राष्ट्रिय गौरबको आयोजना मानिएको १२ सय मेगावाट क्षमताको जलाशययुक्त बुढी गण्डकी जलबिद्युत आयोजना राजिनामा स्वीकृत भईसकेको मन्त्रीमंडलका उर्जा मन्त्री जनार्दन शर्माले चिनिया ठेकेदार कम्पनि चाइना गेजुवा ग्रुप कम्पनिका नेपाल प्रमुख (यो कम्पनीका महाप्रबन्धक हैन, न चीनका मन्त्री हुन्) इभान झिसिङ्गसंग जुन ४, १९७४ मा समझदारीपत्रमा हस्ताक्षर गरेर नेपाल सरकारको तर्फबाट निर्माण गर्ने जिम्मा लगाएपछि बिबाद चुलिएकोछ । यसरी हस्ताक्षर गर्दा मर्यादाक्रम नमिलेको कुराको बिबेचना गर्नु यो लेखको उद्देश्य होइन ।
प्रसंग राष्ट्रिय गौरबको
बिगत ५/७ वर्ष देखि केहि आयोजनाहरुलाई राष्ट्रिय गौरबको आयोजना नामकरण गर्ने गरिएकोछ । हरेक आमाबाबुले आफ्ना सन्तानलाई सुपुत्र सुपुत्री भनेकै हुन्छन् । तर सन्तानले गलत बाटो पछ्याएपछि सुपुत्र सुपुत्री कहलिन योग्य हुनुको साटो परिवारलाई नैं कलंकित पार्छन । बिबादको घेरामा परेपछि यस्ता आयोजनाले राष्ट्रिय गौरब कायम राख्छ, बढाउंछ कि घटाउंछ भन्ने कुराको सुनिश्चितता छैन, भविष्यकै गर्भमा छ । अझ कलंकित गर्ने सम्भावना बढ्दो छ ।
विधि र प्रकृया
बिद्युत ऐनको दफा ३५ मा “नेपाल सरकारले कुनै व्यक्ति वा संस्थासित करार गरी सोहि कारारमा उल्लेखित शर्तहरुको आधारमा बिद्युत उत्पादन, प्रसारण वा वितरण गर्न गराउन सक्नेछ” भन्ने व्यवस्था गरेकोछ र यहि व्यवस्थाको भर गरेर ठेकेदारलाई यस आयोजना सुम्पिएको छ । निश्चय नैं यो व्यवस्थाले सरकारलाई आयोजनाहरु निर्माणार्थ करार गर्ने अधिकार दिएकोछ । तर यस्तो अधिकार समग्रमा नेपालको स्वार्थ सम्बर्धन गर्न, नेपाललाई लाभान्वित गर्न प्रयोग गर्न पाईन्छ । तर स्वेच्छारीतापूर्वक, नेपाललाई घात/हानी/नोक्सानी हुने गरेर प्रयोग गर्न पाईन्न । ठेकेदार कम्पनीलाई यो आयोजना सुम्पिंदा नेपालको स्वार्थ कसरी सम्बर्धन हुन्छ, नेपाललाई के कति लाभ हुन्छ, के कसरी नेपाललाई हुनसक्ने के कस्ता जोखिम निराकरण गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने कुराको बिबेचना समेत गरिएकोछैन ।
विधि र प्रकृया भनेको बिरालो बाँधेर सराद्ध गरे जस्तो कर्मकाण्डी कृयाकलाप हैन । अहिले त कतिपयले सराद्ध गर्नुलाई नैं कर्मकाण्डी मानिसकेको अवस्थामा (एक व्यक्तिले अर्पण÷तर्पण गरको पिण्ड पितृले रस्वादन गर्छ नैं भन्ने दसीप्रमाण नभएकोले) बिरालो बाँध्नु झन कर्मकाण्डी भन्दा बढी केहि होइन । तर इन्जिनियरिंगका विभिन्न विधा मध्ये अप्राविधिक विधा वित्तिय इन्जिनियरिंगको हिसाबले विधि र प्रकृयाको महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका हुन्छ, यसलाई कर्मकाण्डी मान्नु ठूलो भूल÷त्रुटी हो । विधि र प्रकृया पु¥याएको भए निर्माण लागत, निर्माण अवधि र बैदेशिक मुद्रा ऋणको सांवा ब्याजको दायीत्व समेतमा मितव्ययिता हासिल गर्ने सम्भावना हुन्थ्यो, जुन अहिले गुमेको छ ।
