THE STATE OF

PAKISTAN’S ECONOMY

Third Quarterly Report

for the year 2018-19 of the
Board of Directors of State Bank of Pakistan

State Bank of Pakistan

 SBP BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Dr. Reza Baqir Governor & Chairman

Mr. Naveed Kamran Baloch Secretary, Finance
Mr. Atif Riaz Bokhari Member
Mr. Azam Faruque Member
Mr. Mohammad Mansoor Ali Corporate Secretary
 Letter of Transmittal

July 15, 2019

Dear Mr. Chairman,

In terms of section 9A(2) of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, the Third Quarterly
Report of the Board of Directors of the State Bank of Pakistan on the State of the Economy
for the year 2018-19 is hereby enclosed for submission to the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Dr.Reza Baqir)
Governor
Chairman Board of Directors

Muhammad Sadiq Sanjrani

Chairman
Senate
Islamabad
 Letter of Transmittal

July 15, 2019

Dear Mr. Speaker,

In terms of section 9A(2) of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, the Third Quarterly
Report of the Board of Directors of the State Bank of Pakistan on the State of the Economy
for the year 2018-19 is hereby enclosed for submission to the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Dr. Reza Baqir)

Governor
Chairman Board of Directors

Asad Qaiser
Speaker
National Assembly
Islamabad
Acknowledgment
Analysts:
Chapters:
1. Overview Muhammad Mazhar Khan; Muhammad Omer
2. Real Sector Waqas Ahmed; Javed Iqbal; Khurram Ashfaq
Baluch; Saher Masood; Talha Nadeem
3. Inflation and Monetary Policy Asma Khalid; Fatima Khaliq; Umer Khan
Baloch; Amjad Ali; Umar Mashood
4. Fiscal Policy and Public Debt Muhammad Mazhar Khan; Muhammad
Idrees; Mansoor Saleem; Syed Zulqernain
Hussain; Hira Ghaffar; Muhammad Ijlal Khan
5. External Sector Muhammad Omer; Syed Ali Raza Mehdi;
Junaid Kamal; Sarmad Ellahi; Muhammad
Farhan Akber
Special Sections:
1. Why are Power Tariffs in Pakistan Asma Khalid
Consistently High?
2. The State of Food Security in Pakistan Asma Khalid; Sabahat; Ahmad Mobeen

Editing: Talha Nadeem; Syed Zulqernain Hussain

Formatting: Hira Ghaffar; Sarmad Ellahi

Publication Managers: Muhammad Mazhar Khan; Muhammad Omer

Director: Omar Farooq Saqib

Publication Review Committee:

PRC of the Management Saeed Ahmed (Chairman); Inayat Hussain;
Syed Irfan Ali; Muhammad Ali Malik; Syed
Samar Husnain; M. Ali Choudhary;
Muhammad Javaid Ismail; Azizullah Khattak;
M. Farooq Arby; and Omar Farooq Saqib

The feedback from Research, Monetary Policy, and Statistics & Data Warehouse
Departments, and logistic support by Office of the Corporate Secretary and External
Relations Department are also appreciated.

For feedback and queries: quarterly.report@sbp.org.pk

1 Overview
Towards the end of FY19, the Table 1.1: Selected Economic Indicators
challenges to the macro- FY17F FY18R FY19P
economy have continued to Growth rate (percent)
persist. Specifically, during Real GDP Jul-Jun 5.2 5.5 3.3
Jul-Mar FY19, fiscal deficit Agriculture Jul-Jun 2.2 3.9 0.8
further deteriorated and while Industry Jul-Jun 4.6 4.9 1.4
the current account gap o/w LSM Jul-Jun 5.6 5.1 -2.1
Services Jul-Jun 6.5 6.2 4.7
relatively improved, its
CPI (period average)a Jul-Mar 4.0 3.8 6.8
sustainability remained a
Private sector credit b Jul-Mar 9.9 9.1 10.2
concern. Meanwhile, CPI Money supply (M2)b Jul-Mar 5.9 4.8 5.1
inflation averaging at 6.8 Exports b Jul-Mar -0.1 11.9 -1.3
percent in the first 9 months of Imports b Jul-Mar 14.7 18.8 -3.7
FY19 has already exceeded its Tax revenue –FBR c Jul-Mar 7.5 16.2 2.8
6.0 percent target for the Exchange rate (+app/-
Jul-Mar 0.0 -9.2 -13.7
dep%)b
current fiscal year. b
Policy Rate Mar 5.75 6.0 10.75**
Furthermore, as per provisional ONMMR (end-period) b* Mar 5.7 5.7 10.0
national income accounts, billion US dollars
GDP growth moderated to 3.3 SBP’s reserves (end-
Mar 16.5 11.6 10.5
percent in FY19. Thus far, period) b
b
Worker remittances Jul-Mar 14.1 14.8 16.1
these trends have yet again
FDI in Pakistan b Jul-Mar 2.0 2.6 1.3
exposed Pakistan’s structural
Current account balance b Jul-Mar -8.0 -13.6 -10.3
deficiencies and its percent of GDP1
vulnerabilities to the buildup of Fiscal balanced Jul-Mar -3.9 -4.3 -5.0
external and internal deficits Current account balance Jul-Mar -2.6 -5.7 -4.7
(Table 1.1). Investment Jul-Jun 16.2 16.7 15.4
P=Provisional; F= Final; R=Revised
The moderation in GDP * Overnight Money Market Rate
** Effective from April 01, 2019
growth is partly a result of 1
Provisional numbers for FY19
policy induced, demand- Data sources: a Pakistan Bureau of Statistics; b State Bank of
management measures, Pakistan; c Federal Board of Revenue; and d Ministry of Finance
initiated since January 2018, to contain the buildup of inflationary pressures and
rising twin deficits. These policy actions led to contraction in LSM, which was
further entrenched by regulatory measures. At the same time, adverse
developments such as water shortages and high input costs undermined the
agriculture sector performance. In the meantime, less tangible factors such as
uncertainty regarding decision on the IMF program for BoP support hampered
business sentiments as reflected in the IBA-SBP Business Confidence Survey
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

result of April 2019. These developments also contributed to a slowdown in

private sector credit during the third quarter of FY19.

