप्का जलबिद्युत विकासमा सार्वभौमसत्ता बाधक हुनुहुन्न भन्छन्, अर्थात सार्वभौमसत्ता गुमाएर भएपनि जलबिद्युत विकास गर्नुपर्ने ! यस्तोमा भारतले नेपालको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहनको आकांक्षा, अभिलाषा, अपेक्षा राख्नु आश्चर्यजनक होइन ।
उपयुक्त दोहन पद्धति
जसरी कुखुराको फुलको परिकार खान फुटाउनै पर्छ, त्यस्तै जलश्रोतबाट लाभान्वित हुन डुबान तथा बिस्थापन जस्ता दुष्प्रभावलाई आत्मसात गर्नैपर्छ । तर दुष्प्रभाव सबै नेपालमा र लाभ अन्यत्र हुने औपनिबेसिक दोहन पद्धति उपयुक्त हुन्न । नेपालमा थोरै दुष्प्रभाव पारेर धेरै नेपालीले र नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रले लाभ लिने गरेर नेपालको जलश्रोतको दोहन गरिनुपर्छ । नेपालको जलश्रोत दोहन गरेर उत्पादित बिजुली नेपालको औद्योगिकरणमा उपयोग गरिनुपर्छ र पेट्रोलियम पदार्थ बिस्थापन तथा उर्जा सुरक्षाको लागि समेत उच्च स्तरमा बिद्युतिकरण गर्नुपर्छ ।
मध्ययुगिन दोहन पद्धति
अर्को मुलुकको विकासको लागि आफ्नो मुलुकको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको उत्खनन्÷दोहन गर्नुलाई औपनिवेसिक दोहन भनिन्छ । भारत लगायतका उपनिबेसहरु स्वतंत्र नहुन्जेल यस्तो मध्ययुगिन पद्धतिमा दोहन हुन्थ्यो र उपनिबेसहरुको अर्थतन्त्र समृद्ध÷सम्पन्न भएको उदाहरण छैन । प्राकृतिक श्रोत आफ्नै देशको हितमा उपयोग गर्ने मुलुकहरु भने समृद्ध÷सम्पन्न छन् ।
१९२० मा महाकाली नदीमा शारदा बाँध निर्माण गरेर नेपालको जलश्रोतको औपनिबेसिक दोहन प्रारम्भ गरिएकोमा १९५० पछि कोशी तथा गण्डक सन्धीहरु अन्तर्गत बाँधहरु निर्मित भएर औपनिवेसिक दोहनले निरन्तरता पायो । यी आयोजनाको उद्देश्य बाढी नियन्त्रण, सिंचाई तथा बिद्युत उत्पादन हो । तर बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाईबाट नेपाल लाभान्वित हुन्न (नभएकोमा आश्चर्यचकित हुन आवश्यक पनि छैन) किनभने यी भारतमा बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाइको लागि निर्माण भएकोहो । तर डुबान र बिस्थापनको समस्या नेपालले भोगेर बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाइको लाभ भारतको पोल्टामा पार्नु जलश्रोतको औपनिबेसिक दोहन उत्कृष्ट नमूना हो । नेपालमा बिनास गरेर भारतलाई लाभ ।
महाकाली सन्धी अन्तर्गत पंचेश्वर आयोजनामा पनि औपनिबेसिक दोहनको प्रयास हुैदंछ । आयोजनाको जलाशयको लागि आवश्यक जमिन मध्ये ४५ प्रतिशत नेपालमा डुबाएर त्यसैको अनुपातमा स्थानिय बासिन्दा बिस्थापित हुन्छन् तर सिंचाईबाट भारत अत्यधिक लाभान्वित हुन्छ (नेपालमा ९३ हजार हेक्टरमा सिंचाई हुन्छ तर भारतमा १६ लाख हेक्टरमा) भने बाढी नियन्त्रणबाट पूर्णतः भारत लाभान्वित हुन्छ ।
जलबिद्युतको औपनिबेसिक दोहन
नेपालमा हजारौं मेगावाट बिजुली उत्पादन गर्न सकिन्छ, तर नेपालीहरु दशकौं देखि लोडसेडिंगको मारमा छन भने आधा जनसंख्याको बिजुलीमा पहुंच छैन । बिजुलीको अभावमा औद्योगिकरण नभएकोले बरोजगार युवायुवति बाध्यताबस् बिदेश पलायन हुन्छन, आर्थिक मात्र होइन, यौन शोषणमा पनि पर्छन र अझ मानव बेचबिखनको शिकार सम्म हुन्छन् । तर बिजुली भारत निकासी गर्ने गरेर अरुण तेश्रो, माथिल्लो कर्णाली, लिखु, आदि जलबिद्युत आयोजनाहरुको लाईसेन्सहरु दिइन्छ । नेपालमा औद्योगिकरण तथा रोजगारी श्रृजना गर्न बिजुलीको व्यवस्था गरिन्न । औपनिबेसिक दोहनको यो अर्को रुप हो ।
भारतीय दृष्टिकोणबाट यस्तो दोहन
भारतमा बिनास (डुबानमा तथा बिस्थापन) गरेर भएपनि भारतमै विकास (बाढी नियन्त्रण तथा सिंचाई) गर्नु स्वाभाविक हो । तर नेपालमा बिनास गरेर निर्मित बाँधबाट भारतमा विकास गर्नु भारतीय हिसाबले प्राकृतिक श्रोतको दोहनको उत्कृष्ट पद्धति हो । दुष्प्रभाव (बिनास) जत्ति नेपालमा अनि लाभ (विकास) जत्ति भारतमा । यो पद्धतिलाई किन औपनिवेसिक दोहन भनिन्छ भन्ने आफै स्पष्ट हुन्छ ।
बेलायत जस्ता साम्राज्यबादी मुलुकहरुले भारत लगायतका उपनिवेशमा यहि पद्धतिमा प्राकृतिक श्रोतको दोहन गरेर आफू समृद्धिशाली बने भने यो पद्धतिसमेतको बिरोधमा क्रान्तीको लहर चलेकोले, दृष्टान्ततः कहिल्यै घाम नअस्ताउने भनिएको साम्राज्यबादी शक्ती संयुक्त अधिराज्यका केहि टापुमा खुम्चिएकोछ । अहिले छिमेकी मुलुकहरुप्रति भारतको यहि रवैया छ । भारत संरक्षित राज्य भुटानको परराष्ट्र तथा प्रतिरक्षा मामिला आफ्नो मातहतमा भएकैले भुटानको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहन हुनुमा कुनै आश्चर्य छैन । तर सार्वभौम मुलुक नेपालको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहन हुनु दुखःद हो ।
औपनिबेसिक बौद्धिकता