अनुमानित लागत
बताईए यस आयोजनाको अनुमानित लागत २ सय ५९ अर्ब रुपैया हो । अनुमानित लागतको हिसाब गर्दा ठेकेदारलाई राम्रो मुनाफा, धेरै शिरोभार खर्च, थुप्रै भैपरिआउने (कन्टिन्जेन्सी) खर्चको अतिरिक्त राजनीतिकर्मी, कर्मचारीतन्त्र, दलालहरु आदिलाई शुभलाभ गराउने रकमको व्यवस्था पनि थपिएको हुन्छ ।
यथार्थ निर्माण लागत पारदर्शि तरिकाबाट प्रतिश्पर्धा गराउंदामात्र यकिन हुन्छ । अनुमानित लागत भन्दा कम लागतमा आयोजना निर्माण भएका धेरै उदाहरणहरु छन् । जस्तै बिद्युत प्राधिकरणले निर्माण गरेको काली गण्डकी ए जलबिद्युत आयोजना, जसको अनुमानित लागत ४५ करोड अमेरिकि डलर भएकोमा ३५ करोड अमेरिकि डलरमा नैं निर्माण सम्पन्न भएको हो (त्यो पनि सिभिलतर्फको काम सांढे ७ अर्ब रुपैया जतिमा सम्पन्न हुनुपर्नेमा १२ अर्ब रुपैया भन्दा बढी लाग्दा पनि अनुमानित लागत भन्दा कममा निर्माण सम्पन्न भएको हो) । अर्थात अनुमानित भन्दा २२ प्रतिशत कममा निर्माण सम्पन्न भएबाट अनुमानित लागतको हिसाब कति हद सम्म बढाएर गरिन्छ भन्ने प्रष्टिन्छ ।
लागत अनुमान हिसाब गर्दा अनुमानित लागत बढी देखाएर पछि कम लागतमा आयोजनाको निर्माण सम्पन्न गरियो भनेर श्याबासी लिनको लागि पनि अनुमानित लागत बढी देखाउने चलन छ । प्राधिकरणले नैं निर्माण गरको मस्र्यांग्दी आयोजनाको अनुमानित लागत ३२ करोड ३३ लाख अमेरिकि डलर भएकोमा २४ करोड ९८ लाख अमेरिकि डलरमा (झण्ड २५ प्रतिशत कममा) निर्माण सम्पन्न भएको पनि स्मरणिय छ ।
अर्को उदाहरण हो, निजि क्षेत्रले निर्माण गरेको भोटेकोशी जलबिद्युत आयोजना, जसको अनुमानित लागत १० करोड अमेरिकि डलर कायम गरेर सोहि आधारमा नेपाल बिद्युत प्राधिकरणसंग बिद्युत खरिद सम्झौता गरियो, प्रति युनिट बिजुलीको दर ६ अमेरिकि सेन्टमा । तर अन्तरराष्ट्रिय बोलपत्र आह्वान गर्दा ४ करोड ८० लाख अमेरिकि डलरमा निर्माण गर्ने गरेर ठेक्का गरियो । यो उदाहरणबाट पनि अनुमानित लागत भन्दा ५२ प्रतिशत कममा निर्माण सम्पन्न गर्ने गरेर ठेक्का दिईएकोबाट अनुमानित लागत के कसरी बढाईन्छ भन्ने स्पष्ट हुन्छ । (चाख लाग्दो कुरा के छ भने यो आयोजना निर्माण गर्ने ठेक्का पनि गेजुवाले नैं पाएको थियो) । साथै यो उदाहरणमा यथार्थमा ५२ प्रतिशत कम लागत लाग्नेमा बढी लागत अनुमान देखाएर बिद्युत प्राधिकरणलाई उच्च दरमा बिजुली बेच्नकै लागि कसरी अनुमानित लागत बढाईन्छ भन्ने कुरा पनि प्रष्टिन्छ ।
जे भने पनि बुढी गण्डकी आयोजना पनि अन्तरराष्ट्रिय बोलपत्र आह्वान गरेर प्रतिश्पर्धा गराएको भए २ सय अर्ब रुपैया भन्दा कममा निर्माण सम्पन्न भएर देश लाभान्वित हुनसक्नेमा ठेकेदारलाई विधि प्रकृया अवलम्बन नगरिकैन सोझै सुम्पिएकोले नेपाललाई घाटा/हानी हुने अवस्थामा पु¥याईएकोछ ।
लागत बृद्धि
