But the main question that remains to be answered is whether the next government to be led by the left alliance will follow the first option or choose the third one

The future of the much-talked about 1,200-MW Budhigandaki Reservoir Hydropower Project is still uncertain as the government has yet to decide on which model the project should be developed. The uncertainty surfaced after the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government scrapped the deal reached with the China Gezhouba Group Corporation (CGGC) by his predecessor Pushpa Kamal Dahal. The Dahal-led government had chosen the Chinese company without any international bidding to build the project under the engineering, procurement, construction and financing (EPCF) model. It may also be recalled that even the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government in which CPN-Maoist Centre was a major ally till the latter formed an electoral alliance with the main opposition CPN-UML had also endorsed the deal. But it cancelled the deal after the two parliamentary committees directed the government to scrap it with the Chinese company, arguing that the Dahal-led government did not call an international bidding process while awarding such a big project involving a huge amount of money. After the deal was cancelled a cabinet meeting decided to hand over the project to NEA to build it in November and deputy prime minister and Minister for Energy Kamal Thapa also formed a panel led by NPC vice-chairman Swarnim Wagle to suggest the modality of building the project.

NPC vice-chairman Wagle on Monday submitted his report to minister Thapa with three options to be considered by the government. The first option is to build the hydel project on the Upper Tamakoshi model in which domestic resources have been mobilised to build it. The NEA, Employees Provident Fund, Nepal Telecom, Citizen Investment Trust, government, locals and general public have shares in the 456-MW Upper Tamakoshi project which is going to complete next year. The second option is to build the Budhigandaki project by the NEA itself borrowing loans from

the government, multinational donor agencies and Exim banks of other countries. The third option suggested by the Wagle panel is to build it through an international bidding under the EPCF. The government has also been raising Rs. five for every litre of petroleum product from the customs point for the Budhigandaki project and over Rs. 15 billion has been raised since 2016.

The first option suggested by the NPC panel seems to be the best going by the progress made on the Upper Tamakoshi Project. However, the Budhigandaki project is three times the Upper Tamakoshi project and it involves a huge amount of money. The NPC panel has said money can be raised from various domestic sources. The panel has said that Rs. 270 to Rs. 367 billion can be raised in 10 years which is enough to build the Budhigandaki project. It is also expected that various hydel projects which have already started operation can also contribute to the project, the feasibility study of which was carried out by Tractebel Engineering (France). But the main question that remains to be answered is that whether the next government to be led by the left alliance will follow the first option or choose the third one. Even if the next government opts to go for the third option it should call an international bidding before awarding it under EPCF model.

Weak enforcement

The Kathmandu Metropolitan City has fined 174 people this fiscal for littering. The fine amount goes up to 25,000 rupees. People are supposed to dispose of waste materials only through the home garbage collection service. The Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development had directed the municipalities to take stern action also against those throwing garbage through the windows of moving vehicles under the Solid Waste Management Act, 2011. The violation of this legal provision attracts a fine of up to Rs.50,000 or an imprisonment of up to three months or both.

The main problem with our law-enforcement authorities is not often the lack of legal powers. The root of the problem often lies in their lack of interest in implementing the laws and regulations. The number of litterbugs reported to have faced action is far too low to make the city clean. This is reflected in the litter scattered here and there on the city’s roads with impunity. This symbolic action should be followed by a no-tolerance approach to dealing with litterbugs.