Bhutan's Picture of Gross National Happiness Blurs

By: 
Samir Mehta
Samir in Thimphu the capital of Bhutan
Samir in Thimphu, the capital of Bhutan
Photo courtesy of Ritwick Dutta

Bhutan fires the imagination of an ideal mountain country with many snow-clad peaks, where people go about their daily chores in serenity, dressed in their national dress, wearing a smile and with a song on their lips. The image of the Gross National Happiness (GNH) that it portrays is ever present. The four pillars of the GNH are Sustainable and Equitable Socio-Economic Development, Conservation of the Environment, Preservation and Promotion of Culture and Good Governance. It was with these expectations that I made my first visit to Bhutan recently, to find out more about Bhutan’s hydropower plans. I returned with some memorable experiences and apprehensions of Bhutan’s future – of its GNH.

The taxi driver smiled most of the drive from the airport in Paro to Thimphu, the capital. He stopped to refill his water bottle at a spring, give a ride to a local schoolteacher, stopped to buy doma (betel nut leaf with lime and half an areca nut), and chatted with other drivers on the way. He was a picture of happiness, of a slow relaxed life. Even the policeman understood when he stopped the taxi in a no parking area to buy doma.

In contrast, bureaucrats, elected representatives, consultants to the Royal Government of Bhutan and NGOs were all extremely busy either traveling or in long meetings. But they did all make time to meet with me, at relatively short notice. They were clearly responsive and bureaucrats immediately responded to subsequent emails. This was refreshing when compared to Indian bureaucrats who seldom, if ever, respond.

The downstream of Coffer Dam on Punatsangchhu-I HEP
Downstream of the coffer dam on Punatsangchhu-I HEP
Photo courtesy of Ritwick Dutta
All were clear that Bhutan’s economic growth depends on hydropower, that hydropower is here to stay. But none acknowledged the negative impacts of dams. Nor was there an acknowledgement that not all factors, including climate change and GLOFs (Glacial Lake Outburst Floods), have been considered while deciding to exploit the nation’s hydropower potential. In this, it is evident that Bhutan is a nascent democracy. People are neither accustomed to nor confident enough to oppose their government’s plans. As of today there is not a sufficient NGO voice responding to the government’s plans. There are only a few environmental NGOs in the country and the government supports all of them. If there were more independent environmental NGOs, perhaps louder voices would have been heard against the two Punatsangchhu hydropower projects. But this is likely to change as in 2007 Bhutan passed the Civil Society Organizations Act to permit establishment and registration of CSOs.
White Bellied Heron
White Bellied Heron
Photo courtesy of Ritwick Dutta
The two Punatsangchhu projects would destroy the habitat of about 20 White Bellied Heron, which account for roughly 10% of the world’s population. They are a critically endangered species as per the 2007 IUCN Red List, with only about 200 of them in the world. There has been no loud local opposition to the project on this or any other grounds, nor have there been objections raised by IUCN or other global wildlife NGOs. Perhaps they were not aware. However it may not yet be too late as only the coffer dam of Punatsanchhu-I and some tunnels of the 1,200 MW Punatsanchhu-I and 990 MW Punatsanchhu-II have been constructed. For example, an international discourse could be initiated on how Bhutan can be compensated for protecting the habitat of a globally critically endangered species.
Everyone including bureaucrats, elected representatives and NGOs are aware that the projects will result in the destruction of the White Bellied Heron’s habitat. One elected representative said that Bhutan would not develop the dams if it were given the money not to. However he had no reply to the question of why some other dam could not have been selected instead. Bhutan’s commitment to India is for 10,000 MW by 2020 and its hydropower potential as per the Power System Master Plan is estimated at 30,000 MW. Can Bhutan not assess which project will have the least impacts and develop those?
Dochula, Bhutan
Dochula, Bhutan
Photo courtesy of Ritwick Dutta
While an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) process exists in Bhutan, it still needs to evolve. The National Environment Commission screens projects and decides whether or not a project needs an EIA report and public hearings. The criteria for this decision are not clear. No one in civil society organizations has seen EIA reports of these two projects and queries to bureaucrats as to whether or not the EIAs exist remain unanswered. Public consultations and meetings under the EIA process are carried out by the project proponent, and are generally restricted to project proponents meeting select individuals in the affected areas. The Government holds no public consultations and meetings. It is not clear how Bhutan can hope to avoid the usual environmental problems unless EIAs are made mandatory for all large-scale projects, including dams, shared with the public, public consultations and meetings held and interests of local people safeguarded. This needs to be done especially in light of the fact that access to information is a constitutional right in Bhutan. Perhaps Bhutan can refer to India’s EIA regulations (which, on paper, are good) and improve on its drawbacks and on its implementation in India.
Check back tomorrow for part II and more photos of my trip to Bhutan.
Date: 
Tuesday, March 5, 2013