Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
In a big positive on the opening day of the climate change conference here, negotiators agreed to discuss the creation of an international mechanism for compensating poor countries that suffer largescale damage due to climate disasters.
The issue of loss and damage, as it is referred to in the climate negotiations, was included in the formal main agenda of the climate conference for the first time ever, after being discussed in a separate track for years.
It is an important movement in the right direction. Now, it must be ensured that it is taken forward with complete transparency, keeping in mind the needs of the poorer and most vulnerable countries.
The decision to include loss and damage in the main agenda comes in the wake of a series of unprecedented climate disasters this year — Europe’s worst drought in 500 years, Pakistan’s worst ever flooding, extensive heat waves in several parts of the world.
There had been strident demands from a growing number of countries to discuss loss and damage more seriously and with greater urgency than earlier.
The demand for loss and damage finance is quite old, but it has faced strong resistance from the rich and developed countries.
After much persuasion by the developing countries and NGOs, the climate conference had, in 2013, set up the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on Loss and Damages as a separate track to continue the discussions on this front. But the progress has been painfully slow.
Inclusion in the formal agenda is just the first step. The actual provision for compensation for climate disasters is a long way ahead. Getting the rich and developed world to make money available for climate response has been a difficult struggle.
And quantifying loss due to climate impact is complicated. But this decision has set a positive tone for the two-week conference.
The discussions under WIM so far have focused mainly on enhancing knowledge and strengthening dialogue. No funding mechanism, or even a promise to provide funds, has come about.
At last year’s climate conference in Glasgow, a three-year task force was set up to discuss a funding arrangement for loss and damage.
The inclusion in the main agenda will have the effect of mainstreaming the issue, and would force regular discussions and greater progress.
Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network International, who has been one of the most active campaigners on loss and damage finance, said the Sharm el-Shaikh meeting must deliver more on this issue.
help people recover from the impacts of climate crisis, such as intensifying floods, droughts and rising seas,” he said.
Govt & Politics
2022 likely to be fifth – sixth wamest year so far: WMO (Page no. 7)
(GS Paper 3, Environment)
Global mean temperatures for 2022 are currently estimated to be about 1.15 degree Celsius higher than pre-industrial times, a new assessment by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The widely acknowledged danger mark for temperature rise is considered to be 1.5 degree Celsius from pre-industrial times, which is the average for the period 1850-1900.
The assessment is based on temperature data from January to September this year. Data from the remaining three months might make the annual mean for 2022 slightly different from the 1.15 degree Celsius number, but the WMO said the year was still likely to end up being the fifth or sixth warmest year on record (since 1850).
The warmest year on record so far has been 2016, when the global mean temperatures were measured to be about 1.28 degree Celsius higher than pre-industrial times.
This number for 2016 was earlier known to be 1.1 degree Celsius, but recently the WMO revised it upwards after taking into account the measurements of one more international dataset.
The estimate for 2022 is part of the provisional State of Global Climate Report that the WMO publishes every year. The final report for this year is due only in April next year, but like so many other reports and analyses that are timed around the climate change conference, the provisional State of Global Climate Report is meant to update climate negotiators on the latest trends and nudge them towards more urgent action.
For a realistic chance to keep global warming within 1.5 degree Celsius, annual emissions would need to drop from the current level of about 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent to about 33 billion tonnes by 2030 and 8 billion tonnes by 2050, according to the newest Emissions Gap Report.
In May this year, the WMO said there was a 50 per cent chance that the global temperatures would temporarily touch the 1.5 degree Celsius mark within the next five years (by 2026).
It also said it was almost certain (93 per cent likelihood) that one of these five years (till 2026) would end up being warmer than 2016, thus setting a new record.
The chance of temporarily exceeding 1.5 degree Celsius has risen steadily since 2015 when it was close to zero. For the years between 2017 and 2021, there was a 10 per cent chance of exceedance. That probability has increased to nearly 50 per cent for the 2022-2026 period.
In its provisional state of climate report, released on Sunday, the WMO said the even more worrying aspect was the fact that the warming in 2022 so far has happened despite the presence of a prolonged La Nina (a cooling of sea-surface waters in the equatorial Pacific Ocean) which tends to temporarily cool down the earth a bit.
