Balochistan is the Bleeding Heart of Pakistan

WITH GRATITUDE AND GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF BALOCHISTAN YOUTH MOVEMENT

PostHeaderIcon Higher poverty in Balochistan

By Syed Fazl-e-Haider

 Reference

Conflict in Balochistan among other reasons also highlights its ‘poverty’. The ongoing military operation is pushing more and more people towards below-poverty line, says a report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP).

 

 

The HRCP’s January 22 report reveals how natural resources turn out to be a matter of threat and survival for the people who own them. The incidence of poverty is higher here than any other province, despite the fact that it is endowed with rich reserves of gas, oil, coal, gold and copper. “Misguided obsession with the state’s version of development while children are not able to go to school because of ongoing confrontation, will undermine development itself,” the commission has warned.

Poverty is a multi-dimensional concept rather than simple income (consumption) deprivation. Any single measure of poverty, such as head-count ratio based on specific ‘poverty line’ does not fully capture all its dimensions and does not reflect the real causes of wider human sufferings.

‘Poverty of opportunity’ index, a composite of deprivation in three vital dimensions— health, education and income— is quite useful in this regard. In case of Balochistan, any single measure indicates that it is the poorest province.

Only 20 per cent of its people have an access to safe drinking water compared to 86 per cent in the rest of Pakistan. Village electrification is only 25 per cent compared to 75 per cent in the rest of the country. Infant mortality rate per 1,000 people is 108 as against national rate of 100. The situation of basic amenities and access to education is also far below the ratio of other provinces.

Presently, the poor are recovering from the devastating drought that plagued the province for the last five years. The groundwater is depleting rapidly. Only six per cent of the land is cultivable and productivity is low because of the arid conditions.

The predominantly patriarchal social structures are a traditional challenge to human development and gender equity. The rugged and inaccessible terrain, limited water resources for irrigation, large illiterate population, ethnic diversity and traditional women’s status are added challenges to economic growth and human development.

To quote Mir Khuda Bakhsh, a clan elder of the Marri tribe in Kohlu, who told newsmen that the motive of the military action is to capture oil and gas resources of the area. According to him, the local people ask, what benefits the exploitation of power resources in Dera Bugti has brought to their lives in the past 50 years? They still burn wood for fuel purpose and live like nomads.

Then, how would the exploitation of mineral riches from Kohlu benefit the local population in the future? Whereas the Sui gas brought an industrial revolution in Pakistan, Balochistan still lacks an industrial base which is the single biggest cause of unemployment in the province..

Though the natural gas was discovered in Balochistan in 1952, its many districts remain deprived of gas transmission facility. It was only in 1976 that the province got its first liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in Quetta. Later, gas through pipelines was made available in that city.

Even Sui in Bugti tribal area, which houses the gas plant, does not have piped gas connections in most cases. District Ziarat got piped gas connections only last year after several protests from environmentalists and NGOs lamenting the fact that that the local population was still using wood from Juniper forests.

Sui gas field in Bugti tribal area meets approximately 45 per cent of the country’s total gas production. The Pakistan Petroleum Ltd (PPL) is producing 720-750 million cubic feet of gas per day from its 80 plus wells in the field. The gas reserves discovered were to the tune of 9.625 trillion cubic feet.

According to an estimate, the province produces natural gas worth Rs85 billion annually but gets Rs7 billion only as royalty from the federal government.

The 12.5 per cent royalty fixed for gas drawn from the field area is based on “wellhead value”, which is much below market value received by other gas fields in other provinces.

Sui gas field is the single largest source of energy supply for different industries, power generation, agriculture, commerce and household use in the country. This gas is also used for manufacturing fertilizer and other chemicals and is a vital source of huge foreign exchange savings as the same would have been spent on the import of energy had the gas reserves not been discovered. Unfortunately, the province has been deprived of its due share in terms of royalty and economic benefits.

Balochistan remains almost voiceless, having no say in the decision- making process at the centre. Its over 50 per cent population subsists below the poverty line.Income-based inequities in human development need to be addressed.

