INEXPENSIVE and plentifulHimalayan hydroelectric powerremains a dream, with Nepal's totalinstalled capacity standing at only250 MW. Most Nepalese lack electricity and those linked to the gridsuffer periodic power cuts. However,judging by a recent seminar inKathmandu on Cooperative Development of Himalayan WaterResources, turning the dream intoreality looks harder than envisaged.
Some speakers blamed India forthe slow pace of water developmentand a discussion of fiiture flows witnessed proponents of a high-tech,dash-for-growth policy clashing withthose favouring a bottom-up, capacity-building approach. There waswidespread agreement, however, onthe need for a more open attitude toscientific information and this wasrecommended at three of the fourworking sessions.
Many participants, particularlythose from Nepal, said a more genuinely cooperative approach onIndia's part would speed up the harnessing of hydroelectric power.
The strongest criticism of Indiacame from Bhini Subba, former director general of Bhutan's department ofpower. He urged India to stop treating projects in Nepal and Bhutan asif they were being planned as routineadditions to India's own utilities andcalled for an end to development ona project-by-project basis.
However, Kamala Prasad, distinguished visiting fellow at theInstitute of Rural Management inAnand, Gujarat, strongly defendedthe success of India's bilateral negotiations. He said a project-by-projectapproach had yielded good dividends. As India needed large quantities of water and was prepared to payfor it, Prasad added, it sought a technological, rather than political,approach. Prasad urged this shouldbe need-based water-sharing, insteadof "sterile insistence on waterrights".
Rajendra D Joshi of the Instituteof Engineering in Nepal called forrapid cooperative development ofresources in the region so as toenable Nepal to achieve an estimatedpotential of 83,000 MW a year, mainly for export to India, Bangladeshand Pakistan between 2010 and2055. On the other hand, BikashPandey, programme manager of theIntermediate Technology Group inNepal, proposed a trickle-upapproach.
Joshi envisaged Pakistan wouldfind power supplied by Nepal attractive after 2010, whereas hydroelectric power would be critical for Indiaafter about 2020 - when India's fossil fuels would probably be exhausted - and for Bangladesh, by 2035.
Pandey was more concerned withbuilding up capacity in Nepal itself,preferably by small private projects."If the option of developing hydroelectric power through local industry is lost," he commented, "it condemns urban Nepalese to escalatingelectricity prices and periodic powers4ortages on the grid, and will denyipral Nepalese access to electricp1pwer forever."
Pandey's analysis indicated thatenergy from large governmentschemes was 50 per cent moreexpensive than small (1,001-15,000'KW), mini (101-1,000 KW) and micro(94.5-100 KW) schemes. Instead, heargued, power generation should bedecentralised and handed over to theprivate sector, and local industryshould be involved in hydroelectricpower development.
- With further investment, he estimated, the local hydro industrycould grow at 15 per cent a year,doubling capacity within five years.Investments in electro-mechanicalequipment, associated industries andhumanpower would be of anunprecedented magnitude andPandey warned only such investmentcould enable Nepal to build the bighydroelectric plants that would beneeded in the next century.
Asked why both his and Joshi'sapproaches could not be adopted,Pandey replied that if Nepal wentahead with the planned Arun 111hydroelectric project at a cost ofUS $760 million, the governmentwould not be interested in developing micro-hydroelectric capability.Also warning against the hightech route to water resources development was Rishi Shah, member secretary of the Royal Nepal Academy ofScience and Technology (RONAST)."Mega-projects are in trouble aroundthe world," he commented, "Yet wefall into the trap of believing that bigis beautiful." And, added International Rivers Network presidentPhil Williams, "Big dams are reallyhydro-technical experiments. It willtake decades'to understand theresults."
Dipak Gyawali of the Royal NepalAcademy of Science and Technologyand Othmar Schwank from a Swissorganisation, INFRAS, in a jointpaper,ascribed the continuing conflict between Nepal and India to scientific uncertainties.
Comparing a Swiss-German project with the Indo-Nepali Tanakpurbarrage, they argue that a gooddatabase would have had an impacton the choice of technology andwould probably have dictated 1hatthe barrage be situated severalkilometres upstream from thechosen site.
Says Gyawali, "This poor state ofscience has meant that science doesnot lead decision-making but eventslead to scientific evaluation-after thefact, a sure recipe for having a perpetually disgruntled neighbour tolive with."
"Good science is also goodmanagement science," says the paper."The Swiss-German example provides for a German commissioner tosit on the management committee ofthe Swiss plant to ensure a properfunctioning of the power station andcorrect allocation of the mutuallyagreed benefits. The broad, state-level Tanakpur agreement has not yetcome to addressing these operationalissues."
Marcus Moench of the US PacificInstitute said his research intogroundwater in India showed figureswith little scientific certainty hadbeen used to capture funds. "Readyavailability of accurate, information isan important prerequisite for theemergence of management systems,"he commented.
Pleas for recognition of theimportance of accessible, sound datawere not confined to hydrology andgeology. Environmental and socialfactors have too often been undervalued in project assessment, severalspeakers said. As Jayanta Bandyopadhyay, a leading Himalayan ecologist, put it: "Sophisticated mathematics on power projects are, notbalanced by sophisticated socialengineering."