Express network
Study links PM 2.5 pollutants to anaemia prevalence (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 3, Environment)
Long-term exposure to fine airborne particulate matter — PM 2.5 pollutants — may increase the prevalence of anaemia among women of reproductive age through systemic inflammation, a study has found.
According to the study, ‘Reducing the burden of anaemia in Indian women of reproductive age with clean-air targets’, anaemia prevalence will fall from 53 per cent to 39.5 per cent if India meets its recent clean-air targets, taking 186 districts below the national target of 35 per cent. India’s anaemia prevalence among women of reproductive age (15-45 years) is among the highest in the world.
The study, published in the Nature Sustainability journal around the end of August, was carried out by researchers from institutions and organisations in India, the US and China, including IIT-Delhi and IIT-Bombay.
The findings state that for every ten microgram/cubic metre of air increase in ambient PM2.5 exposure, the average anaemia prevalence among such women increases by 7.23 per cent.
Our results suggest that the transition to clean energy would accelerate India’s progress towards the ‘anaemia-free’ mission target,” says the study, which takes into account data from the National Family Health Survey-4 and National Sample Survey Office, along with PM 2.5 levels in various districts.
Among PM 2.5 sources, sulphate and black carbon are more associated with anaemia than organics and dust, finds the study, adding that among sectoral contributors, industry was the biggest.
This was followed by the unorganised sector, domestic sources, power sector, road dust, agricultural waste burning and transport sector.
Anaemia, a major contributor to the global disease burden, is characterised by diminished blood haemoglobin concentration and is often accompanied by a decrease in red blood cells. This results in a decrease in the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.
Women of reproductive age may suffer from regular iron deficiency due to menstruation and therefore are particularly prone to develop anaemia (from mild to severe).
Dietary iron deficiency is another leading cause of anaemia. Other contributing factors include genetic disorders, parasitic infections and inflammation from infections and chronic diseases. The World Health Organization has set a global target to halve anaemia among women of reproductive age by 2053.
Anaemia is highly prevalent in India. The National Family and Health Survey 2015–2016 (NFHS-4) reported that 53.1% of WRA and 58.5% of children under five were anaemic.
The Editorial Page
A message to Twitter titans: Take a sabbatical from Musk’s Twitter(Page no. 10)
(Miscellaneous)
Over the course of a month-long drama, Elon Musk discovered a basic truth: Free speech is not free. Now, even the rest of us without $44 billion to spare are finding out the high price that we must pay as well.
The public square has been reduced to a public spectacle. Shortly after walking into the headquarters of Twitter — the company he committed to buying, then regretted buying and ultimately bought for $44 billion — kitchen sink in hand, Musk adopted a more sober tone with advertisers. Musk’s guarantee was that he would not allow Twitter to devolve into a free-for-all hellscape.
And from that point on, a hellscape it has become.
The crazies want to clamber back on. Musk himself has been deluged with requests from American right-wing politicians to Russian media bosses to end the ban on the crazies.
The emperor of the crazies, Donald Trump, fired off a note saying that he was “very happy” with Musk in the building. Racists, neo-Nazis and far-right conspiracy theorists with access to the platform are having a field day.
In advance of a highly polarised midterm election next week, disinformation is washing over the country and tensions are high.
To allay everybody’s worst fears, Musk declared that he would appoint a “content moderation council” at Twitter whose job would be to sift through the garbage and take out the toxic stuff.
Sadly, the council is not in place yet; had it been its first task would have been to strike down Musk himself. After a deranged nut invaded the home of Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, with the intent of breaking the 82-year old’s kneecaps, binding her with zip-ties and kidnapping her, conspiracy theories and lies exploded on Twitter and Musk helped spread them further with his own commentary blasted out to his 113 million followers, “there is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story.”
Now we all know that Musk likes to fool around on Twitter, but assault had grave consequences. The would-be kidnapper could not find his quarry who happened to be on the other side of the country but succeeded in smashing her 82-year-old husband’s head with the hammer intended for his wife’s kneecaps.
Musk did delete his own vile content but the damage had been done. His re-tweet was re-re-tweeted by his devotees. There could not be a worse moment for the fox to have bought the hen house.