During FY 2000-2001, only 9.2 per cent of the total Khushhal Pakistan programme budget had been allocated to the province compared to 16.2 per cent for the NWFP, 19.7 per cent for Sindh, and 48.9 per cent for Punjab. During the first year of the programme, utilization as a percentage of the budgeted amount was the lowest for the province at 2.8 per cent compared to 7.7 per cent in NWFP, 8.2 per cent in Sindh, and 19 per cent in Punjab.

In the FY 2004, the federal contribution to the provincial development programmes was 56 per cent for NWFP, 28 per cent for Punjab, 19 per cent for Sindh and only eight per cent for Balochistan. The share allocated in foreign project assistance (FPA) to Punjab was 53 per cent, NWFP 29 per cent, Sindh 12 per cent and again only six per cent for Balochistan.

As provided in the 1973 Constitution, the concurrent list of subjects was to be reviewed after 10 years in 1983. This has not been done even after a lapse of 31 years.

Balochistan’s financial position is so weak that sometimes the provincial government seems to be merely a salary distribution-agency instead of a federating unit.

Frequently there arises a problem of shortfall of revenue and the provincial chief executive warns of stopping payment of salaries to government employees. The province generates a revenue of Rs1.622 billion, apparently just enough to pay the monthly salaries of its officials. A grant of Rs27 billion is received from the federal government and has a deficit of Rs15.5 billion.

The over centralisation and arbitrary nature of decision-making has been the potent reason behind Balochistan-Centre row. Allocation of funds for the development in the province remain at the discretion of the economic planners in Islamabad. It is also because of the dominance of central authorities in the National Finance Commission that the province feels a stranglehold of the centre over its natural resources.

A simmering insurgency has continued in Balochistan over the last three decades. But, since the early 1970s there had been no open armed conflict between the government and the Baloch tribes. In early 2000, tension rose but in the beginning of 2005, it turned pretty sour.

A multi-factor approach must be adopted vis-a-vis sharing of resources among the provinces, instead of a ‘population-alone’ basis. In the next NFC Award, the weightage for revenue, poverty and area should be given so that it deny a fair share to any province.

 

