[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l NEPAL HYDRPOWER CHALLENGES:



Source: Kathmandu Post, March 24, 2000

Challenges in managing water resources

 By Rajendra K Kshatri

 The evident synergy between Nepal’s abundant hydropower potential and
the acute deficit of energy in
 India presents a significant opportunity to reach an understanding for
the planning and development of
 water resources not only for their mutual benefit but also among
riparian stokeholders of the South
 Asian region. Reaching a workable understanding of mutual benefit may
also involve the consideration of
 a broader agenda of subregional economic development cooperation, as in
the Greater Mekong
 subregion.

 Despite the perceived plentitude together with spectacular benefits,
the achievement is poor because
 the past and recent initiatives have not operated properly. Therefore,
problems arise in sharing benefits
 between Nepal and India. Following the restoration of democracy in the
Kingdom, our politicians have
 said on several occasions that a required degree of comfort has been
experienced while dealing with
 India in sharing the anticipated bonanza on the development of
Indo-Nepal relationship for economic
 cooperation concerning, inter alia, hydroelectric power. However, the
visible crisis of good faith is
 deemed as usual. To address the special conditions of partnership, it
is necessary that they must first
 understand their unique problem and then use their ingenuity and
cooperative spirit to create new
 methods of overcoming them.

 In this context, it is worth noting that instead of a zero sum game, in
which one can gain only at the
 cost of the other, a "win-win" approach should be sought. The time has
arrived for a fundamental
 rethinking of the strategy for cooperation with the avowed aim to
realize the potentials. Perhaps
 toughest of all, the major challenge that Nepal faces today is to make
democracy work for ordinary
 people. We must acknowledge the importance of it without viewing it as
mechanical device for
 development.

 Perhaps the most important conclusion we can draw from the Indo-Nepal
relations is that there is a
 shortage of information and synthesized knowledge of the opportunities
and constraints to the
 development and management of water resources. This includes the
benefits of alternative development
 strategies. It is necessary for both countries to commit themselves to
ushering Indo-Nepal relations into
 a new era of cooperation. This has to be based on the generally
accepted principles of international law,
 the tenets of non-alignment and the principles of equity and mutual
respect to each other’s vital national
 interest. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, put this point with
great clarity in a speech at the
 annual session of UN General Assembly in New York last year: "A new,
broader definition of national
 interest is needed in the new century, which would induce states to
find greater unity in the pursuit of
 common goals and values. In the context of many challenges facing
humanity today, the collective
 interest is the national interest."

 As water is being considered as the "blue gold" to gain foreign
currency in Nepal, the prospects of major
 economic benefits, no doubt, lie on its prudent development. However,
the subject is prompting more
 controversy on whether it goes for local sources first for small
projects or foreign investment for bigger
 projects. Over the past few years this big question has dogged our
politicians and planners. Those
 differences indeed are often recognized as one of the root causes of
delay in implementing projects.
 How justified such fears are is difficult to judge despite the presence
of the clear state policy to mobilize
 the available waters. In fact, there seems a less bullish view to
capitalize the potential of it in a timely
 and appropriate manner. The upshot is that the government has been
practically confused and there is
 something mushy about the policies as a whole. All this leads towards a
miserable conjecture. What is
 needed to spice up the mush is some indication of how the government
would govern better at dealing
 with the problem to explore a better way for solution.

 It is quite surprising that the government continues to focus on short
term solutions without adequate
 consideration for resource utilization and conservation. This gives the
impression that our planners are
 generally starved of their ideas to suggest at which important
development strategies get hammered out.
 A careful attention is needed to bridge the huge gulfs between needs,
efforts and return. In fact, there is
 reason to worry more about government policy and attitude than about
the ills of restructuring the
 movement. The policy side has not been much better.

 There are plenty of reasons to believe that international water
resources offers a unique opportunity for
 the promotion of international amity, since there are now plenty of
examples of good practices available
 internationally. Looking at the patterns of Indo-Nepal cooperation, the
reason has been continued
 economic nationalism, combined with sharply different views about water
allocation and benefit sharing.
 Still there is enough opportunity to reconcile their interest to make a
breakthrough to economic
 prosperity. The establishment of the Joint Commission between the two
countries has provided an
 imminent forum to negotiate or discuss on the projects of their common
interest. However, the
 mismanagement to start talks holds back the development.

 In an effort to develop water resources, sharp differences between
nations over their respective rights to
 use water is not an unusual phenomenon. Each side in a negotiation may
see only the merits of its
 case, and only the faults of the other sides. The difference itself
exists because it exists in their
 thinking. Perhaps our perceptions are likely to be one-sided and we may
not be listening or
 communicating adequately or vice-versa. Dealing with substantive
problems and maintaining a good
 working relationship need not be conflicting goals if parties are
committed and psychologically prepared
 to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits. The inability of
both Nepal and India to reconcile
 their compelling interest in the case of water resources development
can be viewed only as a tragedy. In
 fact, there is a slow acquiescence to fate.

 What is crucial, at this stage, is the projection for a far sighted
vision. For this it would require
 recognition, which must come one very moment, that good neighbourliness
is good international politics
 and indeed may well be the only way to assure the internal economic
progress of the two countries.
 Keeping up the pace of rapprochement for better utilization of water
resources, however, could be harder
 since it requires a "champion" from both sides of the border to start
the process of dialogue for better
 economic ties.