के कति लागतमा ठेकेदारले यो आयोजना निर्माण सम्पन्न गर्नुपर्ने भन्ने कुरा समझदारीपत्रमा खुलाईएको छैन, मौन छ । यो मौनताले गर्दा लागत अनियन्त्रितरुपमा बृद्धि हुनसक्ने अवस्था पनि श्रृजना भएकोछ । मध्य मस्र्यांग्दी आयोजनाको लागत १३ अर्ब रुपैया मात्र कायम गरेर ठेक्कामा दिईएकोमा ठेकेदारले २७ अर्ब रुपैया भुक्तानि लिईसकेर पनि दशौं अर्ब रुपैया थप भुक्तानि पाउनुपर्ने दावी गरिरहेकोछ । बिद्युत प्राधिकरणले निर्माण गराएको धेरैजसो आयोजनाहरुको यथार्थ निर्माण लागत अनुमानित लागत भन्दा धेरै बढी छ, ठेक्का बन्दोबस्तीमा कमजोरीको कारणले । जलाशययुक्त कुलेखानी आयोजना अर्काे उदाहरण हो जसको अनुमानित लागत ६ करोड ८० लाख अमेरिकि डलर भएकोमा १२ करोड ३६ लाख अमेरिकि डलर निर्माणमा खर्च भयो । यहि कुराको पुरावृत्ति बुढी गण्डकीमा पनि हुने सम्भावना उच्च बनाईयो ।
विधि प्रकृया अपनाएर के कति लागतमा निर्माण सम्पन्न गनुपर्ने भन्ने कुरा यकिन तथा सुनिश्चित नगरेरै बुढी गण्डकी आयोजना ठेकेदारलाई सुम्पेकोले लागत बृद्धिमा कुनै नियन्त्रण नहुने अवस्था श्रृजना गरेकोछ सरकारले हतारमा आयोजना सम्बन्धमा समझदारीपत्रमा दस्तखत गरेकोले । स्मरणिय छ, जति लागत बढ्यो ठेकेदारलाई त्यति नैं फाइदा हुन्छ भने नेपाललाई घाटामाथि घाटा हुने हुन्छ ।
निर्माण सम्पन्न गर्नु पर्ने अवधि
समझदारीपत्रमा कति समयमा यो आयोजनाको निर्माण सम्पन्न हुनुपर्ने हो, खुलाईएको छैन । जति ढिलो भयो ठेकेदारलाई त्यति बढी फाइदा हुन्छ भने नेपालको घाटा चुलिंदैजान्छ । ढिलाईको कारणले निर्माण लागत बढ्नाको साथै ऋणमा लाग्ने व्याज समेत बढ्नाले दोहरै घाटा हुन्छ । अझ यो आयोजनाले बिक्री गरिने बिजुली उत्पादन गर्ने हुनाले यो आयोजनाको निर्माण १ वर्ष ढिलो भयो वार्षिक ४ अर्ब २५ करोड युनिट बिजुलीबाट नेपाल बंचित हुन्छ जसको प्रति युनिट दर ५ रुपैया मात्रैले हिसाब गर्दा पनि नेपालले गुमाउने रु २२ अर्ब २५ करोड हुन्छ । यसरी समयमा निर्माण सम्पन्न नभएमा नेपाललाई तेहरो घाटा हुन्छ ।
कुलेखानी २१ महिना ढिलो निर्माण सम्पन्न हुंदा १ करोड ५० लाख अमेरिकि डलर गुम्यो भने मस्र्यांग्दी ७ महिना ढिलो हुंदा १ करोड ७ लाख अमेरिकि डलर, काली गण्डकी ए १८ महिना ढिलो हुंदा १० करोड अमेरिकि डलर र मध्य मस्र्यांग्दी ५० महिना ढिलो हुंदा १३ करोड अमेरिकि डलर गुमेको इतिहांस छ । यहि ठेकेदारको कारणले चिलिम ४० महिना ढिलो निर्माण भएको थियो भने चमेलिया, त्रिशुली आदि कति ढिलो भए भन्ने कुरा सार्वजनिक भईसकेकैछ र अझ कति थप समयमा सम्पन्न हुन्छ भन्ने कुरा निश्चित छैन ।
वित्तिय व्यवस्थापन
नेपाल सरकारले आवश्यक रकमको जोहो गर्ने जिम्मा पनि ठेकेदारलाई नैं दिएको छ । जसको सिधा अर्थ हुन्छ के कति ब्याज दरमा ऋण लिने भन्ने निर्णय गर्ने अधिकार पनि ठेकेदारलाई नैं सुम्पियो । ऋण लिंदा पनि पारदर्शीरुपमा प्रतिश्पर्धा गराएको भए सस्तो दरको ब्याजमा ऋण पाउने अवसर पनि गुमेकोछ । यस अतिरिक्त ठेकेदारले ऋणदातासंग सांठगांठ गरेर जति ब्याज दर तोक्यो त्यहि नेपालले व्यहोर्नपर्ने अवस्था पनि श्रृजना भएकोछ ।