The overall economic slowdown, along with specific import compression

measures, led to a sizeable contraction in country’s import bill. Exports managed
to post a sizable growth in quantum terms; however, this recovery was not
sufficient to offset the adverse price effect stemming from lower unit values.
Nonetheless, improvement in trade deficit coupled with healthy growth in
workers’ remittances resulted in reduction in current account deficit from US$
13.6 billion in Jul-Mar FY18 to US$ 10.3 billion in Jul-Mar FY19. However,
slowdown in FDI inflows kept the external financing requirements at elevated
levels. Thus, while the realized bilateral inflows from friendly countries did
provide some support to foreign exchange reserves, its adequacy is still below the
three-month of import coverage and the overall BoP position remained weak.

In the same vein, fiscal indicators have continued to deteriorate in the first nine
months of FY19 despite a steep cut in development expenditures by 34.0 percent.
At the same time, interest rate hikes and exchange rate depreciations accentuated
the rigidities in the current expenditures. Making things worse, revenue
mobilization remained weak due to stagnant tax revenues and steep fall in non-tax
revenues. These trends are largely attributed to slowdown in economic activity
and lack of tax effort both at provincial and federal level. As a result, the fiscal
deficit increased to 5.0 percent of GDP; notably, the primary deficit has risen to
1.2 percent of GDP, which suggests that the debt servicing ability has deteriorated
sharply and the country would be requiring more debt to service its current debt.

Despite several rounds of policy rate hike, a cumulative increase of 500 bps since
January 2018, inflation has rather stubbornly kept an upward trajectory. Although
demand-pull pressures have lessened in intensity towards the end of FY19, the
Non-Food Non-Energy component continued to climb. This is because its major
impetus came from cost-push factors, including the second round impact of
exchange rate deprecation and increase in energy prices. Furthermore, food
inflation that had remained benign over the past five years posted a sharp increase
in Q3-FY19 due to supply-side bottlenecks.

In spite of being in stabilization phase led by demand management policies for the
last sixteen months, three challenges still stand out in Pakistan’s economy. First,
external sector remains vulnerable. Second, fiscal consolidation remains elusive.
Third, inflation continues to attain higher plateaus. This basically suggests that
current stabilization agenda needs to be reinforced with deep rooted structural
reforms.

2
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

The reforms in fiscal sector are particularly long awaited especially with respect to
broadening the tax base, reduction in untargeted subsidies, withdrawal of
discretionary tax exemptions and privatization/restructuring of loss making PSEs.
These reforms are challenging to implement and thus demand serious realization
and commitment. A cross cutting area is energy, where a massive overhaul is
required across the entire value chain in terms of pricing, governance,
management of circular debt and handling mechanism of IPPs (See Special
Section 1).

As for the balance of payments, role of private sector would be equally important
as of the government in terms of reducing the structural deficit. The government
has to provide affordable infrastructure, competitive markets, skill development
and business facilitation. The private sector, on the other hand, has to focus on
adoption of innovation and technology to improve product and market
diversification.

1.1 Executive Summary

Real Sector
The pace of economic growth slowed down considerably during FY19. This was
mainly in response to the policy measures taken to curb the twin deficits. These
measures affected the performance of the industrial sector and dampened
manufacturing activities in the country. Meanwhile, water- and weather-related
concerns, in tandem with the higher cost of major inputs, took a toll on crop
production. The weak showing by the commodity-producing sectors also
constrained the output of the services sector.

Industrial output moderated on the back of a cut in PSDP outlays, amid tightening
in monetary policy, currency depreciation, and imposition of regulatory measures.
Within industry, there were notable declines in LSM, construction, and mining
and quarrying segments. Specifically, LSM posted a broad-based 2.9 percent
decline during Jul-Mar FY19, compared to a 6.3 percent growth recorded during
the same period last year; nearly all the leading sectors contracted during the
review period (Chapter 2).

Meanwhile, the agriculture sector’s subdued growth can be traced to a noticeable

contraction in the crop sector, particularly important crops. Sugarcane and cotton
crop outputs declined by 19.4 percent and 17.5 percent respectively. This recent
stagnancy in agricultural output makes it pertinent to highlight the urgent need for
boosting agriculture productivity in the medium term while population growth
remains high. In this context, Special Section 2 highlighted the state of food

3
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

security in Pakistan. However, the silver lining during FY19 was the livestock
segment, which maintained its growth momentum from last year and ultimately
pushed the agriculture sector’s overall growth marginally into positive territory.

On the other hand, the services sector lost some of its growth momentum from last
year, registering a growth of 4.7 percent during FY19 as compared to 6.2 percent
in FY18. In particular, growth in wholesale and retail trade – a heavyweight
segment with inherent linkages to the commodity-producing sectors – more than
halved as compared to FY18. The slowdown in imports played a role in the lower
growth of the retail trade segment.