भारतले नेपाललाई कहिल्यै पनि उपनिवेश त के संरक्षित राज्य सम्म पनि भन्ने आंट गरेको छैन । तर १९५० को सन्धी अन्तर्गत विशेष सम्बन्धको जामा पहि¥याएर नेपालको प्राकृतिक श्रोतमा हालिमुहालि गर्ने अभिलाषा तथा आंकाक्षा राखेकैछ । नेपालको जलश्रोतमा भारतको असीमित पहुंचको प्रत्याभूतिको शर्तमा १९९० को जनआन्दोलनलाई मत्थर पार्न सहयोग गर्न खोजेकोमा तत्कालिन राजाले बरु आप्mनै जनतालाई सार्वभौम बनाएर भारतीय महत्वाकांक्षामा तुषारापात गरे ।
बरु जनआन्दोलनबाट स्थापित कृष्णप्रसाद भट्टराईको अन्तरिम सरकारले भारतीय नाकाबन्दी खुलाउने क्रममा नेपालको नदी नालालाई दिल्लीमा “साझा” घोषणा गर्नपुगे । तर आम निर्वाचनमा प्रधानमन्त्री भट्टराई पराजित भएकोले त्यसलाइर्, शौभाग्यबस्, औपचारिकता दिने काम हुनसकेन । त्यस्तै २००९ मे महिनामा प्रधानमन्त्री पदबाट राजिनामा गर्ने अवस्था आउंदा प्रचण्डलाई नेपालको जलश्रोतमाथि भारतको पनि हक लाग्ने अवधारणा मानेको भए राजिनामा गर्न नपर्ने स्थिति बनाउने आश्वासन दिइएको थियो । तर प्रचण्डले राजिनामा गरेर जलश्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहनको बिपक्षमा आफूलाई खडा गरे ।
तर कतिपय बुद्धिजीवि, राजनीतिकर्मी, कर्मचारीतन्त्र, व्यापारी, बैंक तथा वित्तिय संस्थाका संचालकहरुलाई प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेशिक दोहन स्वीकार्य देखिन्छ र यसको बिपक्षमा उभिनेलाई विकास बिरोधीको बिल्ला भिराएर नवसाम्राज्यबादको तावेदारी गर्ने गरेको देखिन्छ । यो तप्काले घरमा बत्ति बाल्दा सडक उज्यालो हुनेसंग जलाशययुक्त आयोजनाको तल्लो तटीय लाभलाई तुलना गरेर बौद्धिक दरिद्रता प्रदर्शन गर्छन, नेपालमा बिनास गरेर भारतलाई लाभान्वित गर्ने प्रपञ्च रच्छन् ।
विश्व बैंक, एशियाली बिकास बैंक तथा कतिपय बैदेशिक तथा स्वदेशी गैर सरकारी संस्था पनि बिनास जति नेपालमा र छिमेकि मुलुकको बिकास हुनेगरेर प्राकृतिक श्रोतको दोहनको पैरबी गरेर प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिबेसिक दोहनमा सघाउंछन् ।
आयोजना विशेष कार्यान्वयन हुने कुरा संचार माध्यममा संप्रेषण भएपछि त्यसबाट नेपालको स्वार्थ सम्बद्र्धन हुन्छ कि हुन्न भनेर विश्लेष्ण गर्दा यो तप्काले चित्त दुखाउंछ, आयोजना बन्नै लाग्दा राष्ट्रघातको कुरा उठायो भनेर । अमूर्त तथा भावनात्मक राष्ट्रियताको कुरा मात्र नभएर राष्ट्रलाई आर्थिक÷वित्तिय घाटा पर्ने नैं भएर राष्ट्रघातको चर्चा गर्दा असहिष्णु प्रतिकृया जनाउनु औपनिवेसिक बौद्धिकता हो । यिनले भारतीयले लगानि गरेको आयोजनाको बिजुली भारत निकासी निर्विकल्प मान्छन् । तर चीनले लगानि गर्ने पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाको बिजुली चीन नलग्ने हुनाले यिनको निर्विकल्पता स्खलित भएकोछ ।
कोहि बुद्धिजीवि “भारतले आफ्नो लगानि सुरक्षित गर्न आवश्यक सुरक्षा आफैले गर्नुपर्ने पस्ताव पेश गर्नसक्छ । शक्ति राष्ट्रहरुद्वारा यस्ता प्रस्ताव राख्नुलाई अस्वाभाविक भन्ने गरिंदैन” भनेर सार्वभौम नेपालको भूभागमा भारतीय सुरक्षाकर्मीको उपस्थिति स्वीकार्य ठान्छन् भने कोहि नेपालमा भुटान मोडेलमा जलबिद्युत विकास गर्ने पैरबी गर्छन, भुटानले जस्तै परराष्ट्र तथा प्रतिरक्षा मामिला भारतलाई बुझाएर भएपनि । अर्काथरी त नेपाली सेनाको भरण पोषणको जिम्मा भारतलाई दिएर भएपनि जलबिद्युत विकास गर्नुपर्ने मान्यता राख्छन् । अझ अर्को तप्का जलबिद्युत विकासमा सार्वभौमसत्ता बाधक हुनुहुन्न भन्छन्, अर्थात सार्वभौमसत्ता गुमाएर भएपनि जलबिद्युत विकास गर्नुपर्ने ! यस्तोमा भारतले नेपालको प्राकृतिक श्रोतको औपनिवेसिक दोहनको आकांक्षा, अभिलाषा, अपेक्षा राख्नु आश्चर्यजनक होइन ।
उपयुक्त दोहन पद्धति
जसरी कुखुराको फुलको परिकार खान फुटाउनै पर्छ, त्यस्तै जलश्रोतबाट लाभान्वित हुन डुबान तथा बिस्थापन जस्ता दुष्प्रभावलाई आत्मसात गर्नैपर्छ । तर दुष्प्रभाव सबै नेपालमा र लाभ अन्यत्र हुने औपनिबेसिक दोहन पद्धति उपयुक्त हुन्न । नेपालमा थोरै दुष्प्रभाव पारेर धेरै नेपालीले र नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रले लाभ लिने गरेर नेपालको जलश्रोतको दोहन गरिनुपर्छ । नेपालको जलश्रोत दोहन गरेर उत्पादित बिजुली नेपालको औद्योगिकरणमा उपयोग गरिनुपर्छ र पेट्रोलियम पदार्थ बिस्थापन तथा उर्जा सुरक्षाको लागि समेत उच्च स्तरमा बिद्युतिकरण गर्नुपर्छ ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
मिलाप मासिकको वर्ष ३ अंक ४ मा प्रकाशित
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Load Shedding Mitigation Measures Lacks Efficacy
Nepal Electricity Authority
