Your search within this document for 'development' resulted in 13 matching pages.
1

“...HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies Volume 37 | Number 2 Article 6 December 2017 Calculating Risk, Denying Uncertainty: Seismicity and Hydropower Development in Nepal Christopher Butler University of California - Santa Cruz, cjbutler(3)ucsc.edu Matthaus Rest University of Munich, m.rest(3)lmu.de Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya Recommended Citation Butler, Christopher and Rest, Matthaus (2017) "Calculating Risk, Denying Uncertainty: Seismicity and Hydropower Development in Nepal," HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies: Vol. 37 : No. 2, Article 6. Available at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya/vol37/iss2/6 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Macalester College This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by the DigitalCommons(2)Macalester College at DigitalCommons(2)Macalester College. It has been accepted...”
2

“...Calculating Risk, Denying Uncertainty: Seismicity and Hydropower Development in Nepal Acknowledgements The authors thank Sienna Craig, Mark Turin, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on this article. Research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Humer Foundation for Academic Talent and the European Research Council-funded project "Remoteness and Connectivity: Highland Asia in the World.’ This research article is available in HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies: http:/ / digitalcommons.macalester.edu/himalaya/vol37/iss2/6...”
3

“...Calculating Risk, Denying Uncertainty: Seismicity and Hydropower Development in Nepal Christopher Butler Matthaus Rest If Ulrich Beck's definition of'risk society' describes societies increasingly structured by preoccupations with future environmental threats and related insecurities created by modernization, then Nepal's hydropower community would appear to be quite the opposite, propelled into environmental denial by twin demands for domestic electricity and revenue earned through hydroelectric export. Our research reveals that prior to the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the hydropower community was engaging in what Eviatar Zerubavel calls 'socially organized denial' largely ignoring the uncertainties associated with seismic activity. Earthquakes and tremors were viewed as unavoidable realities that should not impede hydropower development. This denial, we argue, was shaped not only by local political realities and demand for electricity, but also by a larger desire to capitalize on...”
4

“...contradictory perspectives on hydro- power and seismicity, we draw on six years of fieldwork in hydropower development in Nepal, including detailed examinations of the private sector, and attending hydro- power-related conferences, seminars, and presentations at government institutions, private hydropower company headquarters, and civil society-sponsored events. We have each—together and separately—conducted interviews with more than 80 private sector hydropower representatives regarding their attitudes and opinions about hydropower, Nepali economic development, the environmental and economic impacts of hydropower, and seismicity. What we have learned through these interactions is that our inter- locutors work hard to render seismicity as a calculable risk while denying the inherently uncertain character of their calculations. Through this move, we argue, large-scale hydropower development in Nepal becomes a business option. At the same time, it brackets out the fact that people living in close...”
5

“...In the afternoon, the head of an interest group speak- ing for private hydro developers addressed the crowd, stressing the need to create ‘bankable’ projects that would appear ‘friendly’ to foreign companies and assure them of profitable returns on investment. But the prospect of improved electricity and infrastructure for Nepal, he said, was only half the story. If Nepal could capitalize on its 6,000 rivers, hydro development could move the entire country out of its ‘developing’ status, and, by virtue of free markets, signal the fulfillment of the democratic principles first pursued during the Jan Andolan movement in 1990. His remarks were met with vigorous applause, and he con- cluded his presentation with a quote ascribed to Confucius: “Set the goal right, but if it can’t be reached, don’t adjust the goal. Hasten the pace.” The topic of risk—a specific type of risk—dominated the proceedings. A morning roundtable on the financial via- bility of hydropower projects discussed ‘acceptable...”
6

“...this group regarding the earthquake potential. Discussions about seismicity risks were rare, and, when discussed at all, commonly bracketed as an uncontrollable neg- ative externality that could not and should not deter hydro development. Caught Unawares? The idea of the ‘Big One’ has been a long-running exis- tential threat in Nepali discourse since the 8.0 magnitude Nepal-Bihar earthquake in 1934 that killed an estimated 11,000 people. And the general seismicity of Nepal is also a largely accepted truth, supported by the country’s various policies, plans, and programs dedicated to disaster pre- paredness and risk reduction. These include the Natural Calamity Relief Act of 1982, the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium formed in 2009, and the Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project. That the April 25 earthquake occurred on a Saturday likely saved thousands of lives because school was not in session and that morning many Nepali were outdoors enjoying the spring weather. That the...”
7

“...when compared with local industry representatives, in our numerous conversations with some of these multi-national actors. These concerns and struggles voiced by the private sector belie the fact that, as far as hydropower development is concerned, the current moment is indeed a crucial one for them. Growing disdain and impatience for govern- ment ineptitude and public perceptions of its rent-seeking behavior have placed significant political intentions and support behind private interests and companies in order to lead Nepali development in this century. For this reason, understanding the private sector’s view of seismicity is crucial because it holds significant favor and influence in determining the manner and scope of debates about both hydropower and development more generally. In today’s discussions about what constitutes ‘risk,’ the private sector is establishing a worldview in which risk is not about natural factors, but is rather about economic ones, over which they spin an illusion...”
8