Not that a fellow as clever as Musk ever needs to take a break, but he’s been moving at warp speed. He was already hard at work on a bold new business model for the company.
He intends to charge a fee to users who earn a coveted blue check marked “verified” status. Even this project turned into a horror show with Musk haggling with the master horror storyteller, Stephen King, about the fee.
With all this chaos within a few days of the Musk takeover, you would think that #QuitTwitter would be trending, and users and advertisers would be headed for the exits.
We are still waiting for the stampede. Former US President, Barack Obama, with the largest follower base on Twitter is still there. Now you can excuse him as he is busy campaigning for the Democrats in advance of the elections and the megaphone matters.
The Ideas Page
When chips are down(Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
The two external obstacles to India achieving its economic potential are its vulnerability to the geopolitical and supply chain vicissitudes of the petroleum and electronics industries.
I have had a long association with the former but have no experience of the latter. I did, however, recently read the book, Chip war: The fight for the world’s most critical technology by Chris Miller.
That gave me some insight and triggered the reflection that even though the two industries are different in nature and profile, they share common structural denominators.
And that an elaboration of these commonalities might be useful to those who have embarked on the journey to develop domestic semiconductor chip capacity.
Put succinctly, both industries are dominated by a handful of countries and corporates, both are capital intensive and cyclical, both sit at the nub of interdependent global relations, both are in the cross hairs of international geopolitics, and both are characterised by technological dynamism.
The supply of petroleum is dominated by the “cartel” OPEC and mega-sized public and private multinational companies, often referred to as the “super majors”.
The semiconductor value chain is comparably close-knit. The US is arguably the most powerful player. Every chip produced in the world has a direct or indirect connection with the country.
The software for chips, for instance, is provided by three US based companies — Cadence, Synopsys and Mentor. ASML, the sole producer of the equipment EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography), is a Dutch company but dependent on its wholly-owned San Diego-based subsidiary Cymer for the manufacturing tools.
Samsung and Hynix, which together produce 44 per cent of the world’s memory chips, and TSMC, which fabricates 37 per cent of the world’s logic chips and 92 per cent of the most advanced chips, are Korean and Taiwanese respectively. Both are protected by the US military security blanket.
The US is, however, not the only cog in the semiconductor life cycle. There are other critical cogs. Were TSMC’s fabrication facilities to fall into an earthquake fault or destroyed by military action, one third of the worlds computing power would grind to a halt, the 5G network would collapse and, according to Miller, the economic loss would be trillions of dollars.
Geopolitics is at the core of both industries. Every oil import dependent country has beaten a path to the Middle East to secure access to petroleum and at times “weaponised” their efforts to safeguard this objective.
Going Green without Pause (Page no. 11)
(GS Paper 3, Environment)
As the world has gathered at Sharm El-Sheikh for COP27, we are facing a dual challenge.On the one hand, the climate crisis is hitting with greater force than ever.
This summer, floods swept a third of Pakistan, killing thousands. In Ethiopia, the worst droughts in decades pushed millions into hunger and starvation.
In the Sahel, water scarcity is exacerbating conflicts over resources and land, forcing people to migrate. All of this shows that the climate crisis is the biggest security challenge humanity faces in the 21st century – and taking action against it is more urgent than ever.
On the other hand, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has been eroding the international trust we need for successful global climate action. President Vladimir Putin’s war is not only inflicting unspeakable suffering on Ukraine, but is also trampling the UN Charter underfoot.
It has shaken global energy markets and fuelled a hunger crisis, hitting the most vulnerable hardest. Putin’s aggression has brought geopolitical polarisation to heights not seen since the Cold War.
As the German delegation reaches COP27, we are keenly aware of this tough environment. We know this will be a particularly difficult climate conference.
Still, Germany, with our partners in the European Union, will do all we can to advance climate action. Now is the time for ambitious emissions-cutting by all countries to stay on the 1.5-degree Celsius path. Now is the moment to show solidarity with the children, women and men hit hardest by storms and droughts.
As a major economy and emitter, we know that Germany has particular responsibilities. When assuming office last year, our government set out ambitious energy transition plans.