In sum, the dominance of the services sector within the economy relative to
industry and agriculture, continued to grow during FY19. If left unchecked, the
evolving dynamics of domestic consumption relative to production can further
exacerbate the gap between demand and supply, necessitating either higher
imports or lower exportable surplus in the future. Clearly, neither of these
outcomes is desirable from the external sector’s stability perspective, and calls for
the adoption of structural transformation at the earliest, to ensure a more balanced
growth path of the economy.

Inflation and Monetary Policy

The headline CPI inflation rose steeply from 6.0 percent in H1-FY19 to 8.3
percent in the third quarter. Cost-push factors were mostly responsible: (i)
managing the high level of twin deficits necessitated upward adjustments in
administered prices (of mainly petrol, gas and electricity), which not only directly
inflated CPI’s energy component (and by extension, transport services), but also
escalated manufacturing cost; (ii) the impact of a sharp increase in the rupee-dollar
parity was felt across a number of items within the CPI basket; and (iii) supply-
side constraints and higher transportation costs led to a surge in food prices (these
prices had remained low and stable over the past 5 years). Furthermore, house
rents posted a sharp YoY increase during Q3-FY19 due to base effect – quarterly
revision in house rents was unusually modest in Q3-FY18.

As a result, inflationary pressures were broad-based – 72 percent of the items

within the CPI basked recorded inflation of more than the 6 percent target rate,
whereas 31.5 percent of the items recorded double-digit inflation. Importantly, the
persistence of the large twin deficits weighed heavily on the near- to medium-term
inflation outlook. Moreover, further adjustments in energy tariffs as well as
continued pressures on the exchange rate also meant that cost pressures were not
likely to dissipate. Therefore, the Monetary Policy Committee decided to
continue with monetary tightening, and increased the policy rate by a cumulative

4
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

75 bps during the review period, taking the cumulative adjustment since the
beginning of the recent tightening cycle to 500 bps by end of Q3-FY19.

On the monetary policy implementation front, voluminous budgetary transactions

in the banking system complicated liquidity management during the third quarter.
In particular, commercial banks continued to eye higher cut-offs in auctions of
government securities, and were not willing to roll-over maturing debt at
prevailing rates. As a result, the government had to borrow excessively from the
SBP to finance the fiscal deficit and to repay commercial banks’ debt. On
aggregate, the government retired Rs 2.0 trillion to banks during Q3-FY19 – a
record-high level for any quarter. To absorb the excess liquidity from the market
and to keep overnight rates close to the policy rate, the SBP had to conduct 52
OMOs (mop-ups only) during the quarter.

The entrenched liquidity surpluses in the interbank market can also be explained
by the weakening momentum of private sector credit in the wake of unfavorable
macroeconomic conditions. After posting a sizable expansion in the preceding
quarter, credit offtake suddenly and sharply slowed down to just Rs 41.1 billion in
Q3-FY19, as compared to Rs 177.4 billion in the same period last year. The
slowdown in the working capital component was more pronounced, as scheduled
retirements by textile and fertilizer manufacturers largely offset fresh borrowings
by sugar, dairy and beverages sectors. Among non-manufacturers, power
generating firms also made net retirements during Q3-FY19, as their cash flows
improved after the issuance of Rs 200 billion Sukuk by the government.

In overall terms, the subdued budgetary and private sector borrowings led to a
containment in the growth of net domestic assets of the banking system during
Q3-FY19. This more than offset the improvement in the net foreign assets and
credit to PSEs during the quarter. As a result, the pace of monetary expansion
(M2) slowed down to 1.4 percent during the quarter, as compared to the growth of
3.6 percent in H1-FY19 and 2.5 percent in Q3-FY18. While this slowdown
conforms to the ongoing stabilization measures and may help rein in excess
demand in the economy, the composition of M2 is worrisome.

Around 88 percent of the M2 growth during Q3-FY19 came from currency in

circulation, as a substantial weakening was observed in deposit mobilization
during the quarter. While the pace of deposits mobilization has remained
underwhelming ever since the government had imposed withholding tax on non-
filers for non-cash banking transactions, the trend in Q3-FY19 was quite
concerning, as deposit growth fell to only 0.2 percent, from 1.8 percent in Q3-
FY18. Furthermore, the currency to deposit ratio on average touched 39.6 percent

5
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

during the quarter. The rise in mark-up rates on NSS instruments, overall
macroeconomic uncertainty, rising inflation, and expectations of further exchange
rate depreciation, all extended the weak growth in bank deposits.

Fiscal Sector
The cumulative fiscal deficit during Jul-Mar FY19 stood at 5.0 percent of GDP,
much higher than the deficit of 4.3 percent recorded in the same period last year.
Most of the deterioration was recorded in the third quarter, when the deficit
reached 2.3 percent of GDP; it is worth noting that the deficit during the H1-FY19
had amounted to 2.7 percent.

A steep fall in non-tax revenues and a slowdown in tax revenue led the overall
revenue collection to stagnate at last year’s level. The FBR’s taxes grew by only
2.8 percent in Jul-Mar FY19, compared with double-digit growth of 16.2 percent
recorded during the same period last year. Meanwhile, the non-tax revenues were
lower mainly due to fall in SBP profits and delay in transfer of hydel profits to the
provinces.