“...hydropower development. Therefore, discussions that stray too far from this central argument tend to be few and unexpressed. Various groups within a debate, which occupy distinct positions of power, have unequal access to move discus- sions toward their guiding points of reference. Sutton and Norgaard (2013) were correct to connect this element of organized denial to Gramsci’s concept of hegemony (1971), that dominant groups maintain their positions culturally by securing collective consent to their ideas. This discus- sion suggests that while hegemonic discourses are cultural processes bound by perception, many forms of denial are produced (and contested). Culturally prescribed norms about how to think (or not think) about things reflect a particularly insidious form of social control. If socially organized denial is shaped in response to social circumstance, Nepali hydropower’s version of denial would be defined by the country’s long-standing and frustrating attempts at development. Numerous...”
9

“...about earthquakes, hydropower, and risk. But there is more going on here than simple denial. At this particular historical moment, as Nepal searches for development and electricity, it is not enough that the hydro industry simply goes about its work. It needs to sell a vision, a future, not just for the average Nepali, but, more importantly, for the finance needed to build these projects, and for the government to help create more favorable conditions for completing this work. Private hydropower interests advance this vision through a series of tropes about water as national destiny, hydro- power as development, and the fulfillment of democratic promise. To be successful, private hydropower has to present a confident image of certain profit in order to realize itself through foreign investment—whether from private firms or development banks. They engage in what Tsing calls the ‘economy of appearances.’ Promoting hydropower as profitable and its associated risk as cal- HIMALAYA Volume37...”
10

“...reminiscent of Georg Simmel’s (2011: 482) insight about the monetization of value: “Gauging values in terms of money has taught us to determine and specify values down to the last farthing...The ideal of numerical calculability has been made possible in practi- cal, and perhaps even in intellectual, life only through the money economy.” These private sector machinations in support of finance are possible due to a prevailing national discipline that says development is necessary, and the government has failed in its responsibility do deliver development. This argument effectively produces a political quietude that does not question risk and dismisses protest as the work of rogue individuals rather than legitimate groups (Adhikari 2011), which then enables the state to draw in military suppression of future protests without much comment from the public. Hydropower becomes a tool of what Tsing refers to as ‘spectacular accumulation,’ a means of creat- ing ‘value’ through speculation and spectacle...”
11

“...Adhikari, Prakash. 2011. 900MW Upper Karnali Project: Maoist Leaders Warn Government over Contract. The Kathmandu Post June 13. (accessed on April 29, 2017). Appadurai, Arjun. 2011. The Ghost in the Financial Machine. Public Culture 23 (3): 517-539. Barnes, Douglas and Willem Floor. 1996. Rural Energy in Developing Countries: A Challenge for Economic Development. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 21 (1): 497-530. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks: Sage. ------. 2006. Living in the World Risk Society. Economy and Society 35 (3): 329-345. Boholm, Asa. 2003. The Cultural Nature of Risk: Can There be an Anthropology of Uncertainty? Ethnos 68 (2): 159-178. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Butler, Christopher. 2016. Knowledge...”
12

“...com/economy/story/40755/damaged- hydropower-plants-yet-to-bounce-back.html> (accessed on April 29, 2017). ------. 2015. Earthquake Damages Over Dozen Hydropower Projects. Republica, May 5. (accessed on April 29, 2017). Pigg, Stacy Leigh. 1992. Investing Social Categories Through Place: Social Representations and Development in Nepal. Comparative Studies in Society and History 34 (03): 491-513. ------. 1993. Unintended Consequences: The Ideological Impact of Development in Nepal. South Asia Bulletin 13 (1&2): 45-58. Pokhrel, Rajan. 2015. At Least 56 Settlements to be Relocated. The Himalayan Times, June 30. (accessed on April 29, 2017). Rai, Om Astha. 2015. Back to the Dark Age. Nepali Times, May 29. (accessed on April...”
13

“...com/News/Article/ Upper-Tamakoshi-Damage-Manageable> (accessed on April 29, 2017). Shrestha, Nanda. 1997. Becoming a Development Category. In Power of Development, edited by Jonathan Crush, 266-277. London: Routledge. Simmel, Georg. 2011. The Philosophy of Money London: Routledge. ShareSansar. 2016. Arun Kabeli to Issue IPO Worth Rs 15 Crore (10%) for Project Affected Resident of Panchthar & Taplejung District from Jestha 3; AHPC Has 24.13% Stake in the Co. ShareSansar. (accessed on April 29, 2017). Sutton, Barbara and Kari Marie Norgaard. 2013. Cultures of Denial: Avoiding Knowledge of State Violations of Human Rights in Argentina and the United States. Sociological Forum 28 (3): 495-524. Thapa, Gaga and Kashish Das Shrestha. 2015. Natural Disasters and Nepal’s Energy Security. The New York Times, May 25.