Pakistan Poverty Down to 17% in 2007-2008

Center for Poverty Reduction (CPRSPD), backed by the United Nations Development Program(UNDP), has estimated that Pakistan’s poverty at national level declined sharply from 22.3 percent in 2005-06 (versus India’s poverty rate of 42%) to 17.2 percent in 2007-08. Prior to this report, the 2009 UN Human and Income Poverty Report said the people living under $1.25 a day in India is 41.6 percent, about twice as much as Pakistan’s 22.6 percent. The latest poverty estimate of 17.2% has been validated by the World Bank.
It should not be a big surprise, given the close relationship between poverty reduction and robust economic growth that Pakistan saw from 2005-06 to 2007-08. The economic slowdown has only occurred in 2008-09, which appears to have resulted in some visible poverty increase on the ground since the middle of last year. However, there seems to be a deliberate effort being made by some politically motivated Pakistani economists and politicians to delay the release of CPDSPD data and deny what Dr. Ashfaq Khan of NUST calls “the major economic and social achievements of the last one decade” under President Musharraf. Dr. Khan cites the Letter of Intent that the PPP government signed with the IMF which acknowledged that Pakistan’s GDP jumped “from $60 billion in 2000-01 to $170 billion in 2007-08 with per capita income rising from under $500 to over $1000”. The LOI with IMF also acknowledged that “Pakistan attracted over $5 billion in foreign direct investment in the 2006-07 fiscal year, ten times the figure of 2000-01. The government’s debt fell from 68% of GDP in 2003-04 to less than 55% in 2006-07, and its foreign-exchange reserves reached $16.4 billion as recently as in October (2008).” Here’s an interesting OpEd published in the News by Dr Ashfaque H Khan on how poverty statistics in Pakistan are fair game for the various “experts” with an ax to grind:
The present government is facing real embarrassment on poverty estimates for 2007-08. The Panel of Economists, formed by the government in April 2008 under the leadership of Dr Hafiz Pasha, found that 35-40 percent people of Pakistan were living below the poverty line in 2007-08 – up from 22.3 percent in 2005-06. The political leadership, unaware of the technical details of the estimation techniques, took the estimates of the Panel seriously and everybody, including the ministers, the prime minister and the president started mentioning the numbers within and outside the country. The political leadership had no reason to distrust the professional skills of the Panel of Economists. Their only fault was that they could not realize that some members of the Panel of Economists were positioning themselves to get ministerial jobs and some retired “experts” were trying to secure their jobs in the government. These people could have moved their way to the present regime only if they would paint a bleak picture of the state of the economy, including the substantial rise in poverty. I am positive that this Panel of Economists has had no courage to write similar three paragraphs as documented in the Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies attached with the Letter of Intent, signed by the Government of Pakistan on Nov 20, 2008 with the IMF. These three paragraphs, written by the present regime, very aptly summarize the major economic and social achievements of the last one decade, including the “reduction in poverty and an improvement in many social indicators.” It appears that the Panel of Economists was trying to become more Christian than the Pope and as such came up with poverty estimates based on flawed methodology.
On the other hand, the Centre for Poverty Reduction and Social Policy Development (CPRSPD), using the(Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) Survey 2007-08, also estimated poverty for the year 2007-08. They found that poverty at national level declined sharply from 22.3 percent in 2005-06 to 17.2 percent in 2007-08. Poverty, both in rural and urban areas also registered sharp declines. The estimates of the CPRSPD were also validated by the experts from the World Bank. The “experts” from the Planning Commission are of the view that a sharp decline in poverty in 2007-08 does not depict the ground reality. Why should it depict the ground reality? Firstly, the period it covers is from July 2007 to June 2008. Secondly, poverty estimates are not like the growth number, money supply or inflation which change yearly. Poverty number reflects the changes in the lives of the people which are affected by the policies pursued for a fairly long period of time. To be fair to the government, how can they say now that the poverty in Pakistan has declined substantially in 2007-08 as opposed to their earlier stance that it had increased to the range of 35-40 percent? In other words, how can they say that at the time of taking charge of the state of affairs only 17.2 percent people were living below the poverty line and that there are indications that poverty is on the rise once again in Pakistan. This is indeed the real embarrassment for the government caused by the Panel of Economists.
Poverty estimates are highly sensitive to changes in different variables. For example, should we use calorie intake or basic need approach or should we use 2550, 2250 or 2350 calorie to draw the poverty line? Should we use CPI, SPI, WPI or prices derived from the Survey itself to adjust the poverty line or should we use consumption or income? The basket of commodities may differ across researchers and even the cleaning protocol of data may give different poverty estimates. Thus, at any given point in time there can be different poverty estimates with same or different data sets. What is required, therefore, is that we continue to use the same methodology irrespective of its strength and weaknesses, lest we should never be able to know as to what is happening on poverty front.
There are views about the methodology used by the Panel of Economists. One, that in the absence of PSLM Survey data for 2007-08 the Panel simply adjusted the poverty line upward to the extent of cumulative inflation (20 percent) for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08. On the other hand, they used household consumption expenditure for the year 2005-06, which was not adjusted upward to match the poverty line. In other words, apple was compared with orange. Naturally, such a flawed methodology was bound to produce erroneous results. Second, that the Panel used an equation to forecast poverty. This equation has many exogenous variables, such as food inflation, remittances, openness of trade, development expenditure as percentage of GDP, etc. Giving the value of each variable for 2007-08 and using the estimated parameters it predicted poverty for 2007-08. Forecasting is a complex exercise and requires transparency in the use of data. The Panel did not release those numbers which went into the model. Thirdly, they used the preliminary version of the model whose parameters changed substantially in subsequent revisions. The Panel never bothered to contact the author of the model. Had they contacted him, he could have saved the Panel from such disgrace.
At the end, let me once again appeal to the Planning Commission to release the poverty numbers for 2007-08. Not releasing the number is not a good idea. The number is already out. Don’t embarrass the government any more. Forget the Panel’s report and trust your own young economists at the CPRSPD.
The author is dean and professor at NUST Business School, Islamabad. Email: [email protected]

 

 

Comments are closed.

(will not be published)