Democracy andOwnership in Nepal
GRIPS, May 22, 2008
Annette Skovsted Hansen
University of Aarhus
ostash@hum.au.dk

Main point: In 1990, Nepal held general elections. This

democratic turn fostered expectations amonginternational partners and a broader
Nepalese public of a people’s ownership ofideas. Popular protests became a way for
Nepalese people to exercise ownership whenexperiences of donor interventions,democratically elected governments,
subsequent Maoist insurgencies, and royal
responses did not meet expectations.
Annette Skovsted Hansen
ostash@hum.au.dk

1Hydro Energy Potential
 Expectations of potential riches for Nepalese people
 Historically: Electricity has been a luxury item from Rana times
 Sustained high end user cost
 ODA hydro power projects have been large
 Private sector involvement

 Plans for ARUN III with estimated cost of US$1.1 bill.
 Awareness of smaller more inexpensivealternatives with local jobs and investment
opportunities No government interference on behalf of local
interests
 Popular protest
Abandonned
ARUN III in 1995
Annette SkovstedHansen
ostash@hum.au.dk

Discussion Input IIn the case of Nepal, a combination of1) alternatives (democracy and locally rooted
energy supply) offered by the international
community and2) the discrepancies between the expectations tothese alternatives and the disappointmentswith the concrete implementation (cost, lack ofinfluence, basket-funding)has angered a segment of the population enough totake charge through popular movements to influence
decision making and institution building (ARUN III andpolitical unrest specifically in 2006).
Annette Skovsted Hansen
ostash@hum.au.dk2Discussion Input IIInternational Community Role
1. Offer inspiration ofalternatives
2. Know when to step back andlet the local community takecharge
Annette Skovsted Hansen
ostash@hum.au.dk

Chronology of Donor Entry
1960s

Japan and Norway

1970s

Denmark

1980s

Finland1990s

Sweden and Denmarkand Norway increased
their profile considerably

Annette Skovsted Hansen
ostash@hum.au.dk

3

Country
Denmark

NorwayFinlandJapan
SwedenSector Involvement in Nepal
Education, Natural resource
Management/Environment Energy, Human
Rights/Good Governance/ Decentralization andPrivate sector cooperation, Support through NGOs,
Energy/hydropower, Water supply, Education,Ministry to Ministry Co-operation, Support throughNGOs, research
Water supply and sanitation, energy, education,forestry, environment.
Economic infrastructure, agriculture, social sector,
and disaster relief and mitigation
Water supply and energy

Annette Skovsted Hansen
ostash@hum.au.dk

Country

Main ODA objectives

Strategy

Sectors of Assistance in Nepal

Denmark

Promote sustainable economicgrowth, social development
based on improved living
conditions, respect for the ruleof law, good governance

Based on the country
specific strategy (timeframe of five years)
that is negotiated withpartners in the country
in question anddiscussed with Danishinterest group before
being submitted to theDanish Parliament

Education. Natural Resource
Management/Environment Energy, Human
Rights/Good Governance/ Decentralization
and Private sector cooperation, Support
through NGOs, Basket funding and donor
co-ordination

NorwayReduction of poverty,
stimulation of economicgrowth, promotion ofsustainable development andhuman resources, humanrights and democracy

Selected regions arefocused and anemphasis on Norway's
aid policies to beintegrated with that of
the recipient country

Energy/hydropower, Water supply,Education, Basket funding, Ministry toMinistry Co-operation, Support throughNGOs, research

FinlandPromotion of global security,
reduction of widespreadpoverty, promotion of humanrights and democracy,
prevention of global andenvironmental problems,
promotion of economic
interaction

Country strategy paper
and an emphasis onlong term commitments from the partner

Water supply and sanitation, energy,education, forestry, environment, basket
fundingJapan

Economic infrastructure, agriculture, social
sector and disaster relief and mitigation

Annette Skovsted Hansen
ostash@hum.au.dkSweden

Contribute to create conditions

Rights based

Water supply and energy

4Basket Funding in Education
 International community argument Reflect donor harmonization
 Promote national ownership, management, andaccountability
 However, donor disagreement: Norway, Denmark, and Finland in favor of basket
funding Japan opposed Local expectations of access and influence Issues of Transparency
 Who has access to information?
Annette Skovsted Hansen
ostash@hum.au.dk

5