Vision 2030: energy slip-ups

ONE of the fundamental reasons for Pakistan still being a developing country that relies heavily on foreign aid and resources in nearly every sector after 60 years of independence is the weakness of its institutions.

Institutions in Pakistan are far from being firmly established. They have largely disappointed the nation by failing to deliver visionary policies, and even if they have managed to deliver at all, have proved too weak and fragile to get them implemented. Thus the impression is one of failure on the part of the entire system.

Government departments, with a few exceptions, are perfect examples in this regard. The Planning Commission of Pakistan has just produced Vision 2030 officially launched by the president and the prime minister on August 21 and attempting to provide a long-term policy document. The initial impression this document conveyed was a refreshing one. However, a thorough study reveals serious flaws in it.Being an energy scientist, I would like to assess this document in this context. Unfortunately, the obvious flaws in the section on energy do not leave a very positive impression about the integrity of the entire document.

In section 9.2.3 entitled ‘Uranium’ it is stated: “A matter of concern is that the current known international resources of uranium are believed to be sufficient to fuel the worldwide nuclear capacity requirements only up to 2050.”The deadline of 2050 as provided here is absolutely baseless. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at the present production rate, the discovered reserves of uranium are sufficient for this century and with fast reactor technology these reserves will be sufficient for use up to the year 2500. Also, the discovered amount of uranium reserves, at present 4.7 million tonnes, is more than likely to reach more than 35 million tonnes.

Section 9.3.1 entitled ‘Wind Energy’ states: “The coastal area of Sindh has been identified as having wind power potential of 50,000 MW.” It adds, “The capacity factors for wind turbines at these sites are estimated to be in the range of 23-28 per cent.”

The source for the quoted figure of 50,000 MW has not been provided at all. It is too critical a claim to be made without providing authentic reference. It should also be confirmed whether it represents technical potential or an economically viable one because the two could be totally different.

Also, the claimed capacity factor of 23-28 per cent is quite exaggerated — just an overambitious estimate made again without any reference. The capacity factor for wind turbines in the UK, which is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of wind power, as determined in a recent research undertaken by Oxford University is between 24-28 per cent at best. It has to be kept in mind that the UK has class 8 wind density which is the best in wind rating. The coastal areas of Pakistan have a humble class 2 wind density.

Even the data gathered by the Alternative Energy Development Board would confirm that the capacity factor at one of the referred sites in Pakistan, namely Gharo, is much less than what has been claimed. Based upon numerous independent surveys and studies, the capacity factor for the referred sites is lower than 15 per cent.

The discussed possible use of wind power in this section to lift water for pumped storage hydropower shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental aspects of wind energy and energy conservation. There are actually much better examples that could have been presented here and it is the last thing an energy professional would like to see wind turbines doing.

Section 9.3.2 entitled ‘Solar Energy’, in the context of Photovoltaic (PV) states: “Recent developments point to nearly 41 per cent efficiency of sunlight conversion.” This statement is categorically fictitious. It is worth noting that the maximum attainable theoretical efficiency for solar PV is 30 per cent. Even under laboratory conditions the maximum efficiency that has so far been achieved is 22 per cent and the PV cells being sold in the most advanced markets in the world are declared to operate at an efficiency of no more than 16 per cent at best.

This particular section on solar energy is too weak and disoriented to present Pakistan’s case as one of the richest countries in the world in terms of available solar energy.

Energy conservation, an integral part of modern energy scenarios, has been briefly and vaguely touched upon in sections 3.9 and 9.8. Section 3.9 speaks of controlling electricity transmission losses which is only one aspect of energy conservation. More critical is the conservation of energy at the consumer end in the industrial, commercial, transport and domestic sectors which has been completely ignored.

Section 9.8 simply vows to implement energy conservation measures. It does not describe any mechanism or framework for doing so. It is, therefore, obvious that the subject of energy conservation has been casually dealt with. Energy conservation is far more crucial for the future of sustainable energy in Pakistan. It would enable us to use less energy for the same level of output. It would contribute to the security of our energy supply, to our economic growth (by lower electricity and gas bills for consumers) and to the resolution of the problem of fuel poverty.

Our ultimate ambition must be to use every unit of energy as efficiently as possible while maintaining our prosperity and competitiveness. If we can do this — essentially by wasting less energy — we might need to build fewer power stations in the decades to come than we might otherwise have to do.

Biomass, an important member of the family of renewable energy source in Vision 2030, has received negligible attention. Instead, the document focuses on “bio-fuel”, a byproduct of biomass, in section 9.3.3. It would have been more logical and appropriate to discuss bio-fuel under the umbrella of biomass which already plays a vital role in our national primary energy supply mix.

