socio-economic impacts of hydropower development: a case...

Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2019-WinterPeer Reviewed

Year: 2019 Month: December Volume: 7ISSN: 2350-8914 (Online), 2350-8906 (Print)

Socio-Economic Impacts of Hydropower Development: A caseStudy of Budhigandaki Hydropower Affected Darbungphaat andMajhitaar Villages of Gorkha and Dhading DistrictsSushil Kumar Gyawali

Department of Architecture, MSESSD Program, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, NepalCorresponding Email: [email protected]

AbstractNepal is a country which is gifted with abundant water resources, and the perennial rivers flowing throughsteep gradient really provides ideal conditions for the development of hydro power. However, Nepal beingbestowed with tremendous power potential, it has only managed harnessing very less power. Nepal hadfaced serious power deficit (load shedding) for last many years. The scenario of the power deficit used tobe so worse that at winter seasons it could go even 16-18 hrs. a day. Rainfall in Nepal is heavily monsooncentered i.e. nearly 80% of the total rainfall in Nepal occurs only within the four months (june-september).This fact indicates the need of storage based hydropower which could provide power even in the dry seasons.Storage based hydropower projects have their influence/inundation over a very large area, thereby resultingstrong socio-economic complexities. So, in this scenario, this study aims to find out various socio-economicimpacts related to hydropower development in Nepal. So, to meet the objective of the study, a case studyhas been conducted at Darbungphaat and Majhitaar Villages of Gorkha and Dhading District Respectively.The case study is mainly focused on impact evaluation of various parameters such as Land Acquisition andCompensation, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Livelihood etc.

KeywordsHydropower, Land acquisition, Resettlement, Livelihood, Earthquake

1. Introduction

Nepal is a country which is gifted with abundantwater resources, and the perennial rivers flowingthrough steep gradient really provides ideal conditionsfor the development of hydro power. The estimatedtheoretical power potential is approximately83000MW, of which 43000MW is estimated to beeconomically feasible (HIDCL, 2015). However,Nepal being bestowed with tremendous powerpotential, it has managed harnessing very less power.Nepal had faced serious power deficit (load shedding)for last many years. The scenario of the power deficitused to be so worse that at winter seasons it could goeven 16-18 hrs. a day. However, recently, due to somemanagement strategies, the power deficit seems lower.But this is the case of suppressed demand. So, onlythe management strategies couldn’t be the permanentsolution, rather there would be no other options thanto optimize the water resources. Rainfall in Nepal isheavily monsoon centered i.e. nearly 80% of the total

rainfall in Nepal occurs only within the four months(june-september). So, this figure indicates that toempower the hydropower sector, it is necessary tocapture the monsoon rainfall and utilize back in thedry seasons. So, there need large storage basedhydropower projects. Storage based hydropowerprojects have their influence/inundation over a verylarge area, thereby resulting strong socio-economiccomplexities. Socio-economic issues are crucial andcritical for a hydropower project to kick off.Generally, Communities are centered around riversand other bodies of water because they rely on thewater as a resource. A dam interrupting a river leadsto unpredictable social impact. So, regarding thesocio-economic and policy issues/challenges in thehydropower development, this project aims studyingsocio-economic factors in case of storage basedBudigandaki hydropower project.

Pages: 65 – 77

Socio-Economic Impacts of Hydropower Development: A case Study of Budhigandaki HydropowerAffected Darbungphaat and Majhitaar Villages of Gorkha and Dhading Districts

2. Rationale

Mostly, during the development of project, the initialphase (the preparatory/beginning phase) which haslarge influence/impacts over all the phases of theproject, generally gets overlooked. Only the resultpart or the technical part gets highlighted, and in turnthe project either gets terminated or gets delayed dueto the lack of earlier prediction of potential riskmeasures. Similarly, in the case of hydropowerprojects, generally the technical part is onlyhighlighted. The Socio-economic and cultural aspectswhich have large influence over the project i.e. frombeginning of the project and continues together withinthe implementation phase too, often seems to getoverlooked. Mostly, the trend is to takesocio-economic impacts as a set of unavoidableeffects, instead of risks which could beavoided/reduced. The trend to overlook thesocio-economic impacts may be due to the tread offmentality, i.e. positive impacts would outsize thenegative ones, but it is not always the scenario that thebenefitted and adverse affected groups are same. Thebackground above states the need of the researchwhich will access the socio-economic impacts of theBudigandaki hydropower reservoir inundation.

3. Problem Statement

In order of moving towards the goal of Energyself-dependence and supply of surplus energy, NepalGovernment has proposed a storage based mega hydroproject i.e., Budi Gandaki Hydro project. While thestorage based hydro projects have multipurposebenefits, alongside, it also triggers socio–economicissues/challenges with its large influence/inundationarea. Hence to evaluate and offset/mitigate thesocio-economic impacts of hydro development, theresearch is to be conducted.

