
Meeting the water scarcity threat
The core issue isn't just about funding dams. It's about the quality of the national response to a growing existential threat. And it's becoming painfully clear that there isn't enough of it. Provinces won't contribute. The federal government, despite all the alarm, has cut water sector allocations by nearly 30 percent.
The IMF, understandably, won't sign off on another broad-based tax when existing public development allocations are already underused or mis-prioritised. So if the 1 percent tax goes through, the burden will fall — yet again — on the already taxed sectors of the formal economy. No mention is made of how to involve, let alone tax, the very large undocumented economy.
The state's numbers don't inspire confidence either. Diamer-Bhasha and Mohmand dams were approved in 2018. Seven years later, they still require Rs540 billion just to reach completion — and that too based on outdated cost estimates. Yet next year's budget allocates only Rs25 billion and Rs35.7 billion to them, respectively. At this pace, even the ministry of water resources admits it could take up to 20 years to finish the job. But the public is being told, without irony, that both will be completed by 2030.
What's worse, the logic behind this new tax crumbles on contact with reality. The IMF has already advised the government to reprioritise within the Rs1 trillion Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) envelope instead of adding another blanket levy. But of that trillion, only Rs640 billion is actually available. The rest is tied up in road projects, provincial schemes, and politically sensitive special area allocations. Clearly, priorities are elsewhere.
There is also no discussion of accountability. The Gas Infrastructure Development Cess (GIDC) fiasco — where over Rs400 billion collected from the public still hasn't been deposited by private companies — hangs like a cautionary tale. It's one thing to announce a cess; it's quite another to recover and utilise it. Even the latest attempt to enforce GIDC collections, via a committee under the finance minister, is crawling along — exactly like all its predecessors.
The method of legislation also raises eyebrows. Since the courts have ruled that cesses must be purpose-specific and passed via separate legislation, the government cannot route this through the Finance Act. Hence, the need for a new bill. But the timing is suspect — trying to quietly pass a new blanket tax amid ongoing IMF negotiations and budget debates, while bypassing real public discourse.
And where are the provinces in all this? With the exception of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, none is willing to co-fund what are clearly national priority projects. Sindh, for instance, has gone from a reported surplus of Rs395 billion in March to suddenly projecting a Rs38.5 billion deficit — directly undermining the IMF's target of Rs1.4 trillion in combined provincial surpluses. That makes coordination not just difficult but dysfunctional.
This is not how strategic planning works. When the threat is as serious as a hostile upstream neighbour weaponising water, the response cannot be ad hoc taxation, weak coordination, and creative accounting. It requires hard conversations, difficult decisions, and, above all, clarity of purpose — none of which is currently in evidence.
The question, then, isn't just whether this 1 percent tax is justified. It's whether the people being asked to pay it have any reason to believe the state knows what it's doing.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Express Tribune
37 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Dar-Rubio talks to focus on regional tensions
Listen to article Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio are set to hold talks in Washington on Friday, the Foreign Office confirmed, saying bilateral ties, regional and international issues as well as India-Pakistan relationship would top the agenda. "I can confirm that the meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, and the entire range of issues on the bilateral agenda, as well as important regional and global issues including the situation in the Middle East, and Iran will be discussed," Shafqat Ali Khan told reporters on Thursday at the weekly briefing. "Exchange of views will also take place on the Pakistan-India question, for which we remain grateful for the role played by the US in de-escalation of tensions leading to ceasefire," he added. The meeting between Dar and Rubio is part of renewed efforts by the two sides to revive the structured dialogue between Pakistan and the US. The Biden administration completely ignored Pakistan and there had been no or little contacts at the level of foreign ministers. However, contrary to expectations, bilateral ties between Pakistan and the US have seen a positive turnaround since President Donald Trump began his second term. Pakistan's cooperation to arrest one of the masterminds of Abbey Gate Bombing in Kabul in August 2021 led to the rapprochement. President Trump in his maiden address praised Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts. What brought the two countries further close was the India-Pakistan conflict in May following the Pahalgam attack. While Pakistan acknowledged the Trump Administration's positive role in brokering the ceasefire, India kept challenging the US claims. Pakistan in order to make further inroads at the White House nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his courageous leadership and peace efforts in the subcontinent. Regarding reports of the US-Pakistan dialogue including discussion on Jammu & Kashmir and the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), the Spokesperson confirmed these issues remain central to Pakistan's diplomatic agenda and are expected to be raised in the DPM/FM's meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Asked about President Trump's recent remarks about credit for defusing a near-nuclear crisis in South Asia, Khan said: "We have repeatedly acknowledged the role of friendly nations, including the US. The facts of that crisis are well known." When asked, the Foreign Office spokesperson said Pakistan engages with all countries in good faith, and would continue to invite India to come to the negotiating table and move towards a peaceful settlement of disputes. "But the key question is for India to decide what kind of policy it wants to adopt. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our position is very clear. We have, multiple times, acknowledged and thanked the US intervention and the role it played in the de-escalation of the recent crisis," Shafqat said. "But again, it is for India to decide the route it wants to take, the policy it wants to adopt. Diplomatic engagement is not a favor extended by one country to another; it is in the common interest of both countries and of regional stability and global peace," he added. Meanwhile, the spokesperson described Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi's recent visit to Afghanistan as "very successful," saying it reflected the steady positive momentum in bilateral relations. Shafqat said the visit should be seen in the broader context of improving ties, citing the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister's visit to Kabul on April 19, 2025, as a "watershed moment." "There is a steady positive momentum in interactions, and the quality of relations has significantly improved. Both sides are working to further solidify the diplomatic gains, maintaining and accelerating this positive momentum," Khan said. The spokesperson emphasized that the interior ministry's agenda primarily focused on security and counterterrorism — issues that remain a key part of discussions between the two neighbors. "We have repeatedly reiterated what kind of relations we want with Afghanistan. However, one of the stumbling blocks is the sanctuaries enjoyed by terrorists there," the spokesperson noted. He added that Pakistan had conveyed its concerns to Kabul, and the Afghan side was showing "receptivity" to these issues. "The technical discussions are ongoing. I cannot go into specifics, but in political terms, the visit was very successful," Khan said. Highlighting the broader context of ties, the Foreign Office maintained that cooperation in the security sector must be viewed as part of the overall positivity and improvement in relations between the two "brotherly neighboring countries".


Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Austerity, current account surplus, & economic resilience
Recently, the Prime Minister reportedly lauded economic performance with regard to country achieving current account surplus. In a developing country, which is facing gross external financing requirements on average of around $20 billion annually over the medium-term, and which is highly debt distressed this may be called a positive consequence for the economy, but only at the surface. Go any deeper, it spells more problems for the economy than it brings a happy news for, especially in terms of creating economic growth consequences and much-needed greater spending towards meeting sustainable development goals (SDGs), and overall, climate change-, and 'Pandemicene' phenomenon-related economic resilience. Moreover, overall balance of payments (BOP) – which is composed of current account, capital account, and financial account – remained in the negative anyways, with a deficit over FY25 standing at US$3.7 billion while the deficit, in fact, increased by $877 million from FY24. Hence, while reportedly the PM attributed this surplus to be 'Driven by record remittances, rising exports, and a laser focus on structural reforms…' none of the claims provides the needed stable foundations for this surplus which, during July-June 2024-25, stood at US$2.1 billion. Starting with exports, for June 2025, year-on-year (y-o-y) exports declined by US$81 million while y-o-y there was only a moderate increase in exports during July-June 2024-25, which stood at around US$1.4 billion. Workers' remittances during FY25 y-o-y while increased considerably by $8.1 billion, yet they nonetheless remain a very unreliable resources, given a world of polycrisis, especially the fast-unfolding climate change crisis creating very unstable consequences for economic growth globally, bringing in its wake a high-level of randomness, not to mention gains from a serious crackdown in recent years on indirect channels on capital flows may have already provided much of the increase, and in that sense future years at most may see only low-level to moderate increase in remittances. Structural reforms have remained the weakest link of the government's economic reform performance, and it is quite surprising that the PM has cited them as a leading source of improvement of current account surplus. Rather, more damage has been done to both domestic production, and exports through government's over-board austerity policies than any gains from marginal, and narrow-scoped structural reforms, both as outlined in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) extended fund facility (EFF) programme that is currently being followed, and beyond as well. Moreover, the procyclical, and neoliberal nature of economic policy – both within and outside of the IMF programme – has limited the scope of overall much-needed economic reforms, which otherwise required much better rationalized role of public sector, and would have meant greater emphasis of reforms on improving (a) economic institutional quality – both in terms of governance and incentive structures (including regulation) – and underlying (b) organizational, and (c) market reforms. Hence, while the current account surplus remains on very unstable ground – not to mention that surplus anyways is not a favourable outcome for the country in any meaningful way, but more on this later in the article — overall balance of payments situation remains in deficit as indicated earlier, which means greater need for debt for an already highly debt distressed country, given a low level of foreign direct investment (FDI), which remains one of the most reliable sources for the economy in terms of bringing sustainable economic growth, among other positive consequences. As