On The World Bank's "Climate Investment Opportunities in South Asia: Nepal" Paper

Paper can be found here: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/342611515582029095/Climate-investment-opportunities-in-South-Asia-Nepal

What happens to the investment fund amount if it is suddenly found to be insufficient? While we can expect the World Bank's projections of investment amounts (totaling $46 billion in Nepal regarding climate-related projects) to be the result of careful study and testing, it does not play the role first of a developer and then of a financial “bank.” As a bank, its resources are spent on obtaining accurate numbers for the funds. But it does not recognize that a degree of inaccuracy features in all calculations.

The World Bank is precisely a stabilizing entity when it comes to investment in the poor world. That means that it is first a bank oriented towards financial stability; by firmly listing the precise amounts of investment in Nepal, it decides the amount of funds that will be spent in Nepal. But even its second goal is not development for the communities in Nepal, but rather a modification to societal entities depending on how firmly it wishes to align itself with its initial projections of investment funds. Perhaps the World Bank's help is not always certain, while the amount of funds spent on investment is fully certain to the World Bank, and a significant part of its power is oriented towards not changing that projected amount at any cost.

Why haven't the funds listed in this report also contained a margin for times of emergency, or an affirmation of miscalculation in the modeling used? Perhaps because the World Bank does not decide the amount based on what is needed in Nepal, but what funds have arrived to it, what money it can make available for Nepal with absolute 100% certainty. There is another “space,” perhaps even outside the World Bank offices, where the numbers are discussed along with the margin for error and such.

It is important to decide which “layer” of calculations is fully accurate and which isn't. Perhaps $46 billion will certainly arrive to Nepal, but that the $10 billion spent on electric vehicles/transport is a more inaccurate figure? Where in its work as a bank that manages funds is the World Bank autonomous from its sources of funding?

On IMF's Macroeconomic Indicators Concerning Oil Imports to Nepal

IMF's Report Found Here: http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Countries/ResRep/NPL/Macroindicators/charts-january-2018.ashx?la=en

A January 2018 report on macroeconomic indicators in Nepal published by the IMF contains the division between “oil imports” and “non-oil imports.” On first reading, this appears a division purely based on two different kinds of imports, that is, between two independent variables. However, the very specification of “oil” and its opposition with the vague “non-oil” variable reveals an international supply-chain that is not properly specialized when it arrives to Nepal, as is clearly evident in the vague collecting of every import besides oil within the “non-oil” bracket.

As a result, a problem is the impossibility, in the very event of rendering non-oil imports “visible” to someone like a customs officer for instance, of evaluating each individual imported object on its own. Perhaps an accounting of the objects (their number, their price) occurs, but there is no deeper contemplation of their qualities and purpose right at the point/border before they enter Nepal and the Nepali market.

Also as a result, the Nepali market cannot "anticipate" which objects are being imported based on the customs processes that occur at its border; the broadest division between oil and non-oil characterizes the whole presentation of imported objects in Nepal in too important a way. It is in light of this problem that the increase in oil imports, which according to the IMF report seems to be a real trend in Nepal in recent years, must be thought of. For the increase in oil imports could mean that any attempt at differentiating the objects within the non-oil group may be ignored.