has projected 18 hours of load shedding in coming dry season while the care
taker PM Bhattarai, looking after the portfolio of Energy Ministry, has committed
to limit it to 10 hours and announced certain mitigation measures.
One of them is curbing
leakages. The deficit this dry season will be in the range of 900 MW (installed
capacity generating around 250 MW whereas projected peak demand is 1163 MW)
while system loss that theoretically could be reduced is less than 40 MW (about
15% of generation) reducing load shedding by a small fraction. However, it will
require huge investment in system up-gradation and strengthening of
transmission and distribution network which is not something that could be
accomplished for coming dry season; not even next dry season. Reduction of
nontechnical loss will not make
more electricity available as those “stealing” electricity will start to pay once
they are “caught”; not stop using electricity.
GoN also plans to set up 80
MW diesel plant for projected deficit of 900 MW; like a drop in the ocean. Rough
calculation indicates that it will cost about Rs 20 billion/year in diesel for
operation around the year (without accounting for depreciation, interest, lubricants,
repairs and maintenance, etc.). This amount is sufficient to build hydropower
plants of over 130 MW (assuming initial investment of Rs 150 million/MW).
Meaning, just one year’s fuel cost of 80 MW will “buy” 130 MW hydropower plant
with the potential economic life of 25 years. If the life of diesel plant is ten
years, then 80 MW diesel plant will burn up diesel worth Rs 200 billion (at
current price of diesel) which is sufficient to buy hydropower project with 1,300
MW installed capacity.
Further, as diesel costs Rs.
97/liter which can produce 3.5 units, electricity will cost about Rs 35/unit. Since
consumers will not be able to afford it, NEA, already projected to incur a net loss
of Rs 10 billion this year, will suffer additional loss of over Rs 15 billion;
Rs 25 billion in one year. If such loss is defrayed by government grant, it would
force reduction in the budget under other heads. For instance, operating the
plant for one year will cost 2,000 km in terms of new road to a nation lacking in
infrastructure adversely impacting rural people majority of who are below
poverty line. Furthermore, as only one fourth of the population has access to
electricity, it will amount to subsidizing the people with access to
electricity (urban rich) at the cost of the people without access to the
electricity (rural poor).
The idea of diesel plant
comes from the people who believe that “costly power is better than no power,”
attributing high cost to “un-served energy.” Indian government too allowed
Enron to build powerplant in Dhabol, Maharashtra subscribing to that concept only
to realize afterwards that “no power is better than costly power” when it was
already late. The rest is history.
The government seems to think
that diesel plant will start generating electricity as soon as decision is
made. As diesel plants entail adverse environmental impacts like noise
pollution, GHG emission, excessive vibration, etc. EIA is mandatory, requiring
about 6 months (no one in right mind would allow a diesel plant to be located
in her/his neighborhood). And placing order, getting shipped, erection at site,
connecting to grid, etc. will take about 18 to 24 months. We will be lucky if
diesel plants will start generating electricity for dry season of 2014 AD. In
view of all of the above, setting up diesel plant manifests the height of
foolishness.
There is also plan to import
200 MW electricity from India forgetting that UP and Bihar are suffering energy
crisis (people in certain areas of UP get electricity every 20-day for a few
hours!) and depending on India is like a poor begging from a pauper.