Within FBR taxes, sales and direct tax collection declined during Jul-Mar FY19
due to a cut in PSDP spending, as well as the impact of measures like suspension
of tax on mobile phone top-ups and lowering of tax rates on salaries and POL
products. Meanwhile, a double-digit growth in customs and excise duties
supported overall revenue growth. The higher revenue from this segment was in
response to the hiking of regulatory and excise duties on various products,
including cigarettes, as well as the exchange rate deprecation during the period.

On the expenditure front, the cumulative growth stood at 8.0 percent during Jul-
Mar FY19, against 16.0 percent last year. The slowdown in growth primarily
came from cuts in PSDP spending, both at the federal and provincial levels, as
current expenditures grew at a much higher rate (17.7 percent) than they had in the
same period last year (13.0 percent). The increase in current expenditures
stemmed from higher interest payments and security-related expenses during the
period.

The resulting higher fiscal deficit was mainly financed through borrowing from
the SBP, and non-bank and external sources. In particular, financing from non-
bank sources was almost four times higher than last year, with the NSS being the
primary source of increase. At the same time, external sources financed around 27
percent of the fiscal deficit, as the country received significant bilateral and
commercial loans.

6
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

In addition to the higher fiscal deficit which increased financing needs, revaluation
losses owing to the PKR’s depreciation against the US dollar also contributed
significantly to the rise in public debt. During Jul-Mar FY19, public debt rose by
Rs 3.6 trillion and reached Rs 28.6 trillion by end-March 2019.

External Sector
The external account continued to improve as the year progressed, with the current
account deficit in Q3-FY19 falling to a two-year low to US$ 2.0 billion.
Contractions in import payments for both goods and services were the primary
factors, and were supported by a decent growth in worker remittances. These
factors cumulatively offset the higher primary income deficit and a decline in
export receipts. As a result, the current account deficit for Jul-Mar FY19 declined
23.9 percent to US$ 10.3 billion.

As the year went on, the merchandize import payments further dropped with
tapering demand for imported power generation and electrical machinery,
following the conclusion of early harvest CPEC projects. Furthermore, purchases
of aircraft and related parts from abroad that inflated last year’s imports,
normalized this year. Meanwhile, the overall slowdown in economic activity in
the wake of macro adjustment policies and regulatory measures curbed the import
demand for raw materials for construction and auto industries. Also, quantum-led
drops in import payments for both POL products and crude oil in the third quarter
pulled down energy imports for the first time since Q1-FY17. The lower energy
purchases, along with declining non-energy imports, led overall import payments
to decline 16.4 percent in Q3-FY19.

Both domestic and international factors were responsible for the subdued export
performance. For exports of major textile products like knitwear and readymade
garments, the slowdown in export growth was primarily due to a decline in their
dollar-denominated unit prices, as their quantum exports rose significantly
(Chapter 5). Besides, higher domestic demand for value addition and lower
cotton yarn demand from China suppressed yarn exports to China. The phasing
out of export subsidies on sugar and wheat from Q2 onwards made their exports
unviable. Moreover, lower production of cotton and fertilizer not only crippled
their export prospects, but instead necessitated hefty imports.

Meanwhile, workers’ remittances have risen significantly in the year, with most of
the increase coming from the US and the UK. The Pakistan Remittance Initiative
(PRI) has intensified its efforts by launching advertisement campaigns in local and
destination specific foreign media to encourage overseas Pakistanis to remit
through legal channels. Besides this, strong real GDP growth, coupled with rising

7
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

wages in advanced economies, have boosted inflows from the US and the UK.

However, despite the higher remittances and the resultant reduction in the current
account gap, the size of the deficit is still quite large. And this gap could not be
filled by foreign investment. As a result, the country had to resort to bilateral and
commercial sources for external financing; most of these inflows were realized in
the third quarter. Yet, given the elevated CAD and the precarious FX reserves
position, these inflows proved insufficient to completely calm down FX market
sentiments. As a result, the PKR depreciated 13.7 percent against the US dollar
during Jul-Mar FY19.

1.2 Economic Outlook

With stabilization policies in place and the economy moving along the reforms
agenda, the country’s macroeconomic indicators are expected to slowly revert to a
stable trajectory. In this process, however, the real GDP growth is likely to remain
contained.

In particular, adjustment on the fiscal side has yet to get underway. Related to
this, the revenue measures announced in FY20 Federal Budget are likely to keep
disposable incomes and domestic demand under check. Amid such conditions, the
industrial growth is not expected to rebound notably next year. Having said that,
some support to the GDP growth can possibly come from strong prospects in the
agriculture sector, where there is a potential for higher output if the impact of
constraints affecting area under cultivation and yields is managed effectively.
Early investments in agriculture and SEZs under the CPEC and higher outlay of
next year’s PSDP can also have a positive impact on GDP growth in FY20.

As for the current account, the government is projecting the deficit to reduce
further in FY20, on the back of an expected better export performance,
containment of import payments and continued momentum in workers’
remittances. However, downside risks persist in the wake of a slowdown in global
economy, attributed to escalated trade war between US-China and uncertainty in
Europe. Under these circumstances, increasing exports to the traditional markets
may prove challenging. On the financing side, the initiation of the IMF Extended
Fund Facility program would help assuage the overall external sector concerns.

Finally, despite monetary tightening, the government is projecting CPI inflation to

be higher in FY20. This outlook is largely explained by supply-side factors, such
as the upward adjustments in domestic energy prices and recent episodes of PKR
depreciation along with their second-round impact, which are likely to increase the
cost of production and doing business. Additional impact is likely to come from

8
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

various taxation measures taken in the FY20 Federal Budget and the risk arising
from any volatility in the international oil prices.

