| Username |
Post |
| Biswo |
Posted
on 19-Oct-00 08:29 PM
>>When the World Bank, the major donor decided to
cancel its proposed loans, it did so on economic grounds.The World Bank, after all, is a bank, NOT
a charity organization.
Hi Ashu::
Though concurring to the object of your
statement,I think it would be useful if I
inform you that the front for world bank
cancellation of Arun was its policy
concerning indigenous people and environment
assessment in approving any project.
The world bank decided on Arun after its
formal inspection panel (email: PANEL @
worldbank.org, pic@worldbank.org) found that
the Nepalese government and the world bank
had not provided for adequate land
compensation and resettlement for the local
and indigenous people affected by the
project.The panel also noted that sufficient
environmental assessment was not done which
was contrary to the bank policy mentioned
in the first paragraph.
As for Shivakoti, a firebrand lawyer and
member of famous Arun Concerned Group of
those days, he could be remembered for his
relentless participation in scripting the
demise of the project.He filed a lawsuit
against the government in supreme court
and won the case there, forcing government
to make public all the relevant information
about the project.The World Bank Inspection
panel , which by regulation consults two
groups affected or likely to be affected from
the proposed project, consulted with his
group also.
I personally think the loss of Arun was the
loss for the whole country, and a gain for
some people.However, this is a moot point
and I welcome all the suggestion on this
topic.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 19-Oct-00 10:36 PM
Hi Biswo,
I think you are right.
Though reasons based on economics greatly
influenced WB's decision, there were other
important attendant reasons too (reasons
that you have noted here) that contributed to
the death of the Arun III ko proposal in
1994-95.
My own opinion is that the loss of Arun III at
that time IN THAT particular financial SHAPE (i.e.
with almost billion-dollar ko loans and taxpayers' money) was a GOOD thing for Nepal.
Private investments, with well-defined government
rules and regulations, are what that are needed
for Nepal ko bijuli bikas.
And if a recent cover story in the newspaper Nepali Times (see: www.nepalitimes.com) is to be believed, Nepal is currently AWASH with billions of rupees.
Indeed, my anecdotal impression is that this is a country with lots of money, but nowhere to invest.
This situation needs to be changed.
(One example: the price of similar real estate in Thamel is comparable to that in Upper East Side, Manhattan or Beacon Hill, Boston . . . just goddamn expensive.)
Nepalis with loads of money, especially those those
who can wait a few years on the returns of their investments, and Nepalis who can attract good, private international capital (such as Wall Street
investment bankers who -- gasp,choke :-) -- care
about Nepal) need to take a fresh look at Nepal's
hydropower sector as an area where private
investments can reap enormous rewards for all concerned.
oohi
"welcoming Arun III if it comes back through the private sector"
ashu
>Hi Ashu::
>
> Though concurring to the object of your
>statement,I think it would be useful if I
>inform you that the front for world bank
>cancellation of Arun was its policy
>concerning indigenous people and environment
>assessment in approving any project.
>
>
>The world bank decided on Arun after its
>formal inspection panel (email: PANEL @
>worldbank.org, pic@worldbank.org) found that
>the Nepalese government and the world bank
>had not provided for adequate land
>compensation and resettlement for the local
>and indigenous people affected by the
>project.The panel also noted that sufficient
>environmental assessment was not done which
>was contrary to the bank policy mentioned
>in the first paragraph.
>
>As for Shivakoti, a firebrand lawyer and
>member of famous Arun Concerned Group of
>those days, he could be remembered for his
>relentless participation in scripting the
>demise of the project.He filed a lawsuit
>against the government in supreme court
>and won the case there, forcing government
>to make public all the relevant information
>about the project.The World Bank Inspection
>panel , which by regulation consults two
>groups affected or likely to be affected
>from
>the proposed project, consulted with his
>group also.
>
>I personally think the loss of Arun was the
>loss for the whole country, and a gain for
>some people.However, this is a moot point
>and I welcome all the suggestion on this
>topic.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 20-Oct-00 12:11 AM
Is it true that a private organization is trying to
revive the Arun Project? I have even heard about
the company petitioning for survey license?
I think it is ok if some private organization starts
working on this project, while prime beneficiary being
Nepalese investors themselves.If people start financing
in such venturesome enterprises, probably the land
price will be down.
By the way, when the banks reduced the interest rate
sometimes ago in Nepal, the prime reason was also
cumulating deposits in their locker.Money is seemingly
Safe,after all? Even land prices are ,by comparision,
still capricious.
|