Historically too India has
proved to be unreliable source. After PTC India, Bihar State Electricity Board,
etc. had executed documentation to export 30 MW during the tenure of
'Prachanda' as PM, the process was aborted as External Affairs Ministry of
India objected to it in May 2009, culminating in PM Prachanda’s resignation
(people, unaware of the fact, ascribe the resignation to the then CoAS, Katwal).
Now, without any formal agreement in place, only verbal commitment was,
reportedly, made by Indian PM during NAM summit in Tehran, there is no
guarantee.
The government is also
planning to reduce the working days to five days. PM Krishna Prasad Bhattarai had
also declared five days week to reduce expenditure on utilities, petroleum
product, etc. But the expenditures didn’t decline, including on electricity,
while citizenry suffered and both productivity and production of the manpower
diminished. Therefore, by adding a day to the weekend, load shedding hours will
not decline. Conversely, if 7-day weekend is declared (shut down all
industries, educational institutions, government and nongovernment offices for
the whole week) the load shedding can easily be reduced to zero. But this will
take Nepal back to medieval ages which no one in right mind would choose.
There is no magical solution
for the dry season of 2013 except belt tightening. However, cost effective way forward
lies in water resources (where Nepal enjoys competitive and comparative
advantage). There are a number of hydropower projects in the pipeline which can
be completed within 18 to 24 months, if the construction is to be mechanized at
the higher plane (construction of Khudi project took only 18 months).
Therefore, it will be substantially cheaper if hydropower projects are offered Rs
10/unit on the condition that electricity is generated within 2 years.
It is very disheartening to
see PM Bhattarai, who talks a lot about mitigating load shedding problem in
Nepal, determined to export power from Upper Karnali
(900 MW), Arun III (900 MW), Tamakoshi III (650 MW) and Upper Marsyangdi (600
MW), notwithstanding the public opposition (writ petitions are pending in the
Supreme Court about the first 2). It is sheer foolishness for a country
starved for power, dreaming of exporting power.
Nepal is facing energy crisis
even under suppressed economic growth scenario (no power for industrialization,
impelling youth to migrate for employment). Nepal will need 5,000 MW in 5 years
to attain normal economic growth (NEA’s load forecast is based on suppressed
growth) and higher quantum to attain accelerated economic growth; common dream
of PM Bhattarai and this scribe.
Two things should be
remembered. This is no negation of foreign direct investment. As long as
electricity is used for the benefit of Nepal who invests is irrelevant.
Secondly, electricity is unique because it cannot be stored; must be consumed simultaneously
with its generation in real time. Therefore, electricity generated, if not
consumed domestically has to be exported immediately; otherwise it will be spilled. Besides, so far only a few
plants have been built with domestic funding but electricity has not been exported
to Norway from Khimti, nor to Japan from Kulekhani. Neither are there plans to
export power from Chameliya to Korea or to China from West Seti. Meaning, it is
foolhardy to say that the electricity has to be exported to the country to
which the investor belongs.
Nepal government should adopt
a policy to implement as many hydropower projects as possible with domestic
investment so that benefit from investment linkage will accrue to Nepal’s
economy; but shouldn’t preclude foreign investment as long as electricity
generated is availed to Nepal. Secondly, Nepal should allow projects to be
implemented by the investor/s (domestic or foreign) that will generate the
electricity at the lowest cost, expeditiously. Nepal should purchase all such
power (at lowest possible price) and electrify the nation massively (not only
for lighting, but to industrialize, electrify transportation, energize agriculture
sector which will help us attain food, water and energy security) and export
the remaining at tariff comparable to what Nepal is importing at; as PTC India does;
not allow a developer/investor to export directly at rock bottom tariff. West
Seti project is excellent example. Originally envisaged as an export oriented project,
the license was cancelled subsequent to immense and unrelenting public
pressure; I was one of the few in the forefront. Now Chinese is building for
Nepal’s need and the fact that it will be implemented as a multipurpose project
is the icing on the cake.
Private
investors have discovered that investment in electricity generation is
lucrative. However, they are constrained by lack of infrastructure (transmission
network and access road) in which it is not feasible for them to invest. Private
sector indeed does have comparative advantage in building power plants from the
perspective of time and cost (all projects built by NEA, including Chilime,
have incurred time and cost overrun). Therefore, NEA should focus on
transmission network and if constrained by financial considerations, it should,
to use an old euphemism, “beg, borrow or steal”.
Ratna Sansar Shrestha. fca
Published
in Spotlight Newsmagazine: Vol 6 No 11 of November 30, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Subject: RE: President's call under Article 38(1) of Interim Constitution
November 26, 2012 4:48
To: 'Dipak Gyawali'; 'Surya Dhungel'; 'Hari Sharma'; 'Rajendra Dahal'; 'Lalit Basnet'
Cc: 'Mohan Lohani'
Dipak jee
A close look at the denouement so far does indeed indicate that
the whole thing was orchestrated by Munis from Muglan and rest were merely
pawns including Gyanendra (who was also a target of the machination of south
block) who didn’t know which courtier of his rendered sincere/faithful advice
and same is true even now.
I am apprehensive that the whole shenanigans is to prime this
unfortunate country, due to political instability, for foreign intervention.
From my perspective, and I am sure you too will not disagree with me, the most
important thing for us now is to ensure that the things don’t start snowballing
down the precipice such that an excuse is presented in a silver platter for
annexation. I am becoming highly disturbed and alarmed now a days because I am
meeting one too many so called intellectuals who are starting to plead to
replicate “prosperity” of Bhutan, or even Sikkim, in Nepal and are citing
extant political instability as a raison d’être; same as Kazi Lhendup Dorjee
did in Sikkim before its annexation.