4. Objectives

Objectives of the project are to study varioussocio-economic and policy issues/challenges thatappears during the hydropower construction in Nepal.And in order to analyze over these issues,Darbungphant and Majhitaar villages of Gorkha andDhading districts respectively, which are theBudigandaki reservoir affected villages, have beenchosen.

4.1 Specific Objective

More specifically, the study focus on the issues ofrehabilitation/ resettlement, land acquisition/compensation and livelihood, in relation to thehydropower development.

5. Literature Review

There lie numerous socio-economic issues/challengesin hydropower development. Michael M. Cernea,through his paper, “Social Impacts and Social Risks inHydropower Programs: Preemptive Planning andCounter-risk Measures”, has classified the adversesocial impacts of hydropower development in fourcategories as follows.

i. Forced population displacement andimpoverishment

ii. Boomtown formation around majorconstructions

iii. Downstream unanticipated changes inagro-production systems

iv. Loss of cultural heritage assets

The writer has claimed that the single most complexand difficult among these four categories of impacts isclearly the first, the forced displacement andrelocation of reservoir populations. The writer hasfurther described each one of them as follow.

5.1 Boom Town Effect

The sudden inflow of large armies of constructionworkers and related groups within small, oftentraditional and remote local communities causesocial/health/economic and cultural problems at thelocal community level. For instance, Syagga andOlima (1996) have described the following“boomtown” type of impacts caused by a damconstruction in the Kenya Third Nairobi as “Thesudden socio-economic changes in the environmentcaused an increase in marital problems, increasedimmorality, and teenage pregnancies. It was reportedthat the dam construction had a major effect on theschool going pupils. During the peak constructionperiod many girls were lured out of school, becamepregnant, and dropped out of school.” The writer,Michael M. Cernea, further claims that Local labor issubstituted by over-importation of massive labor fromOutside areas, causing unnecessary social and

66

Proceedings of IOE Graduate Conference, 2019-Winter

financial complications and also surreptitiouslyreducing the long term social sustainability of dams.

5.2 Downstream Unanticipated SocialImpacts of Dams

Downstream impacts have been under-studied andoverlooked by dam planners, as well by the authors ofmany Environmental Assessments (EAs) and SocialAssessments (SAs) for projects that finance damconstruction (often because these assessments did nottake a basin-wide approach). (Cernea, 2004) .Downstream impacts can be serious in case of valleysin which agriculture has been historically based onrecurrence of natural and limited annual floods. Theseannual floods not only provide essential water, butbring rich nutrients in the silt they carry and deposit.And the local cultivators have adapted theiragricultural and settlement patterns to this recurrence:they learned to “absorb” the flood into theiragricultural strategic, practicing what is often calledrecessional agriculture or wetlands agriculture.(Cernea, 2004)

5.3 Forced Population Displacement

Michael M. Cernea, claims the forced populationdisplacement as being the most complicated impact ofthe dam construction. He further claims that thesharpest debate about the social liabilities ofhydropower development revolves around populationdisplacement and forced resettlement. Three elements,the writer explains, why the displacement processeshave overtaken much of the public debate arounddams, both in developing countries (e.g. India, Laos,Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, a. o.) and developed ones(in Europe and in the USA).

First, magnitude of human impacts: large groups ofpeople are adversely affected, profoundly andenduringly, by imposed material losses and socialdisruptions.

Second, absent or weak regulation frameworks:policies and laws for socially responsible resettlementhave still been missing.

Third, under-financing, underestimating the lossescaused by displacement, compensates them in utterlyinsufficient proportion, and externalizes the differenceas an unbearable burden on the displaced population.

The first social challenge in hydropower developmentis local opposition, which having many dimensions.

One is when “upstream and downstream villagescannot agree on how to share Water resources.” inother cases, “the social aspects of getting transmissionlines going, which is very difficult (Benjamin K.Sovacool*, 2011).One of the respondents ofSovacool’s paper has claimed that “Here in Nepalpeople protest almost everything, it’s a very agitatedsocial and political environment, and coupled with astrong sense of entitlement it creates conflicts.”.Sovacool further presents that the unfamiliarity andunrealistic expectations could impede projects.Another respondent in the same paper has shared aview that “there is a general attitude among people inNepal that building a dam is easy, they get frustratedwhen dams are not built quickly enough and do notunderstand why it takes many years to design,approve, and build projects.”. Sovacool has spottedfinal social barrier in hydropower development inNepal as the expectations from the internationaldonors. Respondents in Sovacool paper has explainedthat the donor requirements often being contradictedand unexpectedly get changed. One final aspect of thischallenge concerns “changing development prioritiesover time.” Organizations like GTZ and USAID, forexample, “used to focus on infrastructure, involvingengineers and building dams and roads,” but haveshifted to focus on “post-conflict election monitoringand education.” (Benjamin K. Sovacool*, 2011).