In areas not connected to the national power grid and gas supply network, biomass in the form of wood waste and animal residue is the main source of energy especially for cooking applications. There is thus a greater need to reflect upon biomass than bio-fuel. The latter is still not quite a viable option for Pakistan.

Limiting my discussion to just these few points, I must express my utmost concern at the sketchy and disappointing approach to energy in the Vision 2030 document. The highlight of the energy section is incorporation of unrealistic and fictitious data compiled in a vague form supported by unconvincing and weak arguments. They fail to make any meaningful and coherent impact.

This raises serious question about the competence and professionalism of the contributors, compilers and moderators. They were supposed to provide a holistic overview of Pakistan’s energy scenario supported by concrete evidence. They were expected to come up with a careful, precise and calculated assessment of the country’s future energy challenges and prospects. They have failed to do so.

Another major shortcoming in their work is the absence of documented sources. Exaggerated claims have been made without supporting them with scientific evidence. In modern scientific research, this is simply unacceptable. It should have been made clear to the compilers of the document that they have no right to pen down whatever they fancied with the hope of getting away with it. They should realise the responsibility that rests on them when designing a policy on behalf of the entire nation. They are supposed to have provided a vision for 160 million people and should have felt accountable before penning down their fantasies.

It is indeed alarming that such a high profile document that officially represents the Pakistan government’s vision for the future relies on erroneous and inaccurate research. It mars the authenticity and integrity of the entire document. Presenting a policy document furnished with such slip-ups at international forums is highly perilous and indicates a lack of commitment which is not what Pakistan deserves.

The writer is lecturer in renewable energy, Glasgow University, UK
dr.m.asif@gmail.comM

Seven tragic flaws in politicians

ONE characteristic of Pakistan’s messy and uninspiring politics is that it is dominated by personalities rather than issues. Personalities, in the absence of checks and balances, have often become bigger than institutions with the result that we have failed — in the 60-year-old history of our country — to create institutions. This alone has caused immeasurable damage to the country over time.

The recent talk of a deal between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf has forced some politicians and analysts to forewarn the end of the People’s Party should the deal go through. But would it? Do all of us — or even most of us — hold our politicians to a certain set of standards that they must meet to earn our votes? Should we?

I asked myself that question and it got me thinking about how one might glean from a reading of Pakistan’s history a certain number of tell-tale signs of a leader’s insincerity and ultimate downfall. When is the time to ditch your favourite politician? Switch your political party? Or demand a change in your party’s political leadership? If our politicians can switch their loyalties, why can’t we?

Drawing upon our rich and colourful political history, what criteria can we apply to make that decision? Based on my own limited reading of Pakistan’s history, here are my Seven Habits of Highly Dispensable (Political) Leaders:

1. The leader acts as if he or she is bigger than institutions. This is one of the most long-held positions of Pakistan’s highly dispensable politicians. It is now so ingrained in our political psyche that Pakistan is left with no real (political) institutions today. The Election Commission, the Ehtesab Bureau, or the Supreme Court of Pakistan — we’ve seen it all and they’ve done it to all.

2. The leader tells you — -and probably believes it too — that only he or she can save the country. This is one of the most favourite positions of Pakistan’s politicians. Somehow the country is full of many saviours and yet the situation has, over the years, only managed to deteriorate. It is true that sometimes — only sometimes — individuals may end up being sole saviours of nations. But when that “sweet moment” happens for an individual, the fact is self-evident and the individual in question hardly has to say it in public. I doubt if Jinnah ever said that. So, when your politician tells you that only he or she can save the country, you can be sure that he is as dispensable as a cup of styro-foam.

3. The leader tells you that only he or she knows what is right for you and your country. Arrogance is perhaps the most common habit found in politicians gone bad — not only in Pakistan but also elsewhere (remember Bush’s “you’re with us or against us?”) The beauty of a true and functioning democracy is that the politician governs by the consent of the governed.

It is indeed a heartening and intensely humbling moment in a democratic system when a politician stands corrected and reminded — sometimes in quite a brutal manner — of that fact. When your politician tells you that only he or she knows what is right for you and your country, it is time to start thinking of ejecting him/her.

4. The leader is chosen for his or her loyalty rather than independence, integrity, or competence. More often than not, during Pakistan’s 60-year-old history, leaders have chosen their successors for their loyalty rather than their independence and competence. Khawaja Nazimuddin was chosen because he was deemed harmless by Ghulam Mohammed. General Musa was chosen, not for competence but for his loyalty to Ayub. Zia bypassed half a dozen generals to become COAS because he was deemed to be loyal and obliging by Bhutto. Many of these decisions have seriously backfired and have caused grave repercussions.5. The leader makes a “temporary” compromise on a fundamental principle that defines him or her. This is another favourite one of mine. Pakistani leaders are often associated with certain “principles” that define them. The Pakistan People’s Party stands for democracy and struggle against military rule in Pakistan. Tehrik-i-Insaaf stands for justice and constitutionalism.