Jai hos!
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst
From: Dipak Gyawali
[mailto:dipakgyawali@ntc.net.np]
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:19
To: 'Ratna Sansar Shrestha'; 'Surya Dhungel'; 'Hari Sharma'; 'Rajendra Dahal'; 'Lalit Basnet'
Cc: 'Mohan Lohani'
Subject: RE: President's call under Article 38(1) of Interim Constitution.
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:19
To: 'Ratna Sansar Shrestha'; 'Surya Dhungel'; 'Hari Sharma'; 'Rajendra Dahal'; 'Lalit Basnet'
Cc: 'Mohan Lohani'
Subject: RE: President's call under Article 38(1) of Interim Constitution.
Oh, Come On, Ratna Sansarji!!
Would that not have made him
Loktantrick Gyanendra??!!
There used to be a phrase, I
believe popularized by my dear cousin Kanak during those days of demonizing
Gyanendra and lionizing Baburam (under of course the self-confessed tutelage of
the Rishi-Munis of Mughlan-Bharatkhanda), called “creeping coup”. If you ask
me, this looks very much like it, of course creeping much slower because of
lack of “traditional legitimacy” of the new interim head-of-state. I am
sincerely coming around to the view that the whole circus since 2005 has been
participated in by people (in Nepal) who have only a vague understanding of
what a head-of-state is what are the position’s duties and inherent residual
powers. That adventurism of the 12-point deal of 2005 has now come to haunt
these jokers. But then it suits the Leninbaadi bhatkau-baadis fine: everything
is going on as per their script!
Jai Hos!
DipakG
Saturday, November 24, 2012
President's call under Article 38(1) of Interim Constitution.
What president did yesterday was too
little too late. Simply because no consensus would be reached without BRB and
his cronies agreeing to it and they are unlikely to agree to any “consensus”
that will evict from the position they are in. They will continue to higgle-haggle,
dillydally till the time for budget for next fiscal year by when president will
be forced to promulgate another budget ordinance and so on and so forth.
He should have taken this step on or
around 15th Jestha (almost 6 months back) instead of promulgating
all those ordinances including one that will ensure remuneration and perquisites
to himself when he demits his present office. With him promulgating full budget
he will no more be able to refuse to promulgate any ordinance, including
nonessential ones from now onwards.
I will be highly surprised if BRB and
his cronies were to agree to a “consensus” that will force them out of their
plum position of power and pelf. If they do that then I would have to review my
opinion of them and consider that they too are concerned for our motherland.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Perpetuation of state capture made possible by budget ordinance
November 22, 2012 20:07
To: 'Mohan Lohani'
Cc: 'SPS dhungel'; 'lalit_gulmi@yahoo.com'; 'dahal61@gmail.com'; 'juhang@gmail.com'; Dipak Gyawali
Subject: RE: Budget ordinance
The scenario is panning out just like that. He has already “played” into the hands of care taker government by promulgating budget ordinance, hence become collaborator to state capture.
Even care taker PM’s speech broadcast today confirms that. He is not going to vacate as long as other parties don’t agree to his terms and his terms include ethnocentric state restructuring in the name of federalism, which will not and should not be acceptable to other parties.
Therefore, this gives care taker PM liberty to send every so often ordinances to the president and which will be promptly promulgated. After president promulgating budget ordinance he has lost both constitutional and moral right to not to accept other ordinances. So we should not be surprised that the other ordinances that are pending with president are promulgated very soon.
In this manner, care taker PM will await other parties to surrender to his terms and until then ordinances will keep on coming without which even president’s kitchen will stay cold (चुलो बल्दैन). Therefore, just to keep fire burning in the kitchens of people like the presidents, budgets by ordinances will have to be promulgated one after another.
I am surprised that president didn’t even worry how will history judge him!
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com
From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 18:37
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: SPS dhungel
Subject: Re: Budget ordinance
The President will be a collaborator if the ordinance issued or endorsed by him is going to perpeuate the BRB govt. for an indefinite period through the much abused word'capture of state power'
MPL
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: 'Mohan Lohani'
Cc: 'SPS dhungel'; lalit_gulmi@yahoo.com; dahal61@gmail.com; juhang@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 5:58 AM
Subject: RE: Budget ordinance
Dear Dr Lohani
Unfortunately, the president ended up playing the role of a collaborator in the state capture by BRB and his cronies. He is aiding them in the rule by ordinance. Posterity will certainly judge him; I just hope not too harshly.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com
From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:43
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: SPS dhungel; lalit_gulmi@yahoo.com; dahal61@gmail.com; juhang@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Budget ordinance
Dear Ratna Sansarji,
We all understand your concern.The Rt.Hon'ble President ,despite his repeated calls to the major parties to reach consensus on a package including the budget, had to endorse the budget .In my opinion, it is still not too late for the President to invoke Article 38(1) of the Interim Constitution and set a deadline for the formation of a national consensus govt failing which the period of uncertainty will constinue .The opposition is so piqued at the moment that it will not sit for some time to agree on a date for the forthcoming elections scheduled to take place in Baisakh next year.In other words, a consensus govt is the need of the hour and the President has a big role to play in facilitating the formation of such a govt.I think the President is equally concerned about the prolonged transition and the longer it continues, the more the political crisis will deepen which is not at all conducive for peace and stability.
All the best and regds,
MP Lohani
To: 'Mohan Lohani'
Cc: 'SPS dhungel'; 'lalit_gulmi@yahoo.com'; 'dahal61@gmail.com'; 'juhang@gmail.com'; Dipak Gyawali
Subject: RE: Budget ordinance
The scenario is panning out just like that. He has already “played” into the hands of care taker government by promulgating budget ordinance, hence become collaborator to state capture.