9
2 Real Sector
2.1 Overview
The economy experienced a noticeable moderation as the real GDP growth
decelerated to 3.3 percent in FY19, compared to 5.5 percent growth last year.1
This slowdown had already been anticipated on account of policy measures taken
to rein in the persistent twin deficits. While the resultant weakening in economic
activities was broad-based, the industrial sector, particularly manufacturing
activities, bore the brunt of these measures. At the same time, the agriculture
sector remained beset with water shortages and increased cost of major inputs,
which constrained the production of important crops. The services sector also
faced the fallout from the weak performance of commodity-producing sectors,
with its growth slowing down visibly compared to last year (Table 2.1).

Among the commodity- Table 2.1: GDP and its Components

producing sectors, industrial growth in percent; contribution in percentage points
output was well subdued, Growth
Contribution
registering a growth of 1.4 FY18R FY19P FY19T
percent in FY19 compared to 4.9 Agriculture 3.9 0.8 3.8 0.2
of which
percent a year earlier. The
Important crops 3.6 -6.6 3.0 -0.3
decline in LSM, construction, Livestock 3.6 4.0 3.8 0.4
and mining and quarrying stood Industry 4.9 1.4 7.6 0.3
out in particular. The of which
underwhelming industrial Mining and quarrying 7.7 -2.0 3.6 -0.1
performance was primarily LSM 5.1 -2.1 8.1 -0.2
attributed to cuts in PSDP Electricity gen. & dist. -9.1 40.5 7.5 0.6
and gas dist.
spending. Moreover, it reflected Construction 8.2 -7.6 10 -0.2
the impact of factors such as Services 6.2 4.7 6.5 2.8
monetary policy tightening, of which
Wholesale & retail trade 6.6 3.1 7.8 0.6
exchange rate adjustments,
Transport, stor. & com. 2.1 3.3 4.9 0.4
regulatory measures, and
Finance & insurance 7.0 5.1 7.5 0.2
uncertainty among certain General gov. services 11.8 8.0 7.2 0.6
quarters of the business GDP 5.5 3.3 6.2 3.3
community regarding the future R: Revised; P: Provisional; T: Target (from Annual Plan 2018-19)
path of economic policies, which Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

1 According to provisional figures released by PBS in May 2019.

The State of Pakistan’s Economy

set the tone for the broader economic slowdown.2 In contrast, electricity and gas
generation and distribution was an exception, and showed an encouraging increase
compared to last year.

Agriculture also had a Table 2.2: Agriculture Sector Value-addition

share and growth in percent; contribution in percentage points
disappointing year overall, Contr. to
posting a growth of 0.8 percent Share Growth growth
during FY19, compared to 3.9 FY19 FY18R FY19T FY19P FY19P
percent last year. Important Crop Sector 35.3 4.7 3.6 -4.4 -1.6
crops could not deliver, as Imp. crops 21.9 3.6 3.0 -6.6 -1.5
cotton and sugarcane Other crops 11.2 6.2 3.5 2.0 0.2
experienced sizeable declines, Cotton ginning 2.1 8.8 8.9 -12.7 -0.3
while wheat production was Livestock 60.5 3.6 3.8 4.0 2.3
also marginally lower Forestry 2.1 2.6 8.5 6.5 0.1
compared to FY18. The low Fishing 2.1 1.6 1.8 0.8 0.0
crop output was mainly a result Overall 100 3.9 3.8 0.8 0.8
of water shortages during R: Revised, T: Target, P: Provisional
Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
important times and adverse
weather conditions, while higher input prices (especially those of fertilizer) also
had a dampening effect. Encouragingly, however, the livestock subsector was
able to maintain its growth momentum in FY19.

The weak performance of the commodity-producing sectors spilled over into the
services sector, as its growth moderated to 4.7 percent in FY19, compared to 6.2
percent last year. Given its strong linkages with the commodity-producing sector,
it was hardly a surprise that growth in wholesale and retail trade nearly halved
during the review period compared to FY18. The slowdown in general
government services was also quite pronounced compared to last year, though the
segment managed to surpass its FY19 growth target (Table 2.1).

2.2 Agriculture
The performance of the agriculture sector remained subdued during FY19,
growing marginally by 0.8 percent; this was significantly lower than the 3.9
percent growth in FY18 and the target of 3.8 percent for the year (Table 2.2). It
owed primarily to a considerable contraction in the crop sector, which declined by
4.4 percent compared to a growth of 4.7 percent in FY18. There was a marked
decline in production of a number of major crops (Table 2.3). This was largely

2
The uncertainty among the business community during the Jul-Mar FY19 period was partially
linked to an anticipated IMF bailout, since the build-up to the eventual staff-level agreement in May
2019 featured protracted negotiations between the Pakistani authorities and the visiting IMF mission.

12
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

attributable to reduction in area Table 2.3: Production of Important Crops

under cultivation, mainly million tons; cotton in million bales; growth in percent
caused by sowing period water Production Growth
FY18 FY19T FY19P FY18R FY19P
shortages, and hike in prices of
Cotton 11.9 14.4 9.9 11.9 -17.5
basic inputs such as fertilizer,
Rice 7.5 7.0 7.2 8.8 -3.3
seeds and pesticides. Sugarcane 83.3 70.0 67.2 10.4 -19.4
Meanwhile, livestock, the Wheat 25.1 25.6 25.2* -6.0 0.5
dominant sub-sector within Maize 5.9 6.0 6.3 -3.8 6.9
agriculture, managed to grow R: Revised, T: Target, P: Provisional. Targets are from the Annual
by 4.0 percent. Its contribution Plan, except for wheat. These might vary from the FCA targets.
*Production numbers as given by NAC; however, the latest
not only compensated for the numbers by MNFSR, after accounting for rain damages, place
loss in crop sector, but also production at 24.3 million tons.
helped the overall agriculture Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
sector to post marginal growth.