ठेकेदारले ऋण चीनमा लिने भनिएकोछ । चिनिया संस्थाहरुसंग लिईने ऋण अवश्य पनि चिनिया मुद्रामा हुनेछ नेपाली मुद्रामा हैन । नेपाली मुद्रा कमजोर हुनाले ब्याज जतिसुकै सस्तो भएपनि साँवाको भार नैं नेपालले थेग्ने नसक्ने हुनसक्छ । उदाहरणको लागि सन् १९९५ मा १ अमेरिकि डलरको ५० रुपैया पथ्र्यो भने अहिले १ सय बढी भईसकेकोछ । अर्थात १९९५ मा १ करोड अमेरिकि डलर ऋण लिएको भए हातमा ५० करोड रुपैया पथ्र्यो तर अहिले तिर्ने बेलामा सांवा मात्र पनि १ सय करोड रुपैया बढी हुन्छ । हतारमा यस तर्फ पनि ध्यान गएको/दिएको पाईन्न ।
वित्तिय इन्जिनियरिंग
पारदर्शीतरिकाबाट प्रतिश्पर्धा गरेर विधि प्रकृया पु¥याउंदा कति लागत भित्र कति समयमा निर्माण सम्पन्न गर्ने भन्नेको अतिरिक्त लागत र निर्माण अवधि पनि कसै गरेर बृद्धि नहुने सुनिश्चितता कायम गर्न सकिन्छ । नेपाल सरकार तथा बिद्युत प्राधिकरण लगायतका सरकारी निकायहरुले निमार्ण गरेगराएका अधिकांश पूर्वाधार संरचनाहरुको न अनुमानित मात्र हैन ठेक रकममा पनि सम्पन्न भएकामात्र छैनन्, तोकिएको अवधिमा सम्पन्न भएकापनि छैन । यसबाट पाठ सिकेर सयौं अर्ब पर्ने यो आयोजनाको ठेक्का बन्दोबस्त गरेको भए नेपालको हितको समुचित रक्षा हुथ्यो ।
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
२०७४ भदौ ६ गतेको नागरिकमा प्रकाशित
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Saturday, August 19, 2017
The Upper Karnali Project imbroglio: Frustrations in speaking truth to power in democratic Nepal
An article authored by Mr Bihari Krishna Shrestha
Lately, the Upper Karnali Hydel Project is once again in the news after a delegation composed of local people, senior politicians, and hydropower experts (including this author) submitted a memorandum to PM Sher Bahadur Deuba who is scheduled to go on al visit to India in the near future. While the memo demands for the scrapping of the project agreement with the Indian company, GMR, this is not the first time that such a representation has been made to the power that be on the issue. The first time the problems with the proposed project was aired was in the form of an "Open Letter" addressed to the then PM Sushil Koirala and the India's PM Modi on the eve of the latter's visit to Nepal in November 2014. The second time such representation was made was to the then PM Mr. Prachanda in August 2016 on the eve of his visit to India.