Even care taker PM’s speech broadcast today confirms that. He is not going to vacate as long as other parties don’t agree to his terms and his terms include ethnocentric state restructuring in the name of federalism, which will not and should not be acceptable to other parties.
Therefore, this gives care taker PM liberty to send every so often ordinances to the president and which will be promptly promulgated. After president promulgating budget ordinance he has lost both constitutional and moral right to not to accept other ordinances. So we should not be surprised that the other ordinances that are pending with president are promulgated very soon.
In this manner, care taker PM will await other parties to surrender to his terms and until then ordinances will keep on coming without which even president’s kitchen will stay cold (चुलो बल्दैन). Therefore, just to keep fire burning in the kitchens of people like the presidents, budgets by ordinances will have to be promulgated one after another.
I am surprised that president didn’t even worry how will history judge him!
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com
From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 18:37
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: SPS dhungel
Subject: Re: Budget ordinance
The President will be a collaborator if the ordinance issued or endorsed by him is going to perpeuate the BRB govt. for an indefinite period through the much abused word'capture of state power'
MPL
From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: 'Mohan Lohani'
Cc: 'SPS dhungel'
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 5:58 AM
Subject: RE: Budget ordinance
Dear Dr Lohani
Unfortunately, the president ended up playing the role of a collaborator in the state capture by BRB and his cronies. He is aiding them in the rule by ordinance. Posterity will certainly judge him; I just hope not too harshly.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst
www.RatnaSansar.com
From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:43
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Cc: SPS dhungel; lalit_gulmi@yahoo.com; dahal61@gmail.com; juhang@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Budget ordinance
Dear Ratna Sansarji,
We all understand your concern.The Rt.Hon'ble President ,despite his repeated calls to the major parties to reach consensus on a package including the budget, had to endorse the budget .In my opinion, it is still not too late for the President to invoke Article 38(1) of the Interim Constitution and set a deadline for the formation of a national consensus govt failing which the period of uncertainty will constinue .The opposition is so piqued at the moment that it will not sit for some time to agree on a date for the forthcoming elections scheduled to take place in Baisakh next year.In other words, a consensus govt is the need of the hour and the President has a big role to play in facilitating the formation of such a govt.I think the President is equally concerned about the prolonged transition and the longer it continues, the more the political crisis will deepen which is not at all conducive for peace and stability.
All the best and regds,
MP Lohani
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Bearing Burnt of Load shedding
Load
shedding has been a problem in Nepal since 90s and successive governments have
failed to address it effectively, though Nepal is very rich in the water resources
which can easily generate hydropower in necessary quantum. It has been ascribed
to lack of political stability and paucity of funding. But lack of vision with
regards to water resources and its multidimensional uses is the crux of the
problem. Therefore, Nepali people will be facing the problem, which is projected
to be 19 hrs a day in this dry season by Nepal Electricity Authority and at
this rate people will be getting electricity for a few hours about once a week
within a decade.
Prime Minister Dr Baburam
Bhattarai, who is also looking after the portfolio of Energy Ministry, is
relying on various measures to limit the load shedding to 10 hours in this dry
season. One of the measures envisaged for the purpose is curbing technical and
other leakages, which is not an unimportant issue, though. However, it should
be remembered that electricity deficit in this dry season will be in the range
of 900 MW (installed capacity of about 750 MW will generate around 250 MW whereas
peak demand projected by NEA is 1163 MW) while total system loss that could be
theoretically reduced in the dry season is less than 40 MW (about 15% of
generation) which will reduce load shedding only by a small fraction. However, it
will require huge investment in system up-gradation, strengthening, etc.
including of transmission and distribution network and it is, in any case, not
something that could be accomplished in time for this dry season; not even next
dry season. Moreover, reduction of nontechnical loss will not make more
electricity available in the system as those “stealing” electricity at the
moment will only start to pay once they are “caught”. The only difference it
will make is: so far those that are not paying for the electricity they are
consuming will have to start paying. Therefore, these will not have any
significant impact on the reduction of the energy crisis and load shedding
whatsoever.
The prime minister has also
put forward a plan to set up diesel plant to mitigate the problem. Is it
possible to set up the diesel plant to cover for electricity supply deficit of
around 900 MW? It is being said that a diesel plant with 25 MW installed capacity
will be set up. But 25 MW will be like a drop in the ocean and the deficit will
keep on increasing with the continuing increase in demand every year.
Further, rough calculation
shows that it will require 6 billion rupees a year in diesel for operation of
25 MW throughout the year (without accounting for other significant costs like
depreciation, interest, repairs and maintenance, etc.). With this amount a
hydropower plant of 40 MW can be built (assuming initial investment of 150
million rupees per MW); meaning just one year’s fuel cost of a 25 MW diesel
plant will “buy” 40 MW hydropower plant with the potential economic life of 25
years. If the life of diesel plant is ten years, then a 25 MW diesel plant will
burn up 60 billion rupees worth of diesel (at current price of diesel). Cost of
diesel for 10 years of 60 billion rupees is sufficient to build hydropower
project with 400 MW installed capacity. Therefore, the decision to set up
diesel plant lacks prudence.