Today, in response to Russia’s weaponisation of energy, we are taking painful steps that seemingly contradict those plans. Many people from Africa, the Middle East and Asia are asking us: “Now that Russia’s war rages in Europe, has Germany cancelled its energy transition and its promises on solidarity?”
Our answer is clear, and it is also our message for COP27: Germany is not deviating one inch from its climate goals. On the contrary, we are doubling down on them.
Yes, we are taking tough decisions to get Germany and Europe through this and next winter. But the coal-fired power plants we have reactivated will run only until March 2024.
New permanent pipelines we are building to import LNG are required by law to be hydrogen-ready. And in the European Union, we have committed to cutting gas consumption by 15 per cent this winter – not least to push global LNG prices down.
Most importantly, our government has boosted Germany’s energy transition. In July, the Bundestag passed the most ambitious legislation ever to expand renewables and energy efficiency.
In the first half of 2022, the share of renewables in our electricity mix rose to almost 50 per cent – and with the new legislation, it will climb to 80 per cent by 2030.
World
China trip worthwhile as Xi opposed nukes in Ukraine, says scholz (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was heavily criticised for a trip to Beijing this week, said on Saturday his and Chinese President Xi Jinping's joint statement opposing the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine had been reason enough for the visit.
Scholz's comments came a day after his visit to the world's second-biggest economy alongside German corporate CEOs, the first by a G7 leader since the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Because the Chinese government, the president and I were able to declare that no nuclear weapons should be used in this war, that alone made the whole trip worthwhile," Scholz said during an event of his Social Democratic party.
Xi, who secured a third leadership term two weeks ago, agreed that both leaders "jointly oppose the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons" over Ukraine, but refrained from criticising Russia or calling on Moscow to withdraw its troops.
Scholz, who has been criticised for seeming to continue a strategy that exposes Germany's economy excessively to China, its most important trading partner, said diversifying was key to limit possible repercussions should the relationship sour.
We have a clear plan, and we are following it through. And that means diversifying for all the countries we trade with, especially, of course, a country that is so big and has such a large share of the world economy.
We will continue economic exchange with China ... But it's also clear, we're going to position ourselves to be able to deal with a situation at any time where there are difficulties - whether it's 10 years from now or 30 years.
A separate government source said the impression was that the message had sunk in and that companies were diversifying while developing China ties.
This is particularly key for Germany's carmakers active in China, the world's top market, including Volkswagen, which has repeatedly been slammed for its plant in the Xinjiang region given reports of human rights violations there.
Battery materials, which are needed for packs that power electric vehicles, are also in focus. German automakers depend on China for lithium, nickel and cobalt, while Europe has launched programmes to build its own supply but is not there yet.
Economy
Russia becomes India's top oil supplier in October (Page no. 13)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
Russia has become India's top oil supplier in October, surpassing traditional sellers Saudi Arabia and Iraq, according to data from energy cargo tracker Vortexa.
Russia, which made up for just 0.2 per cent of all oil imported by India in the year to March 31, 2022, supplied 935,556 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to India in October -- the highest ever.
It now makes up for 22 per cent of India's total crude imports, ahead of Iraq's 20.5 per cent and Saudi Arabia's 16 per cent.
India's appetite for Russian oil swelled ever since it started trading on discount as the West shunned it to punish Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine.
According to Vortexa, an energy intelligence firm, India imported just 36,255 barrels per day of crude oil from Russia in December 2021 as compared to 1.05 million bpd from Iraq and 952,625 bpd from Saudi Arabia.
There were no imports from Russia in the following two months but they resumed in March, soon after the Ukraine war broke out in late February.
India imported 68,600 bpd of Russian oil in March while it increased to 266,617 bpd in the following month and peaked to 942,694 bpd in June.
But in June, Iraq was India's top supplier with 1.04 million bpd of oil. Russia in that month became India's second biggest supplier.
Imports dipped marginally in the following two months. They stood at 876,396 bpd in September before rising to 835,556 bpd in October, according to Vortexa.
Iraq slipped to No.2 slot with 888,079 bpd of supplies in October, followed by Saudi Arabia at 746,947 bpd.The Indian government has been vehemently defending its trade with Russia, saying it has to source oil from where it is cheapest.