6. Literature Review of Kaligandaki-AHEP, Based on Land Acquisition,Compensation, Resettlement and

Rehabilitation

6.1 Background

The Project (KGA-HEP) lies about 180 km west ofKathmandu, the capital city of Nepal. The project is adaily poundage type scheme located on the KaliGandaki River with an installed capacity of 144 MW.The project generates about 842 GWh of electricenergy annually by utilizing a net head of 115 m. Thedam and powerhouse is located at Shree KrishnaGandaki and Jagatra Devi Village DevelopmentCommittee (VDC) of Syangja District respectively.Permanent camps are located at Beltari and Mirmi ofShree Krishna Gandaki VDC. The power generatedfrom the project by 3 units of turbines of 48 MW eachcapacity is evacuated to the central grid via 132 kVsingle circuit 66 km long transmission line to Pokharaand 44 km double circuit transmission line to Butwal.

67


A sub-station is constructed in Lekhnath Municipalityof Kaski district whereas existing Jogikuti substationof Butwal has been upgraded. (Rajendra p.Thanju,2007)

6.2 Impacts on Bote (Fisherman) Familiesand their Resettlement andRehabilitation Plan

6.2.1 The Bote (Fisherman) Community

Bote are an indigenous, socially marginalized andvulnerable poor community of Nepal whoselivelihood and culture are closely associated with theriver. They are also called Majhi and Ghatwar, thefirst means fisherman and the later means man whoferry boat. They are found residing in smallcommunity along the bank of several rivers in Nepal,particularly in the tributaries of Sapta Gandaki. Theyare occupational group of fisherman and boattransportation. Bote depend heavily on the river fortheir livelihood. Fishing, boating and working aswage labor in the field of local’s elite are theirtraditional occupation. A small community of Botefamilies is living near the headwork site of the KaliGandaki ”A” Hydroelectric Project along the bank ofAndhi Khola river in Andhimuhan village of ShreeKrishna Gandaki VDC of Syangja district of Nepal

6.2.2 Impact on Bote Families

A small group of Bote (fisherman) families residingalong the bank of Andhikhola river near theconfluence of Kali Gandaki and Andhikhola river ofSyangja District were seriously affected by theacquisition of their houses, cowshed and land for theproject access road, contractor camps, reservoir andsuspension bridges resulting displacement andrelocation during various stages of projectconstruction. (Rajendra p. Thanju,2007)

6.2.3 Loss of Land/houses/cowshed

The Kali Gandaki ”A” Hydroelectric Project acquiredhouses/cowshed and lands from the Bote families ofAndhimuhan village of SKG and Nibuwakhark VDCfor the implementation of the Project with specificpurposes such as access road construction, reservoirarea, central workshop construction by main civilcontractor, suspension bridge construction etc.

6.3 Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan forAffected Bote Families

The Project/NEA has acquired a plot of 4 ropani4 ofland (1.5 ropanis for Primary School for the childrenof Bote community and 2.5 for housing scheme)nearby their village at the Andhimuhan village.Altogether 8 houses (including one house forcommunity center) were constructed by the Project onthis plot of land 7 Bote families who were residing inunsafe place in & around the inundation area ofProject reservoir level were resettled in these houses.the programs implemented under this plan included;i.) Adult Literacy Program, ii.) Training program onpoultry and pig farming, iii.) Construction of Shedsfor Pig Farming, iv.) Cage and aqua culture trainingprogram, v.) An amount of NRs. 60,000 had beenreleased as a micro credit to 20 members of Botefamilies in 4 groups for income generating activities,v.) Similarly, 8 Bote were employed in Project FishTrapping and Hauling program and 5 in Project fishhatchery, vi.) A Primary School established for thechildren of Bote families. (Rajendra P. Thanju 2007)

7. Brief Overview of Budi GandakiHydropower Project

7.1 Background

Budi Gandaki HEP is a storage based project of1200MW, situated in the Gorkha and Dhading district.The influence/inundation of this project is in 27VDC’s, 14 from the Gorkha district and 13 fromDhading. The reservoir being formed afterconstruction of 263 m dam would be of 63Sq. Km.(Environment, 2017).The estimated cost of the projectis 260 billion. Total households to be displacedphysically i.e. (both land and houses) are 3560 andthe households to be displaced economically are 4557,so in total, households to be affected are 8117. Thepopulation to be displaced physically would be 20260and economically 25351, so in total, populationaffected would be 45611. (Environment, 2017).Similarly, total land to be acquired would be2958.46ha. The project is likely to impact over 12115built property of the households. Likewise, 23educational institutions consisting of 119 builtstructures; 74 shrines comprising 80 built structures;44 cremation sites with 22 structures; 4 industrieswith 10 built structures, 4 police post with 4 builtstructures, 7 health facilities with 14 built structures,and 30 community built property with 30 built