Furthermore, currently the
price of diesel is Rs. 97 per liter and one liter of diesel can produce 3.5
units of electricity. In this backdrop even if the plant is operated in highly
efficient manner, it will cost about 35 rupees per unit of electricity. Who can
afford so expensive electricity? Nepal Electricity Authority will not be able
to pass on the cost to its consumers, in which case this institution, already projected
to incur a net loss of 10 billion rupees in current fiscal, will suffer
additional burden of operating prohibitively expensive diesel plant which will
increase the current fiscal year’s net loss by 50% and will further increase
with time.
The prime minister is even thinking
of providing grant for the purpose. What should be remembered is that it would
force him to reduce the budget under other heads. For instance, operating the
plant for one year will cost 600 km in terms of new road to a nation lacking in
infrastructure which will adversely impact the rural people majority of whom
are below poverty line.
Moreover, as only one fourth
of the total population has access to electricity, it will amount to subsidizing
the people with access to electricity at the cost of the people without access
to the electricity. Had a 40 MW hydro electricity project been built instead of
burning 60 billion rupees worth of diesel, it would have increased the access
of people's to electricity in rural areas as well.
The idea of diesel plant
comes from the school of thought which believes that “costly power is better
than no power”; as they attribute very high cost to “un-served energy.” Indian
government allowed Enron to build a power plant in Dhabol, Maharashtra
subscribing following that very school of thought, only to realize afterwards
that “no power is better than costly power” when it was already late. The rest
is history.
In view of all of the above,
setting up diesel plant manifests the height of foolishness.
The prime minister has also
said that he will import 200 MW electricity to meet the current energy crisis.
However, even after import of 200 MW electricity from India, the remaining deficit
will still be 475 MW and keep on increasing every year. Besides, it should not
be forgotten that UP and Bihar in India are staggering from its own energy
crisis and depending on these for additional electricity is like a poor begging
from a pauper. People should also learn from the fact that Chief Minister of
Bihar Nitish Kumar reduced export to Nepal by 30 MW even in the wet season and further
reduced recently too. The intensity of energy crisis in these states of India
is higher than in Nepal (people in certain districts of Uttar Pradesh get electricity
every 20-day for a few hours). Therefore, it is not wise to depend on import
from that country which itself is facing energy crisis.
Historically too India has
proved to be an unreliable partner to mitigate load shedding in Nepal. After
PTC India, Bihar State Electricity Board, et al had agreed to export additional
30 MW electricity to Nepal during the tenure of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal
Dahal 'Prachanda' and all contracts/agreement were already signed, the whole
thing was aborted as External Affairs Ministry of India (“South Block”) objected
to it in May 2009, which eventually triggering PM Prachanda’s resignation
(people, not being aware of this fact, ascribe the resignation to Nepal’s the
then CoAS, Katwal). Now, we even do not have any formal agreement signed
between India and Nepal for the purpose. Only verbal commitment was,
reportedly, made by Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Sigh during the summit meeting
of non-alliance nations in Tehran. Hence, there is no guarantee that India will
provide 200 MW of electricity when she herself is grappling with energy crisis.
The government is also
planning to reduce the working days to five days to reduce the duration of load
shedding hours. I do not think that it is a smart move either; at the risk of
being tagged “negative”. The government of Prime Minster Krishna Prasad Bhattarai
had also declared two days holidays as an austerity measure (to reduce
expenditure on utilities, petroleum product, etc.). But the expenditures didn’t
decline, including on electricity consumption, as expected while citizenry
suffered due to long weekend and both productivity and production of the
manpower diminished. Because, people working in government agencies of Nepal are
not conscious about energy misuse and the need for conservation and efficiency.
Therefore, by adding a day to the weekend the intensity of energy crisis will
not be mitigated, load shedding hours will not go down.
Moreover, with each passing
day, the electricity demand will keep on increasing (also due to expansion of
distribution network in rural areas), further intensifying the crisis which
cannot be solved by lengthening the weekend. At this rate we will soon require
7-day weekend. Conversely, if the government is to close down all government
offices, all industries/factories, educational institutions, private sector
offices, including imposition of prohibition on high electricity consuming
equipments, then the load shedding can be brought down to a few hours or even
zero. But this will take Nepal back to medieval ages where no one in right mind
would like to go.
Today, the crisis has
worsened to such an extent that there is no immediate solution to load shedding
problem in Nepal. Till a few years back, even I used to suggest minimizing the
technical leakage, conserving electricity by using “CFL” bulbs, etc. to
mitigate energy crisis (after the likes of us campaigned on behalf of CFL, it
was finally implemented last year). However, now the crisis has intensified by
a magnitude and these measures will not make a dent on the crisis. So, we do
not have any immediate or short term measure except belt tightening for next
two winters and if my suggestion is implemented we don’t need to suffer load
shedding thereafter.
Even setting up diesel plants
will take 18 to 24 months (people talk almost as if the diesel plants will
start generating electricity as soon as a decision is made). A diesel plant
entails adverse environmental impacts like noise pollution, GHG emission, etc.
and before deciding to set up a plant an EIA will have to be conducted which
will take about 6 months (no one in right mind would allow a diesel plant to be
located in her/his neighborhood). Placing order, getting it shipped, erecting
it at site, connecting it to grid, etc. will also take some time. We will be
lucky if a diesel plants will start generating electricity for next dry season;
it will not be possible to have electricity from new diesel plants for this
winter at all.
The best way forward is to
exploit Nepal’s competitive and comparative advantage which is water resources.
There are a number of hydropower projects in the pipeline which can be
completed within 18 to 24 months, if the construction is to be mechanized at
the higher plane (Khudi project under BPC took only 18 months). Therefore, it
will be a lot cheaper than diesel plant if hydropower project developers are
offered 10 rupees a unit if they commit to start generating electricity within
2 years. This is the best option for Nepal under the circumstance, as we don’t
produce even a drop of petroleum product.