In FY22 (April 2021 to March 2022), the purchases of Russian oil was 0.2 per cent (of all oil imported by India). We still buy only a quarter of what Europe buys in one afternoon.
India has also remained non-committal on a plan proposed by the G7 group of nations (UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan) to cap the price of oil purchased from Russia as a means of limiting Moscow's revenue.
Emphasising that India would look to source crude oil from diverse sources, he had said that the country will buy from Guyana and Canada as well.
Explained
Chinese rocket debris falls into sea again — why does this happen?(Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 3, Science and Tech)
The large fragments of China’s Long March 5B rocket plunged uncontrolled into the south central Pacific Ocean, the US Space Command reported in two tweets.
The fragments were stages of the rocket used to deliver the third and final module of the Tiangong space station. The rocket had blasted off from southern China four days previously, and broke up during re-entry, European and American space agencies said.
One of the pieces was left over from the core stage of the rocket that was about 30 metres long and weighed between 17 and 23 tonnes, Western space agencies said.
It was “one of the largest pieces of debris re-entering in the near past”, they said, according to a report in The Guardian.
Spain’s air navigation authority shut down parts of its airspace for about 40 minutes in view of “the uncontrolled entry of remains from the Chinese space object CZ-5B in a descending orbit crossing our national territory”.
That said, the chances of humans being hit were minuscule, The New York Times reported, quoting an aerospace expert — about 6 per 10 trillion.
What was worrying though, is the fact that the rocket stage did not by design have a system to ensure it fell in a designated place on Earth.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson had earlier said “it is critical that all spacefaring nations are responsible and transparent…and follow established best practices, especially, for the uncontrolled reentry of a large rocket body debris”.
The incident was the fourth time something like this had happened with a Chinese rocket. In May 2020, during the rocket’s first deployment, fragments had landed in Ivory Coast, causing some damage to buildings; debris from the second and third flights had plunged into the Indian Ocean and near the Philippines respectively. A rocket of the same design is expected to be used again in 2023.
Media reports quoted Lijian Zhao, spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, as saying that the “reentry of the last stage of a rocket is an international practice”, and that the Long March 5B rockets are “designed with special technology; most of the components will burn up and be destroyed during the reentry process, and the probability of causing harm to aviation activities and on the ground is extremely low”.
China currently relies on the Long March 5B to carry its heaviest payloads to space. The rocket has a big central booster and four smaller boosters on the side, which drop off some time after lift-off.
New hope for malaria vaccine: the science, challenges, opportunity(Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Health)
Malaria kills nearly 600,000 people every year, the majority of whom are children under the age of five in sub-Saharan Africa. The need to develop an effective vaccine against the disease has long been a top priority — but given the highly complex life cycle of the parasite, characterisation of key elements that correlate with protective immunity has been very difficult.
After decades of slow progress, there seems to be light at the end of the long tunnel. WHO approval in October 2021 for RTS,S/AS01 (Mosquirix) developed by GlaxoSmithKline for immunising children was a major milestone.
Although RTS,S/AS01 has modest efficacy and reduces severe malaria cases by only about 30 per cent after four doses given to children under age 5, it still provides significant public health benefits, and could save thousands of lives every year.
It took more than 30 years and approximately $700 million for this breakthrough, which underscores the scientific and logistic challenges in developing a vaccine against a parasitic disease like malaria.
GSK has granted Bharat Biotech licence to manufacture Mosquirix, and by 2029, the Hyderabad-based company is expected to be the sole global manufacturer of this vaccine.
However, RTS,S/AS01 fails to meet the WHO’s own benchmark for malaria vaccine efficacy of 75 per cent set in 2015. In September 2021, another malaria vaccine, R21/Matrix M, developed by the University of Oxford in the UK, demonstrated an efficacy of 77 per cent in phase 1 and 2 trials among 450 children in Burkina Faso.
In early September 2022, this vaccine once again made headlines after publication of results of a booster dose of R21/Matrix-M in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases showed a high efficacy of 80 per cent was maintained after two years.