During kharif season in particular, there was a considerable decline in the area
under cultivation, especially in Sindh where water shortages were more
pronounced. The total area sown under kharif crops for FY19 declined by 7.2
percent over FY18. Moreover, water shortages and lower fertilizer off-take also
had an adverse impact on crop yields. Thus, in overall terms, the contribution of
kharif crops in the gross value addition (GVA) of the agriculture sector fell
significantly below the FY18 level.

In rabi season, relatively improved water availability provided some relief.

However, delayed sowing, lower fertilizer offtake and unfavorable weather
conditions resulted in lower yields for wheat crop.

Inputs: Figure 2.1: Irrigation Water Flows

A review of the inputs situation Q3 (Jan-Mar) Rabi (Oct-Mar)
shows that in 2018-19, both
crop seasons (kharif and rabi)
30
were characterized by stressed
million acre feet

water flows. That said, the

situation regarding water 20
shortages faced in early rabi
improved in Q3-FY19 as a
10
result of adequate rainfall
during the period.
Consequently, irrigation water 0
flows for rabi 2018-19 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
marginally improved by 2.3 Data source: Indus River System Authority

13
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

percent compared to same period last year (Figure 2.1).

Table 2.4: Agriculture Credit Disbursement (July-March)
billion Rupees and growth in percent
Q3 Percent Change Jul-Mar Percent Change
FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
Farm sector
A. Production1 112.4 137.3 32.2 22.2 298.7 368.3 36.0 23.3
All crops 60.6 58.6 8.0 -3.3 169.7 169.2 16.7 -0.3
Corporate Farming 30.6 41.4 130.1 35.3 70.4 117.3 109.5 66.6
B. Development2 5.7 6.3 54.1 10.5 16.8 23.8 36.6 41.7
Tractor 1.6 1.0 33.3 -37.5 4.2 3.2 40.0 -23.8
C. Total farm sector
118.1 143.6 33.1 21.6 315.5 392.1 36.1 24.3
(A+B)
Non-farm sector (Working Capital and Fixed Investment)
Livestock/dairy 60.7 67.7 52.1 11.5 177.4 210.6 43.5 18.7
Poultry 30.1 36.8 27.0 22.3 85.2 99.5 38.8 16.8
Other 25.3 29.7 33.9 17.4 88.0 102.9 56.9 16.9
D. Total non-farm
116.1 134.2 40.7 15.6 350.6 412.9 45.4 17.8
sector
Total agriculture
234.2 277.8 36.8 18.6 666.1 805.0 40.8 20.9
(C+D)
1
Production loans are for purchase of inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, pesticides etc.
2
Development loans are for tractors, tube wells and other agricultural machinery.
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

However, the improvement was overshadowed by reduced fertilizer offtake, as

well as relatively restrained growth in credit disbursements to crops sector,
especially production loans, compared to last year. Total nutrient offtake
continued to contract in Q3-FY19 as well; consequently, fertilizer offtake declined
by 3.5 percent for rabi 2018-19 compared to rabi 2017-18. Product-wise
breakdown shows that even though urea offtake expanded by 3.0 percent, it was
offset by a significant contraction in DAP offtake of 17.0 percent. Decline in
DAP offtake can be largely attributed to higher prices compared to last two rabi
seasons, despite provision of various subsidies at the provincial and federal levels3
(Figure 2.2). In keeping with the trends of weak crop sector performance and
increased interest rates, loans to crop sector contracted marginally by 0.3 percent
during Jul-Mar-FY19, while the disbursements for tractors declined by 23.8
percent on YoY basis. 4 Overall agriculture credit disbursements during the
period, however, registered growth of 20.9 percent on top of healthy showing
during the same period last year (Table 2.4).

3 Feed gas is being provided at cheap rate (Rs. 185 per MMBTU), whereas price of fuel gas is Rs.
780 per MMBTU. In this way subsidy of Rs. 714 per bag is given.
4 Largely due to hike in tractor prices and rising interest rates, tractor sales declined by 27.8 percent

in rabi 2018-19 compared to same period last year.

14
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Despite contraction in farm Figure 2.2: Average Monthly Prices

activities, there was an increase FY17 FY18 FY19
in loans for production
4000 Ure a DAP
purposes, mainly due to a
broad-based rise in input

Rs / 50 kg bag
prices. Unlike the preceding 3000
rabi season, where price hike
in diesel was the only major 2000
source of input cost increases,
the situation worsened in 1000
FY19, given increase in prices
of all inputs, namely tractors, 0

Feb

Feb
Jan

Jan
Nov

Nov
Mar

Mar
Dec

Dec
Oct

Oct
fertilizer, insecticides and
pesticides. Hence, farmers Data source: National Fertilizer Development Centre (NFDC)
faced liquidity constraints due
to both escalated input prices and lower crop returns (Table 2.5). Meanwhile,
within the non-farm sector, growth was derived mainly from higher working
capital requirements for livestock/dairy and poultry sub-sectors. This trend is in
line with the 4.0 percent growth of the livestock sector during FY19.