It is very disheartening to
see, Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai who talks a lot about mitigating load shedding
problem in Nepal, determined to export power. It is foolish for a country
starved for power, dreaming to export power. Therefore, if we are to build big
export oriented projects, it cannot solve the energy crisis faced by the
country today even under suppressed economic growth scenario. If the food
cooked in one’s household is fed to the neighbors the family will have to
starve.
Dr Bhattarai, rightly so,
dreams of attaining accelerated economic growth or double digit growth (I too
dream of it along with him) while we have yet to achieve normal economic
growth. Even if the demand projected by NEA is met (meaning “no load
shedding”), no industries will be operated at full capacity and no new
factories can be set up for lack of power. This is the suppressed economic
growth scenario. My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that Nepal needs
5,000 MW within 5 years in order for her to achieve normal economic growth
contrasted with NEA’s projection of 1640 MW for 2016/17 for suppressed economic
growth. To achieve double digit (accelerated economic) growth we will need more
than double of it.
Two things have to be
remembered in this respect. This does not mean that we should close our doors
to foreign direct investment. As long as the electricity is used for the
benefit of the country who is investing in which project does not matter.
Secondly, electricity as a commodity is unique in the sense that it cannot be
stored; must be consumed simultaneously with its production in real time.
Therefore, electricity produced in Nepal, if not consumed domestically has to
be exported in real time; otherwise it will be spilled. Besides, only a very
few plants have been built in Nepal with domestic funding and electricity is
not exported to Norway from Khimti, to Japan from Kulekhani. Nor are there
plans to export power from Chameliya to Korea or to China from West Seti. Meaning
it is foolhardy to say that simply because a foreign investor is investing in a
project, the electricity has to be exported to the country from where the
developer hails from.
All problems have solutions
and load shedding problem is not different. Nepal government should have a
policy to implement as many hydropower projects as possible with domestic
investment so that benefit from investment linkage will accrue to Nepal’s
economy; but shouldn’t preclude foreign investment as long as electricity
generated is availed for internal consumption. Secondly, Nepal should allow
projects to be implemented by the investor/s (domestic or foreign) that will
generate the electricity at the lowest cost. Nepal should purchase all such
power (at lowest possible price) and electrify the nation massively (not only
for lighting purposes, but to industrialize and electrify transportation which
will help us attain energy security) and export the remaining at premium price
comparable to the rate Nepal is paying to import power from PTC India. It must
be noted here that Nepal should export to enjoy the profit as PTC India exports
to Nepal not a developer in India. West Seti project is a good example from
this perspective. Originally envisaged as an export oriented project, the
license was cancelled last year subsequent to immense and unrelenting public
pressure; I was one of the few in the forefront. Now a Chinese developer is
going to build it to meet Nepal’s internal need and the fact that it will be
implemented as a multipurpose project is the icing on the cake.
Private
investors have discovered that investment in electricity generation is a
lucrative business. However, they are constrained by lack of infrastructure
like transmission network and access road. We have learnt that private sector,
indeed does have comparative advantage in building power plants both from the
perspective of time and cost (all projects built by NEA, including Chilime,
have incurred time and cost overrun). Therefore, NEA should launch a campaign
to build transmission network and if it is constrained by financial
considerations, then it should, to use an old euphemism, beg, borrow or steal
to build it. It will be difficult to attract private sector in this business.
A part of the
load shedding problem is attributable to construction delays. Implementation of
hydropower projects by NEA is fraught with both cost overrun and time overrun
risks as the experience shows. Therefore, the best use of national resource is
to have hydropower projects implemented by private sector that seems to be able
to implement projects effectively and efficiently both in terms of cost and
time (government and NEA should avoid these by signing long term power purchase
agreements with the developers at lowest possible tariff). Technical loss can
be significantly reduced by up to 7-8 percentage points by strengthening the
transmission network which will definitely help in reducing load shedding
duration.
Nepalese
policymakers and leaders must wake up from their slumber to solve this mammoth
crisis because Nepal has the prime resource needed to generate the electricity
- water. There is some comfort in the fact that Nepal has more than 6000 rivers
and majorities of them are capable to turn the turbine and generate
electricity. Being pessimist is a waste of time (we don’t have right to be pessimists),
so let us think from an optimistic point of view. But even so the picture is
not that rosy. It’s not that Nepal is running out of the solution. We have some
reliable and lasting solution but for this we have to have a vision of
accelerated economic growth and willpower to attain it for which it is of
utmost importance to understand that exporting power will not help Nepal attain
even suppressed economic growth. Power for industrialization that will generate
employment will only lead us to normal economic growth which will eventually
help us achieve double digit growth.
There is inherent
self contradiction in the professed aim of PM Bhattarai: he pays lip service to
mitigating Nepal’s energy crisis while trying to have export oriented projects
like Upper Karnali (900 MW), Arun III (900 MW), Tamakoshi III (650 MW) and
Upper Marsyangdi (600 MW) implemented, notwithstanding the public opposition to
it (I myself am fighting cases in the Supreme Court about the first 2 projects
– not against the projects but against the idea of exporting power from these
projects).
To conclude, in today's world
of blooming information communication technology, modern electronic equipment, etc.
to what extent this load shedding is allowing a Nepali to contribute should be
the matter of concern for every Nepali. Going back to dark ages with candles,
lantern, and kerosene light and firewood (three-fourth of the population is
still dependent on it), what legacy will we leave behind for generations to
come; every Nepali should contemplate this issue.
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Published in Vol 4, Issue 2 of
Greatway magazine based on conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)