68


structures will be inundated by the BGHEP reservoir.(Resettlement Report- BGHEP)

7.2 Socio-Economic and cultural Aspects ofBudi-Gandaki Reservoir Inundation

7.2.1 Land and Property Loss

Land is the key property affected substantially byBGHEP. Both government and private lands will beacquired for the construction of different structuresand facilities of the project. A total of 6785.88 ha ofland will be acquired permanently or temporarily bythe BGHEP. Out of this land, about 3201.57ha land isclassed as agricultural / settlement land, while 222.24ha is grass land. This land totaling about 3423.81 ha isconsidered as potentially operated by the PFP (projectFoot Print)/PVDCs (Project Village Developmentcommittee) communities for agriculture/settlementand other community purposes within BGHEP-PFP.

7.2.2 Loss of Agricultural Productivity

Agriculture is one of the main sources of a living forthe people living in the project area. In the projectarea, three types of agricultural land were found; thatis, khet (irrigable), pakhokhet (rainfed farmland) andpakhobari (non-irrigable land). The cropping patternwas found varied by types of land. In the pakhobari,the farmers of the project area grow crops three timesin a year. In the spring season, they grow maize andghaiya paddy (sowing paddy). After harvesting ofmaize and ghaiya paddy, they grow lentils, soybeanand millet in the fall season, and winter maize andpotato in the winter season. However, cultivation ofwinter maize and potato is very little due to lack ofirrigation facility. Based on the estimated amount ofland loss and current crop production practices, theproject affected households will be deprived of cropcultivation in 2566 ha of land. This is estimated tocause annual loss of crop production amounting to5,510 MT, valued at the annual loss of Rs 160.6 millionat current prices. (EIA Report-BGHEP)

7.2.3 Loss of Community Assets and Properties

According to the EIA Report of Budhigandaki HEP,Within the PFP geographical limits a number ofcommunity assets and properties developed andmanaged either by the community organizations, orlocal governments or central governments are located.These assets and properties are providing services notonly to the PFP communities but also to the PVDCs

communities of the PFP adjoining areas. The assetsand properties located within the PFP are:

• Community Forests Managed by the CFUGs• Built structures of the Community

Organizations• Community Educational Institutions• Health Care Facilities and Health Posts Built

Structures• Police Posts, Post Office and VDC Office Built

Structures• Industries Built Structures• Built Community Infrastructures

And towards the cultural aspects, Shrines or Locationsof Religious, Cultural and Archaeological Values, totalof 80 nos. and cremation Sites: 22nos. (EIA Report-BGHEP)

7.3 Downstream Hydrological Changes

Water impounded behind the dam wall of BGHEP isregulated for energy production. The operation regimeof the BGHEP envisages use of the project for peakenergy production only. Narrow sections are likelyto produce higher waves, whereas wide sections aremore likely to restrict the wave height by spreadingthe flow in the river width. In view of the estimatedwave surge, wave height, and the velocities of wavesurge, the riverine area downstream Budhi Gadaki andTrishuli are very vulnerable from the point of river bederosion, and landslides.

Figure 1: Hydrograph of Natural and Regulated flowat the confluence Budhi Gandaki / Trishuli (SourceFeasibility and Design Report 2015)

69


Figure 2: Hydrograph of Natural and Regulated Flowdownstream Trishuli – Marsyangdi ConfluenceSource Feasibility and Design Report 2015)

Apart from this, such surges will have undesiredconsequences to the irrigation infrastructures,communities using the river flood plain areas foreconomic activities such as river rafting, aggregatesourcing, fishing etc. Similarly, the recreationalactivities and cultural and religious activities along theriver bed will be at risk.

8. Research Methodology

Figure 3: Research Framework

The study is based on the mixed paradigm ofConstructivist and Transformative, which then followsthe qualitative research methodology. After theproblem statement has been derived from the initialliterature review, then the study objective is targeted.The study objective here in in this research is toaccess various socio-economic impacts related to thehydropower development. Then through the extensiveliterature review, study parameters have been setup.