Wheat: Table 2.5: Agricultural Input Prices for Rabi Crop (Oct-Mar)
Data from Pakistan Economic YoY % Change in Wholesale Price Index
Survey shows that the wheat 2017-18 2018-19
production rose marginally by Tractor 0.0 11.6
Fertilizer 2.7 17.8
0.5 percent to 25.2 million tons
Pesticide 0.8 2.4
in FY19 (Table 2.3) as the
Insecticide -0.4 6.2
government revised FY18 -7.1 0.0
Cultivators
wheat output downwards by Diesel 21.5 29.9
0.4 million tons. However, All Farm Inputs 12.2 23.5
according to the latest Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
estimates by the Ministry of
National Food Security and Research (MNFSR), wheat production for FY19 had
been recorded at 24.3 million tons which instead shows a contraction of 3.2
percent compared to revised production of 25.1 million tons in FY18.

The discrepancy between the estimates provided by PBS and MNFSR may be
attributed to the former one not accounting for production levels due to untimely
rains and hailstorms at peak harvest time. The forthcoming Annual Report for
FY19 could shed more light on the performance of the wheat crop as by then the
datasets would have reconciled. The analysis below is based on the latest
estimates provided by MNFSR.

15
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

This rabi season, the yield for wheat declined by 2.9 percent while the area under
wheat contracted by 0.4 percent. This second consecutive seasonal decline in
wheat production was mainly due to three developments: (1) delayed cane
crushing led to decline in area under cultivation; (2) insufficient nutrient offtake,
specifically for phosphate, resulted in lower yield; and (3) untimely and
intermittent rains and hailstorm in the harvest period led to a portion of the crop
being damaged, particularly in Southern Punjab (Figure 2.3).

Another reason for low yield is

Figure 2.3: Wheat Production and Growth Rates
the usage of non-certified seeds
Yield growth Area growth
in certain areas. Largely, Production (RHS) Target production
losses in yield have been
12 28
reported in districts such as
Chakwal where desi varieties 8 26

million tons
percent

were planted, as opposed to 4 24

new weather- and pest-resistant 0 22
varieties. These varieties have
-4 20
inadequate resistance to
weather changes. Lower -8 18
FY12
FY10
FY11

FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17

FY19*
FY18R
adoption of certified seeds
might have been caused partly
by unchanged support price of Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. FY19* figure is
post-rain estimate reported by MNFSR. T arget by FCA.
Rs 1,300 per 40 kg for the
season. Major losses were estimated in Punjab, specifically in southern region,
where yields have declined by 4.0 percent compared to provisional numbers
calculated before damage assessment. 5

In a climate-changing scenario, adoption of certified and climate resistant seeds is

crucial in mitigating losses from unpredictable and erratic seasonal patterns.
Furthermore, resilience of small farmers through climate smart adoption and
insurance practices is also needed. Recognizing this fact, the latest Punjab Crop
Insurance Program aims to indemnify small landholders for yields losses, enhance
productivity, and promote the adoption of climate smart practices such as new
varieties of seeds. Under this program, rabi 2018-19 wheat yield losses will be
compensated for farmers covered under the program (Box 2.1).

The position of wheat stocks held by provincial food authorities and PASSCO at
end-March 2019 were 4.5 million tons, compared to 7.3 million tons in March

5 Initial yield of Punjab according to FCA meeting in start of April was 2,951 kg per hectare while
the latest loss adjusted yields are 2832 kg per hectare. Latest estimates were reported by MNFSR.

16
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

2018 (Figure 2.4). Despite lower than target wheat output, carryover stocks are
still sufficient to cover the domestic consumptive requirements of 25.8 million
tons.6 Although depreciation of PKR did result in some export of wheat7, it is
hardly sufficient to reduce mounting pressures on provincial governments’ wheat
financing costs.

This year, the government had

Figure 2.4: Wheat Stocks and Procurement
announced the target of 6.3
March-end stocks Procurement
million tons for procurement,
which was comparably higher 8
than last year’s target of 6.1
6
million tons

million tons and actual

procurement of 5.9 million tons
in FY18. That said, the actual 4

Target
procurement was still not
2
confirmed by majority of
provincial authorities as of end-
0
March 2019. It bears 2016 2017 2018 2019
mentioning that an absence of
storage facilities at the farm T arget: set as on May 15, 2019.
Data source: Ministry of National Food Security and Research
level, and thus a reduced ability
to save the crop from moisture damages, often results in sale of wheat at cheaper
rates in case of non-procurement by the government.

Box 2.1: Punjab Crop Insurance Program – Pilot Project Features and Lessons Learned
The Crop Insurance Program (CIP) was introduced as an essential component of the Government of
Punjab’s strategy to transform agriculture in the next five years in line with the goals of the World
Bank’s SMART8 program to enhance productivity of crops, increase competitiveness, and improve
resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change and natural disasters. Two rounds of pilot
projects were launched, first in kharif 2018 for cotton and rice, and second in rabi 2018-19 for
wheat. Due to lower than expected cotton crop yields, payout to cotton farmers in Sahiwal district
was also made in the kharif 2018 season. The pilot projects have helped to identify several issues.
While the improvements in input adoption and yield enhancement will take time to unfold, this Box
highlights the key features of the program and the lessons learned.