General Musharraf, when he came to power, promised broad-based political reforms. When these principles are compromised the leader doesn’t remain the same leader any more.

The leader in question may couch this compromise in the loftiest of terms, i.e., “I am making a deal with a dictator to strengthen democracy in Pakistan” or justify it on the basis of extraordinary circumstances.

I knew it the day I saw General Musharraf adorning an ajrak and holding hands with those very politicians that he had come to eliminate. When a leader compromises on a fundamental principle, it is the surest sign that he or she deserves to be shown the door.

6. The leader owes his or her legitimacy to anything but your vote. This is a tricky one because it is often hard to tell. As far as this one is concerned our political leaders quite often say the right things. Nobody — not even a military dictator — claims to be beyond accountability and nobody dares question national sovereignty. Everyone acknowledges the power of the vote, for if they didn’t they would not be politicians.

However, the voters need to ask themselves a question: does this person need the goodwill of anyone but the electorate to stay in power? Whether it is the army or America, when the answer to the above question is in the affirmative one can rest assured that Pakistan’s interests — and those of its people — will take a backseat. So should they, in our hearts and minds.

7. The leader thrives by creating a vacuum of leadership around him. This is a deep one and has many manifestations. Many a time, the leader actively creates a political vacuum around him to make himself indispensable.

In other situations, you would find him surrounding himself or herself with utterly incapable people (Law Minister Wasi Zafar, for instance) who not only give bad advice but also insulate him from reality. He or she becomes inaccessible to the masses. What is the surest sign that your favourite leader has this habit? He or she starts saying things that have no correspondence with reality on the ground. He is so far removed from those whom he claims to govern that he loses the pulse of the masses, thus making himself totally dispensable.

It is often said that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It applies equally to corruption of the upper chamber as well. Most Pakistani politicians — and I challenge you on that one —have shown one or more of these traits just prior to their downfall and some even throughout their political careers.

When you see a large number or all of these traits working at the same time, you know that a perfect political storm is round the corner and that the days of that individual are numbered. The “political bug” has not spared even a single soul in public office.

In a sense, the above list forms a series of tests — a checklist, so to speak — that one can tick off for every politician to see how close he or she is to his ultimate political demise and/or how badly infected he or she is with the political bug. It is also a tool to use while reading the political statements of our worthy politicians. How would Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf fare on each of these seven habits of highly dispensable political leaders?

I leave that judgment to the readers.

The writer is a public policy analyst and the founder of UnderstandingPakistan.com

A cutting edge issue

WHEN the independent Dr Richard Taylor swept away the Labour MP for Wyre Forest in 2001 by promising to stop the closure of the local Kidderminster hospital, he sent a shockwave far beyond Worcestershire. Ever since that moment, Britain’s political parties have had to recognise that the closure and reorganisation of local hospitals are among the most potent of modern electoral issues.

That truth was reinforced when the Scottish Nationalists pledged in the May elections to halt the closure of all local accident and emergency departments in Scotland –– a popular pledge now honoured. With uncertainty about the effectiveness of Labour’s reforms still high, and the junior health minister Lord Darzi due to extend his controversial review of the NHS from London to the rest of England by the year’s end, it was hardly surprising that David Cameron also chose hospital closures to kick-start the Conservative autumn fightback this week.

In spite of its recent polling upturn under Gordon Brown, Labour remains highly vulnerable on health-service reorganisation, especially at local level. There are two principal reasons for this. The first is that, after 10 years of investment and reform, voters remain suspicious. They think too much of the investment has gone into staff salaries rather than more tangible improvements in services and that too much of the reform has been for the benefit of managers rather than patients.

The second is that, unlike the Labour heartlands in which real improvements have been made, much of middle Britain feels its service is under threat or even in decline rather than getting better. Kidderminster exemplifies that mood, but many other suburban and county health authorities remain potential Kidderminsters too.

Even so, it would be ridiculous to pretend that every surviving general hospital in the country should be preserved for all time or to guarantee every existing emergency department against all future reorganisation. Changes in medical science and technology and changes in the way that people lead their lives each contribute to the need for different forms of healthcare delivery.

There is no reason in principle or practice why a patient should always have to go to a hospital for a blood test, an x-ray, a scan or some minor surgery. Similarly there is nothing sacred about the familiar binary division between GP services (where the vast majority of healthcare is provided) and hospitals; there is a powerful case for intermediate forms of provision, like the polyclinics that Lord Darzi favours for London in his recent report, or for paramedics, pharmacists and others delivering healthcare in more diverse ways.

— The Guardian, London