The project agreement itself was signed a full decade ago between the Government of Nepal and the Indian company, GMR, in 2008 that has since been dragging on, although not because of the sustained local protests and representations to the powers that be, but mainly due to GMR's continued inability to line up necessary finances even as Nepal's Investment Board continued to extending the deadlines for financial closure in favour of the company.
The case against the project in its present form is simple and straightforward. Firstly, the project, when awarded to the GMR, was designed only for 300 MW which was later augmented, under controversial circumstance, to 900 MW that would require the impounding of the water for 18 to 21 hours a day and release it during the next 3 to 6 hours to generate power at the new capacity. However, its consequence would be deadly for the people downstream. It would wipe out several major irrigation infrastructures downstream such as Rani and Zamaria in Bardia and Kallali districts that have been traditionally built, owned and managed by the people themselves and have the combined capacity to irrigate 75,000 ha of agricultural land which would rendered useless due to the daily flooding. Even more vital is the issue that the construction of the 900 MW project would ruin the Upper Karnali site which, as per a World Bank study, has the potential to generate 4,180 MW at one of the lowest cost due to its highly advantageous topography. It would be a multipurpose reservoir-based project that would contribute to flood control and make available vast quantities of regulated water. Given these extraordinary advantages, the site itself is known among the national and international hydro experts as "the jewel in the crown" and the second most advantageous worldwide. While vast proportion of Nepal's population remains deprived of access to electricity that, according to latest Economic Survey, accounts for only about 4 percent in the composition of energy sources used by the people, lately, the GMR had also broached the possibility that the power would after all be sold to third country, Bangladesh. Clearly, GMR's interest in doing the project is to make a profit even as India remains uninterested in the use of the power in India.
One reason that is believed to be at the centre of GMR's failure to line up financing is that the project cost is extravagantly inflated at 139 billion rupees--double of what experts believe should have been the reasonable cost-- to which Rs. 25 billion have lately been added, thus bringing the cumulative cost to a whopping Rs. 164 billion.
The mystery and controversy surrounding the project and the deal has remained heightened by the fact that its Project Development Agreement (PDA) was kept secret from the public as well as Parliament and the Supreme Court by the Investment Board under the alibi that it was a "commercial agreement" until its hand was forced to make it public by the National Information Commission in response to a plea by an activist. Once out in the open, the PDA only confirmed the worst fears regarding the project which was conveyed through Open Letter 2 to the then PM Dahal and India's PM Narendra Modi on the eve of the former's visit to India. The Letter maintained that the PDA did not "serve the interests of either the government or of the peoples of both Nepal and India, but only that of an (unduly) profit making body."
By any stretch of imagination, the UKP in its present form should never have been taken up in the first place. But the fact remains that GMR was able to bag the project with considerable ease and Nepal's Investment Board has continued to grant extensions on the deadlines for financial foreclosure even as the Indian company's capacity and intent seemed increasingly questionable.
While the issue has been brought to the notice of Nepal's and India's PMs on more than one occasion, GMR and the PDA clearly do not seem to have come under any threat, suggesting that the company has cultivated constituencies of trust and confidence at important quarters in the power structures of both Nepal and India. At one point, a Nepal PM, scheduled to meet his Indian counterpart shortly, upon being briefed about the possible negative repercussions of Indian involvement in some major projects in Nepal was known to have cried out in exasperation that he clearly did not have anything to offer to India.
As persistent as the stakeholders have been for saving one of the most precious gifts of Nature, the UKP hydropower site, PM Sher Bahadur Deuba's rather tentative assurance that the PDA could be reviewed has been the best ever yet. This experience once again brings to light the ironies of Nepal's more than half a century long democracy: it is very difficult to speak and sell truth to power.