indicated, over-board austerity policy has meant that cost of capital has been at a high level, which in a developing country like Pakistan, whose exports, and overall economic growth, are significantly import-dependent, has meant that this has taken a heavy toll on both of them — while exports have only increased by around a paltry US$2 billion during the last fiscal year, economic growth has continued to hover over the last few years around the population growth rate of a little more than 2 percent on average. Moreover, lack of economic growth has negatively impacted domestic resource mobilization which, in turn, has negatively impacted domestic debt sustainability, lack of much increase in exports, low level of FDI has not even allowed reduction in overall BOP deficit of FY25 over FY24, which overall has meant a low level of build-up of foreign exchange reserves, when compared with the high external debt distress, and overall gross external financing needs. Last but not the least, Pakistan remains among the top-ten most climate change challenged countries in the world. In addition to the climate change-related goals in SDGs, it fares very poorly with regard to other goals, including poverty, disease, and education. This, in turn, means that the country needs to spend a lot more than it currently is doing, especially after spending a lot in terms of interest payments on debt, not to mention the fact that the lack of multilateral spirit has resulted in low level of multilateral finances, which puts all the more pressure on government to increase an otherwise low level of expenditure for increasing overall level of economic resilience. Current account surplus, achieved after a lot of austerity-caused economic growth sacrifice, has neither been able to produce positive consequences for macroeconomic, and economic institutional quality due to poor level of economic reforms, which have also meant that the country still has poor showing for exports, FDI, and overall BOP, nor has it allowed reaching fiscal space for making adequate expenditures towards enhancing otherwise poor level of economic resilience. (The writer holds PhD in Economics degree from the University of Barcelona, and previously worked at the International Monetary Fund. His contact on 'X' (formerly 'Twitter') is @omerjaved7) Copyright Business Recorder, 2025


Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Implementing law, growing exports
EDITORIAL: The Senate's passage of a bill to limit the death penalty in line with GSP+ requirements may have raised a few eyebrows, but it is a necessary and long-overdue step. For too long, Pakistan has failed to match the rhetoric of economic reform with actual, difficult decisions. If GSP+ demands limiting capital punishment to only the most serious crimes, then that's exactly what must be done; no matter how polarising the conversation. Exports are not optional. They are a lifeline. Without sustained export growth, Pakistan will keep returning to the IMF, and keep falling further behind its peers. And yet, after all the slogans, special economic zones, policy incentives, and handshakes with trade partners, exports remain stubbornly stagnant. The only thing worse than not being able to grow exports, is not being able to meet conditions that allow access to markets at all. That's why compliance with the GSP+ framework matters more than ideological grandstanding. It is not Pakistan's prerogative to tell the European Union how to frame human rights laws. Nor should dissenting lawmakers presume they can afford to miss export quotas on the pretext of domestic legal interpretations. The real question is whether Pakistan can protect its citizens without inviting international scrutiny for overreach in criminal justice. Besides, the argument that crime is deterred by harsher punishment has been debunked the world over. Pakistan is not the only country to have had a public flogging era, or a time of blanket capital punishments. And yet its conviction rates remain abysmally low, with most violent criminals never brought to justice. If the point is deterrence, then it is implementation — not escalation — that delivers results. Laws are only as effective as their enforcement, and that is where Pakistan falls short. Look no further than the seafood export sector. It just posted its highest-ever volume, but still fell short of the $500 million mark — again. That revenue target has eluded the country for more than a decade now, despite the industry's tireless efforts and policy-level support. Market access limitations, quality control gaps, and regulatory bottlenecks continue to hold it back. These are issues of execution, not intention. The same holds true for the country's overall export base. Textiles remain too import-dependent, IT exports are throttled by inconsistent policies, and agricultural exporters face market access issues tied to sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Most of these challenges are solvable; if the government focuses more on execution and less on optics. Complying with GSP+ rules isn't just about pleasing the EU; it is about positioning Pakistan as a responsible, rules-based member of the global economy. That credibility cannot be built with rhetoric or nationalist defiance. It requires institutional commitment, legal alignment, and the maturity to treat external trade as a strategic priority, not a bargaining chip. Lawmakers opposing the amendment would do well to remember that this is not about letting criminals off easy. It is about taking international obligations seriously so the country can keep what little trade leverage it still holds. If those obligations require reframing certain laws to reflect international norms, so be it. Pakistan's economy doesn't have the luxury of ideological detours anymore. Export-led growth is the only sustainable path forward. And access to premium markets, especially those with preferential trade frameworks, must be protected at all costs. The sooner we realise this, the better our chances of ever breaking out of the low-growth, high-debt trap. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025