The study Parameters Being Land Acquisition andCompensation, Resettlement/Rehabilitation andRelocation, Earthquake affected in the inundation areaand Livelihood. Then the site identification has beenset up, which is the Darbungphant and Majhitaarvillages of Gorkha and Dhading District. Then thecase study has been conducted in the particular sites,thereby collecting data through various data collectiontechniques such as FGD, Questionnaires, KeyInformant Interviews, Direct Observations,Photographs and Audio/visual. Then the impactevaluation under various parameters performed,thereby concluding with the conclusions andrecommendations.

9. Case study in Darbungphant andMajhitaar villages of Gorkha and

Dhading District

Figure 4: Google earth view of Darbungphant andMajhitaar villages

The site visit is conducted in the villages of twoVDC’s (Darbung and Maidi). Site visit conducted ismainly in Darbung fhant ward no.6 of Darbung VDCand Majhitaar ward no 09 of Maidi VDC. The casestudy is focused on the socio-economic issuesregarding the land acquisition and compensation,rehabilitation/relocation process in the developmentof storage based Budigandaki hydroelectric project.As the impact area of project being large, it is difficultto cover total affected area through site visit, so onlythe two villages have been selected.

The Case study is conducted for the study of impactevaluation under following different parameters.

1. Land Acquisition and Compensation

2. Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Relocation

70


3. Earthquake affected in Inundation area

4. Livelihood

9.1 Land Acquisition and Compensation

Land acquisition and compensation is the crucial partin project development. It is the beginning processesand challenging as well for the project development.Budigandaki HEP being the storage based project, hasinfluence/inundation over large area, which requireslarge area of land to be compensated thereby resultingin more complication.

Impact Evaluation:

Figure 5: Discussions with Local Peoples

In the Case study site, the land acquisition and itscompensation have almost been completed. However,compensation of Houses/animal sheds/plants/fruitshave remained, but the survey of houses/animalsheds/plants/fruits have already completed. Landacquisition and compensation is found to be based onthe old land survey of 2038 B.S. However, (accordingto the “Budigandaki Jalbidhyut Rastriya SarokarSamiti” )

Table 1: showing different land categories with prices.Source (BGHDC)

During the field visit, it was reported that, the land inthe actual field is “Aaham type” i.e. in category 4th

according to the above table, but in the land parceldocument, found to be in the lower category. It maybe due to the land use changes, but the compensationprice got reduced than actual deserved, since the landsurvey not being updated. in some cases, locals gotcompensation only of area mentioned in land parceldocument, regardless of actual field area which havebeen used as agricultural land for years. Thisdecreased the compensation amount received.

Continuing on the implication of compensation basedon the old land survey, during focus group discussion,locals reported a case that, slope land in actual fieldwas registered as upper category land in land parceldocument, and now in getting compensation, the priceof sloppy non irrigable land is higher than the irrigableland (khet).

Regarding the compensation issue, locals in thediscussions, reported that, previously it was told thatthe land owners having land less than ten and fiveropanis would respectively receive 10% and 15%extra compensation. But in real, no extracompensation was received than the actual land area.In case of the guthi land, people who have bought theguthi land are facing problems in receiving thecompensation. Similarly, during discussions withlocal peoples, it was found that the landless peopleshave not got any compensation. people living in anddoing agriculture from no. of years before, but nothaving valid document (lalpurja), are deprived ofgetting compensation.

Figure 6: Key Informant Interview with Teachers ofRatneshwor School, Darbung

During Discussions with School teachers ofRatneshwor School, Darbung, Gorkha, during the keyinformant survey, deputy head teacher of RatneshworHigher Secondary School, Mr. Sushil Kumar Shrestharaised an issue regarding compensation that, in thecase of Ratneshwor school, initially, during buying

71


land for the school, local peoples and school teachershad raised a fund. But, now, during acquisition ofschool land, it didn’t receive any compensation, as itis registered as government land. Similarly, Mr. MilanGurung, in charge of Darbung health post reported thesame case.

9.1.1 Misuse of Compensation Price: A socialThreat

Compensation process (of land), except some cases,has almost been completed in the case study site.During discussions with locals, misuse ofcompensation price has been reported. Compensationprice, which has been received in replace ofagricultural land (i.e. from the productive sector), isnow being started to invest in the unproductivesectors, such as buying Bullet bikes and othersophisticated items. Similarly, a local shopkeeper(called by name Nepal Dai) mentioned a case that,people of certain social group, who used to drinkhomemade alcohol before getting compensation price,now have started buying cartoons of branded beer andwhiskeys. Also the increasing tendency of hiringbikes and van for commuting has been reported.

9.2 Resettlement, Rehabilitation andRelocation

Resettlement/Rehabilitation and relocation are themost challenging and crucial parts of the projectdevelopment. There can be very long termsocio-economic impacts on the resettled populations.In the site visit of Darbung and Majhitaar villages,locals have raised various issues regardingresettlement and rehabilitation. The resettlementlocation proposed by Government for Darbung VDCis Archale area, and for the majitaar village (of MaidiVDC) is Ratmate area.

