MWSDBMelamchi Water Supply Development Board
References in periodicals archive ?
Technically, UML was right because there were no direct negotiations between MWSDB and DDC.
Lack of linkages between IGCD and MWSP in the ground level put the MWSDB in a difficult situation.
They also asked MWSDB to bypass the DDC to implement IGCD and create the separate new structure for the IGCD.
They handed several petitions to MWSDB, NORAD, UNDP and DDC through the line ministry to change the modality of the IGCD.
At the same time they also adopted the policy of fighting for establishing the local right of water use working together with MWSDB. Hence, UML had adopted dual policy and tried to keep its politics in-tact both in Kathmandu and Melamchi Valley.
Having recruited through DDC social mobilizers were close to DDC than MWSDB. MWSDB claimed that they were the staff of Melamchi Project and hoped that their role should be in the line of MWSDB-SUP.
MWSDB hoped that the social mobilizers would work like the ambassadors of MWSP.
Secondly, the MWSDB was a political organization deluxe and was mostly concerned with the politics of the Melamchi Valley and Kathmandu, not how the project would benefit the local inhabitants.