Framing hydropower as green energy: assessing drivers, risks and tensions in the Eastern Himalayas

Abstract

The culturally and ecologically diverse region of the Eastern Himalayas is the target of ambitious hydropower development plans. Policy discourses at national and international levels position this development as synergistically positive: it combines the production of clean energy to fuel economic growth at regional and national levels with initiatives to lift poor mountain communities out of poverty. Different from hydropower development in the 20th century in which development agencies and banks were important players, contemporary initiatives importantly rely on the involvement of private actors, with a prominent role of the private finance sector. This implies that hydropower development is not only financially viable but also understood as highly profitable. This paper examines the new development of hydropower in the Eastern Himalayas of Nepal and India. It questions its framing as green energy, interrogates its links with climate change, and examines its potential for investment and capital accumulation. To do this, we also review the evidence on the extent to which its construction and operation may modify existing hydrogeological processes and ecosystems, as well as its impacts on the livelihoods of diverse groups of people that depend on these. The paper concludes that hydropower development in the region is characterized by inherent contentions and uncertainties, refuting the idea that dams constitute development projects whose impacts can be simply predicted, controlled and mitigated. Indeed, in a highly complex geological, ecological, cultural and political context that is widely regarded to be especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, hydropower as a development strategy makes for a toxic cocktail.

The Geomorphic Impact of Outburst Floods: Integrating Observations and Numerical Simulations of the 2000 Yigong Flood, Eastern Himalaya

“…Although typically smaller than the Yigong flood, modern glacial-outburst floods can be just as deadly and damaging to infrastructure (e.g., Richardson & Reynolds, 2000). Significant hazard is also associated with ongoing and planned hydropower projects around the Himalaya and other mountainous regions (e.g., Ahlers et al, 2014;Sattar et al, 2018;Schwanghart et al, 2016Schwanghart et al, , 2018.…”

Financialization, water governance, and uneven development

“…This mix of financial actors includes lenders, private equity investors (such as Blackstone), institutional investors (such as pension funds or insurance companies), sovereign wealth funds, water funds, and new multilateral banks such as the BRICS Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The interest of investors previously not involved in the water sector is notable, while, at the same time, traditional actors withdraw or change roles . Increasingly diverse financial institutions are scanning strategic sectors, such as water, in which to lodge the capital they control.…”

“…In the words of Lapavitsas, the result of investment is then ‘profiting without producing,’ and the result of the intervention (e.g., investment in hydropower dam, water utility, or desalination plant) is what Hildyard argues is ‘the development of finance, rather than financing development.’ Efforts that introduce environmental and social safeguards (e.g., Equator Principles) or sustainable finance frameworks (as promoted by the International Hydropower Association or International Financial Corporation) are voluntary and have proven to be easily bypassed as the capacity or willingness for technical and legal enforcement is not necessarily available ,…”

“…Financialization of space (whether urbanized or less accessible or populated landscapes) is geared to the undermining of the commons, whether this concerns public space, utilities, or collectively held and managed resources . The financial interests, in tandem with the scale of the infrastructural intervention in the landscape, result in a centralization and concentration of property rights and decision‐making power over ecosystem interventions and resources such as water.…”

“…Recent research on financialization in the water sector has approached the issue from a range of different angles. Some have sought to answer the question of why, despite facing disappointing returns in the past, private capital has shown great interest in large infrastructure projects, making the resurgence of large dams possible and accelerating other infrastructural projects, the need for which is not always clear . Another angle has been the study of supply‐driven, and financially intensive, desalination programs as both capital sinks and potential strategy for further water commodification .…”