Figure 7: proposed Resettlement Site of Darbung

9.2.1 Impact Evaluation

During discussions with the local peoples, theymentioned that the resettlement site is proposedwithout proper coordination with them. Some of thelocals interviewed were unaware of the resettlementsite. It seems challenge to find out the exact data ofhousehold, which want to get resettled in theGovernment proposed location. It is because, aftergetting land compensation, household having mediumto strong economic background are slowly shifting tonearby city areas like Chitwan, Kathmandu etc. Thereseems trend of buying land and even houses in thenearby city areas, with the money received from landcompensation. According to the study, there lies apossibility that, only the household with loweconomic profile and who have no other options to go,would go for the resettlement in the governmentproposed location. However, it seems to take time toget exact figure.

Figure 8Discussions with Local Peoples

In absence of exact figure of no. of household to beresettled, there obviously lies

difficulties in planning for the development ofinfrastructures in the resettlement site,

which will affect more in the resettlement process tocomplete in time. During the discussion with localpeoples, they were sad to remember the fact that, theyhave to leave all the livelihood systems (House-shed,nearby irrigable land (khet), livestock, plants, fruitplants, and other infrastructure like nearby school,health post, water supply etc), and go in a new placeand again to start from zero. Locals feared that theywould go years backward in leaving the well settledarea of native place and gong in the new place to startfrom the beginning.

After resettlement, there remains a chance of conflict

72


of the host community and the resettled community,while sharing the infrastructures and resources. Also,while a community being resettled, all the householdsin the community doesn’t get resettled as somehousehold has already bought land or house in thenearby city area. This fragmentation of society, whichhas been living for together for no. of years, obviouslybreaks the social bond which have been maintainedduring the time of ancestors.

Figure 9: Ratneshwor School, Darbung

Figure 10: Health Post, Darbung

It is not only the issue of resettlement of households,there also lies challenge in relocating the physicalinfrastructures, cultural aspects and many more.

9.3 Impacts due to Delayed Resettlement

9.3.1 Impact on Education

Mr. Sushil Kumar Shrestha, deputy head ofRatneshwor School reported that, in the school, no. ofstudents has drastically reduced (before, no ofstudents used to be 500-600, now the number isreduced to 250- 300). It is so because, themiddle-high class family started shifting to nearbycities, and there remained in school, only the studentsof family who are waiting for governmentresettlement. And as implication of this event, the no.of teachers has also been cut off and seat of vacant

teachers are not getting filled in time. So, there liesrisk of quality of education being degraded.

9.3.2 Impact on Health Services

Similar is the case of health services and facilities.There are no signs of health services and facilitiesbeing upgraded, either the facilities get limited to theexisting one or can be degraded slowly, until theresettlement program gets completed.

9.3.3 Impact on Road and Infrastructure

Figure 11: Bus on the Benighat-Arughat road

To reach the location of site visit, it is nearly 10-12km from the prithvi highway, but it takes near about1.5 hrs. on Bus. Here can we depict the condition ofroad to reach Budi Gandaki Reservoir affected villagesite. The condition of road is very bad with humpsand bumps. However, the road is hilly, but, had itbeen graveled/paved, the time could be saved by 45minutes to 1 hours i.e. it would take only 1/2 hrs. or45 minutes to commute the distance. But the scenariois different, since the road is in reservoir inundationarea, it doesn’t get upgraded, and had remained thesame for many years.

There had been a planning of re-routing the road assection of the Ring road, but it doesn’t seem to getstarted. So, it is uncertain that, how long the peopleshave to commute through the road by risking their life.And it is all because of lingering of the resettlementprocess. Had the resettlement process completed ontime and people had started living in their permanentlocation, then the it would be automatic pressure toreach the good standard road up to the resettledlocation

73


9.4 3rd Case Study Parameter: Impacts onLivelihood

Physically and economically displaced peoples, whoare completely in the inundation area are most affectedvictims of the project development. They have to leavethe native place where they have been living for no.of years, also, agricultural fields, nearby communityassets, fruits/plants etc. have to be left and get startedfrom zero point in the newly resettled area.

Impact Evaluation:

Figure 12: Agricultural land in the case study site,Majhitaar

Figure 13: Farmers harvesting crops in case study site

Agriculture is one of the main sources of a living forthe people living in the project area. So, Loss ofagricultural land and agricultural productivity hasgreat impact on the livelihood of peoples. Speciallythe case study site has very fertile and irrigable land,locally also called khet. The farmers of the area growcrops three times in a year in khet. The peoples ofcase study site have to resettle in the place calledArchale, which is on high land nearly about 560 masl.Peoples who have been practicing agriculture in thelow land, in the fertile land with irrigation facilityfrom nearby river, after being resettled, will have topractice agriculture in the pakho khet (rain fed farm

land). This change in the agricultural land type willcertainly reduce the agricultural productivity andhampers the livelihood.