RTS,S and R21 are similar in that they both contain the same part of a major protein that is found on the surface of the liver stage parasite, called sporozoite.
Both also contain hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg), a protein that has an ability to self-assemble and that helps as the formation of virus-like particles of the CSP antigen fused with it.
The important difference between the two vaccines is in the amount of the HBsAg. RTS,S has about 20 per cent of the fusion protein, with the remaining 80 per cent made up of HBsAg antigen, produced separately.
R21, on the other hand, is made up entirely of the CSP fusion protein moieties, resulting in much higher proportion of CSP antigen displayed on the virus-like particle surface, which significantly raises its exposure to the immune system of the host.
The first amendment – and two 1950 SC orders before it(Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Judiciary)
The Supreme Court last week agreed to examine a plea challenging the expansion of restrictions to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression that was made by the first amendment to the Constitution.
The petitioner, who has challenged the law nearly seven decades after it came into force, argued that the amendment damages the basic structure doctrine.
Just over a year into the working of the Constitution, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced a Bill to amend the Constitution.
On May 18, 1951, the amendment Bill was referred to a Select Committee which considered the issue for six days. The amendment officially came into effect on June 18, 1951.
The Constitution (First Amendment) Bill sought to make several consequential changes — from exempting land reforms from scrutiny to providing protections for backward classes in the Constitution. Notably, it also expanded on the scope of the restrictions on the right to free speech.
Article 19(1)(a) in Part III of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. But this freedom is not absolute or unfettered. It is followed by Article 19(2), which lists exceptions or “reasonable restrictions” on that right.
The text of Article 19(2) in the original Constitution read: “Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, libel, slander, defamation, contempt of Court or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.”
Following the amendment, Article 19(2) was changed to read as follows: “Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
First, it introduced the qualification “reasonable” to the restrictions that Article 19(2) imposed. In a 2015 paper, legal scholar Gautam Bhatia placed this term in context, and traced its origins to debates in the Constituent Assembly.
The insertion of the term “reasonable”, he argued, keeps the door open for the courts to step in and examine the legitimacy of the restrictions imposed by Parliament.
Second, the amendment introduced into the Constitution the specific terms “public order” and “incitement to an offence”. This set of new, narrower terms in the provision were necessitated by two Supreme Court rulings in 1950, that went against the state’s power to curb free speech.
CPEC: A status check(Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar told the Council of Heads of Government of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on Tuesday that “connectivity projects should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States and respect international law”, a reference to the so-called China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is, meanwhile, on a visit to China — the first foreign leader to travel to the country since President Xi Jinping won a historic third term as supreme leader.
Nirupama Subramanian interviewed Andrew Small, one of the world’s most eminent scholars of Chinese foreign and economic policy, on the status of CPEC and in general, on the economic aspects of the Pakistan-China relationship.
China and Pakistan have been relatively careful about this — there haven’t been really major projects abandoned. There are “big ticket” projects that have moved ahead much more slowly than planned — such as a number of those at Gwadar — or still haven’t been finalised, such as the major railway line upgrade known as ML-1. In fact, the two sides have become somewhat more transparent about what has and hasn’t happened — the official number runs at around $25 billion now, and you can look up most of the progress reports on the individual projects.
The shorthand version is: a lot of the energy projects were completed; some of the road projects have been completed, others not; the special economic zones were pared down to a smaller number than originally envisaged and have moved very slowly; most of the projects around Gwadar are far from completion.
In general, there’s been a backing away from the multi-stage, transformative plans — the projects originally agreed have largely been pushed forward, there’s just been nothing significantly new agreed over the last few years from the much bigger package that was under negotiation.
Although there are some paper agreements coming out of the Shehbaz Sharif visit, including most notably on ML-1, given the political and economic context in Pakistan now, there will still be questions about what these translate into on the ground.
Some of the energy projects were promoted very actively by the previous government and could be realised pretty quickly — the coal-fired power stations, in particular.
Quite a lot did move ahead — $25 billion is no small sum — but there’s just a sense of disappointment that the whole venture adds up to less than what either side had hoped.
The special economic zones ran into obstacles quite quickly from Pakistani businesses who were concerned that China would be given special benefits that would disadvantage domestic firms.