Lately, the Upper Karnali Hydel Project is once again in the news after a delegation composed of local people, senior politicians, and hydropower experts (including this author) submitted a memorandum to PM Sher Bahadur Deuba who is scheduled to go on al visit to India in the near future. While the memo demands for the scrapping of the project agreement with the Indian company, GMR, this is not the first time that such a representation has been made to the power that be on the issue. The first time the problems with the proposed project was aired was in the form of an "Open Letter" addressed to the then PM Sushil Koirala and the India's PM Modi on the eve of the latter's visit to Nepal in November 2014. The second time such representation was made was to the then PM Mr. Prachanda in August 2016 on the eve of his visit to India.
The project agreement itself was signed a full decade ago between the Government of Nepal and the Indian company, GMR, in 2008 that has since been dragging on, although not because of the sustained local protests and representations to the powers that be, but mainly due to GMR's continued inability to line up necessary finances even as Nepal's Investment Board continued to extending the deadlines for financial closure in favour of the company.
The case against the project in its present form is simple and straightforward. Firstly, the project, when awarded to the GMR, was designed only for 300 MW which was later augmented, under controversial circumstance, to 900 MW that would require the impounding of the water for 18 to 21 hours a day and release it during the next 3 to 6 hours to generate power at the new capacity. However, its consequence would be deadly for the people downstream. It would wipe out several major irrigation infrastructures downstream such as Rani and Zamaria in Bardia and Kallali districts that have been traditionally built, owned and managed by the people themselves and have the combined capacity to irrigate 75,000 ha of agricultural land which would rendered useless due to the daily flooding. Even more vital is the issue that the construction of the 900 MW project would ruin the Upper Karnali site which, as per a World Bank study, has the potential to generate 4,180 MW at one of the lowest cost due to its highly advantageous topography. It would be a multipurpose reservoir-based project that would contribute to flood control and make available vast quantities of regulated water. Given these extraordinary advantages, the site itself is known among the national and international hydro experts as "the jewel in the crown" and the second most advantageous worldwide. While vast proportion of Nepal's population remains deprived of access to electricity that, according to latest Economic Survey, accounts for only about 4 percent in the composition of energy sources used by the people, lately, the GMR had also broached the possibility that the power would after all be sold to third country, Bangladesh. Clearly, GMR's interest in doing the project is to make a profit even as India remains uninterested in the use of the power in India.
One reason that is believed to be at the centre of GMR's failure to line up financing is that the project cost is extravagantly inflated at 139 billion rupees--double of what experts believe should have been the reasonable cost-- to which Rs. 25 billion have lately been added, thus bringing the cumulative cost to a whopping Rs. 164 billion.
The mystery and controversy surrounding the project and the deal has remained heightened by the fact that its Project Development Agreement (PDA) was kept secret from the public as well as Parliament and the Supreme Court by the Investment Board under the alibi that it was a "commercial agreement" until its hand was forced to make it public by the National Information Commission in response to a plea by an activist. Once out in the open, the PDA only confirmed the worst fears regarding the project which was conveyed through Open Letter 2 to the then PM Dahal and India's PM Narendra Modi on the eve of the former's visit to India. The Letter maintained that the PDA did not "serve the interests of either the government or of the peoples of both Nepal and India, but only that of an (unduly) profit making body."
By any stretch of imagination, the UKP in its present form should never have been taken up in the first place. But the fact remains that GMR was able to bag the project with considerable ease and Nepal's Investment Board has continued to grant extensions on the deadlines for financial foreclosure even as the Indian company's capacity and intent seemed increasingly questionable.
While the issue has been brought to the notice of Nepal's and India's PMs on more than one occasion, GMR and the PDA clearly do not seem to have come under any threat, suggesting that the company has cultivated constituencies of trust and confidence at important quarters in the power structures of both Nepal and India. At one point, a Nepal PM, scheduled to meet his Indian counterpart shortly, upon being briefed about the possible negative repercussions of Indian involvement in some major projects in Nepal was known to have cried out in exasperation that he clearly did not have anything to offer to India.
As persistent as the stakeholders have been for saving one of the most precious gifts of Nature, the UKP hydropower site, PM Sher Bahadur Deuba's rather tentative assurance that the PDA could be reviewed has been the best ever yet. This experience once again brings to light the ironies of Nepal's more than half a century long democracy: it is very difficult to speak and sell truth to power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)