Similarly, Krishna Jung shah, local resident ofMajhitaar village raised livelihood issues they had avery good agricultural land. He also said that he hadplanted a plant called “chap”, which would producevery good logs that could be sold in good price. Inthis regard, local peoples have a fear that, would theybe succeeding in regaining their livelihood there in theresettled area, after leaving well established status inthe recent location.

9.4.1 Loss of Community Resources ImpactEvaluation

The riverine, grassland and the forests area are the keycommunity resources affected by the project, whichwere used invariably for various purposes by thecommunity. The rivers are used for fishing and anumber of recreational and spiritual purposes.

Figure 14: Budi-Gandaki River

Figure 15: A public Tap in Darbungphaat, also anexample of livelihood asset

The forest of the area is used for sourcing various forestproducts apart from timber and fodder. Similarly, thegrasslands are used for cattle grazing. These resources

74


are a part and parcel of the community livelihood andspiritual being and are considered to have significantimpacts on the livelihood and spiritual being of thepopulations residing.

Figure 16: Banana Cultivation in site area

9.4.2 Loss from Business Impact Evaluation

Figure 17: Discussion with hotel owner Gita Didi

Gita Didi, having a small hotel nearby the school (alsoobserved selling stationery items and lunch to theschool students) reported that she had irrigable land(Khet) which gives 20 Muri of rice a year and othercrops as well, also claimed that she had a good lifewith 4 nos. of family being sustained from the incomeof agriculture and small hotel. Now, as going to thenew place as resettled, she fears that how could shesustain and regain the livelihood. Gita Didi is only arepresentative case, such cases can be more.

9.5 Earthquake Affected in the InundationAre

The devastating earthquake which hit Nepal on 25thof April 2015, had epicenter on Barpak of GorkhaDistrict. And eventually the case study site is also onthe villages of Gorkha and Dhading District. So, therecan be no any chance that the case study site remainsunaffected of the earthquake.

9.5.1 Impact Evaluation

Since the majority of houses in the case study sitebeing earthen house (With Stone- mud mortar), andepicenter also being nearby, the effect of earthquake isvery large, that almost all the houses are badly affected.And since the area lies in Budigandaki Hydro Powerreservoir inundation area, the post- earthquake effecthas been much amplified, which means the affectedhouses couldn’t be reconstructed as they lied in theinundation area.

Figure 18: Earthquake affected House

Figure 19: Temporary Shelter of Earthquake affected

75


The earthquake affected peoples in the case study sitehave been living miserable life for four years since2015, but unfortunately, it is unknown that, howlonger should they be in the temporary shelter. It isbecause, if made a permanent house in the existinglocation than the area lies in the reservoir inundationarea, which will be worthless, and if not made apermanent house, then it is unknown that how longthe resettlement process will take to complete, anduntil the resettlement process gets completed, theearthquake affected are compelled to be in thetemporary shelter being deprived of basic facilities.

Now in the winter season, it will be more difficult tobe under the CGI sheet roof, so, earthquake affectedseems more vulnerable. The Earthquake affected inthe inundation area have been provided with NepaleseRupees Two Lakhs in order to construct the temporaryshelters. During discussion with the local peoples, acase is reported and observed that, a house is severelydamaged by the earthquake, but has not receivedcompensation till the date, instead, the house ownerhad to re-register his house to get checked whether thehouse falls under the compensation category or not. Incontrary to this, in other case reported, that the RCChouse which got no damage by earthquake, hasreceived the earthquake compensation money.

10. Conclusions and Recommendations

Physical and economic displacement of thehouseholds due to loss of land for reservoir creation isthe most significant impact of the project. Associatedwith the displacement of households are the loss ofagricultural land and productivity, and othercommunity resources which also has significantimplications on the livelihood and wellbeing of thepeople affected by the project. Impacts of significantnature are also experienced by the loss of the shrinesand other cultural resources.

The Recommendations in pointwise:

• Remaining compensation of Households/shedsand Fruits/Plants should be made ASAP, andawareness/training program should be launchedin guiding peoples to invest the compensationmoney in productive sectors, which would helpin regaining the status.

• Since no any resettlement plan/policy cancompletely replace the native place of localpeoples, hence with sufficient information

dissemination, locals should be convinced ofthe resettlement location (provided that theresettlement site is first fully inspected, with thestakeholder inclusion, by the professionals inevery respect), and the resettlement processshould be completed ASAP, thereby preventingthe further negative implications due to delay ofresettlement.

• More urgency is required in completing theland acquisition and compensation process inthe proposed resettlement area, so, building ofrequired infrastructures such as road network,schools, health posts, water supply etc. can bestarted, which is also a basic requirementbefore the resettlement of people.

• Beginning the construction of hydropowerstructures such as dam and others, doesn’t startthe inundation as the construction is done bydiverting the river. So, the hydropowerstructures can be started to be made where theland acquisition and compensation process havecompleted.

• This ensures firstly, the timely completion ofproject, and secondly, start of constructionworks would provide employment opportunitiesand opportunities for opening the hotels (intemporary sheds) nearby the dam constructionand other structures construction. This wouldhelp project affected peoples to regain theirlivelihood.

• In case of the earthquake affected, first of all, itis to be ensured that all the earthquake affectedare provided with the compensation to buildtemporary shelter.

• Permanent resettlement is the sustainablesolution to the impacts on earthquake affected.But to fight with immediate effects, temporarysolution can be adapted such as distributingwarm clothes/blankets to fight with cold, andsince, EQ affected remaining in temporaryshelter are more vulnerable to various healthhazards, Free health checkup should beprovided.

• Since the impacts on the livelihood assets of thepeople of inundation area is unavoidable, it is tobe ensured with various livelihood restorationplans (such as employment opportunity inproject, encouraging cooperative business,

76


encouraging tourism business etc.) afterresettling to the new location.

• re-regulating the dam by help of structures canregulate the high surge of water during BGHEPpeak power operation in the downstreamsection of the Dam, thereby limiting thepotential damage due to high surge water wavesand water volume fluctuations downstream.However, regulations can be done only to someextent to minimize the huge effects, so care isto be taken during the high discharges from theplant i.e. Siren warning system during thedischarge, SMS information in cell phonesregarding the flooding due to discharge frompower plant etc. can be provided to minimizethe effects to other extents.

• In connection to the literature review ofKaligandaki-A HEP, however, the scale ofimpacts will largely be amplified in the case ofBudhigandaki HEP (as Kaligandaki is Peakingrun off river project, which relatively have lessinundation area in comparison to theBudhigandaki which is the storage basedproject having very large influence/inundationarea), the lessons can be learnt from the landacquisition, compensation, andresettlement/rehabilitation of Bote (fisherman)community. With bearing all the burdens,people in the project area are supportingGovernment with full heart, the plan to buildthe mega scale storage based power plant.

• Accordingly, Government also should resettlethe displaced populations in the safe area,thereby working in its full pace.

References

[1] Benjamin K Sovacool, Saroj Dhakal, Olivia Gippner,and Malavika Jain Bambawale. Halting hydro: Areview of the socio-technical barriers to hydroelectricpower plants in nepal. Energy, 36(5):3468–3476, 2011.

[2] Emily Bird. The socioeconomic impact ofhydroelectric dams on developing communities: a casestudy of the chalillo dam and the communities of themacal river valley, cayo district, belize, central america.2012.

[3] Michael M Cernea et al. Social impacts and social risksin hydropower programs: Preemptive planning andcounter-risk measures. In Keynote Address: Sessionon Social Aspects of Hydropower Development. UnitedNations Symposium on Hydropower and SustainableDevelopment Beijing, China, 2004.

[4] Michael M Cernea. Hydropower dams and socialimpacts: a sociological perspective. The World Bank,1997.

[5] Kamal Raj Dhungel. Social issuesin hydropower development. [Online]https://www.newbusinessage.com/MagazineArticles/view/1278, 2015-08-23.Accessed: 2017-03-10.

[6] Subash Ghimire. Land tenure in hydropowerdevelopment: A review. Kathmandu UniversityJournal of Science, Engineering and Technology,8(2):101–108, 2012.

[7] Thomas Chandy, Rodney J Keenan, R John Petheram,and Peter Shepherd. Impacts of hydropowerdevelopment on rural livelihood sustainability insikkim, india: Community perceptions. MountainResearch and Development, 32(2):117–125, 2012.

[8] N Hildyard. Dam on the rocks: The flawed economicsof large hydroelectric dams the corner house briefing.Dorset, United Kingdom: The Corner House, 2008.

[9] Rajendra P Thanju. Advantages of hydro generation:Resettlement of indigenous bote (fisherman) families:A case study of kali gandaki” a” hydroelectric projectof nepal. In International Conference on SmallHydropower-Hydro Sri Lanka, volume 22, page 24.Citeseer, 2007.

77

https://www.newbusinessage.com/MagazineArticles/view/1278

https://www.newbusinessage.com/MagazineArticles/view/1278

socio-economic impacts of hydropower development: a case...

Documents