Current situation
The existing federal level Crop Loan Insurance Scheme (CLIS), in place since 2008, is a catastrophe

6 This is based on the 120 kg per person per annum requirement. Source: MNFSR
7 Jul-Mar exports for FY19 were 0.56 million tons, compared to 0.31 million tons for same period in
FY18.
8
The crop insurance program was to be developed and rolled out under the World Bank financed US
$300 Million project for “Strengthening Markets for Agriculture and Rural Transformation in
Punjab” Program-for-Results (SMART Punjab PforR) from 2018 to 2022.

17
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

loss of yield program that is only triggered when the authorities declare calamity in a certain area
and yield loss is above 50 percent. The scheme then pays out the lending institution the crop loan
amount owed by farmers who default, hence it does not directly benefit the small land holder for
yield loss.

Key goals and features of CIP

 Indemnify small land holders of Table 2.1.1: Uptake Details till March 2019
Punjab with less than 5 acres for Area Insured
Farmers
the loss in yield due to pest attacks (Acres)
and/or natural disasters Kharif 2018 (4 districts) 16,750 42,779
 Improve crop yields and production Cotton 12,357 31,874
by linking crop insurance with Rice 4,393 10,905
credit lines; farmers will be Rabi 2018-19 (9 districts) 41,375 97,773
incentivized to invest in high Wheat 41,375 97,773
yielding seeds and fertilizer. Total 58,125 140,552
 Increase adoption of climate smart Data source: Program Implementation Unit- Crop Insurance
technology by subsidizing Program Punjab
premiums and incentivizing uptake
in the first 5 years. As highlighted in SBP’s Second Quarterly Report for FY19, the risks of
climate change for Pakistan are significant in terms of loss of yield.

The program uses the Area-Yield-Index-Insurance (AYII) model for the crop insurance that
compensates farmers for yield loss beyond the insured yield in a certain geographical area termed as
Unit Area of insurance, (UAI) such as tehsil, or markaz. Hence, an individual farmer-level loss is
based on an average area yield, rather than individual farm historical level.

Based on the historical yields, insured yields are set and compared with current yields; the loss of
yield is paid by the insurance company. For example, in the district Chichawatni, the cotton
historical yield was 726.3 kg per acre (which is essentially the AYII), and the coverage was 80
percent; thus, 581 kg per acre was the insured yield. Since the current yield was 485 kg per acre for
the tehsil of Chichawatni, the loss ratio was 16.4 percent. In rupee terms, the insured amount for
cotton was set at Rs 50,000 per acre. Hence the insurance company paid 16.4 percent, equivalent to
Rs. 8,171 per acre to all farmers insured in the Chichawatni tehsil.

Pilot projects of kharif and rabi FY19

Starting from April 2018, up till March 2019, a total of 58,125 farmers with holdings over an area of
140,552 acres were insured. The crops covered were cotton, rice and wheat (Table 2.1.1). The initial
pilot project was rolled out in 4 districts in kharif 2018 and expanded to 9 in rabi 2018-19.
 The target group comprised of the borrowers of Punjab Kissan E-Credit and federal CLIS,
insured from plantation to time of harvest.
 The coverage was ground up (0-80 percent of expected yield) for E-credit borrowers and top-up
(50-80 percent of expected yield) for CLIS borrowers. The initial bundling of the scheme with
E-credit allows for the insurance companies to manage scale and risks, and save on marketing
and other costs. The coverage was mandatory for all borrowers of E-credit and optional for
CLIS.
 Sum insured is based on the CLIS crop indicative limits set by SBP which is the value of the
crop. E-credit borrowers were insured for Rs.50,000 per acre for kharif and Rs.30,000 for wheat
while CLIS were only insured Rs. 20,000 per acre. Premium subsidies were provided to farmers
of E-credit at 100 percent for farmers with less than 5 acres of land, while above 5 acres farmers

18
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

were given a 50 percent subsidy. Majority of the farmers were E-credit borrowers with very
limited CLIS borrowers. (Table 2.1.2).
Table 2.1.2: Premium Details
Premium Amount Subsidy Premium Share by Farmers
(PKR/acre) (percent) (PKR/acre)
Cotton Rice Wheat Cotton Rice Wheat
E-Credit Borrowers
0-5 acres 1,250 750 570 100 0 0 0
5.01-12.5 acres 1,250 750 444 50 625 375 222
CLIS Borrowers
0-25 acres 600 200 444 50 300 100 222
Data source: Program Implementation Unit- Crop Insurance Program Punjab

Results and Cost of the program

For kharif 2018-19, decline in yield of cotton crop, triggered insurance in Sahiwal districts. The per
farmer payout was Rs 8,171 per acre; with 1,986 famers paid out and an affected area of 5,193 acres,
the total claim was Rs 32.9 million (Table 2.1.3). Claims for wheat 2018-19 crop are still to be
calculated since the process of measurement of crop losses is still underway.
Table 2.1.3: Cotton Claim Payout for Sahiwal (Chichawatni)
Per Cost of Actual
No. of Area Insurance Current Yield
farmer production of Calculated
farmers Effected Index Index Decline
payout cotton crop Claim
Acres Kg/acre Kg/acre percent PKR/acre PKR/acre Million PKR
1,986 5,193 581 487 16.3 8,171 59,666 32.9
Data source: Program Implementation Unit- Crop Insurance Program Punjab

Lessons learned
 Development of the insurance market over time would be one of the key outcomes of this
program.
 It was observed that the uptake was still lower than the initial target given the low level of farmer
awareness and understanding of the purpose of the program.
 The uptake was larger for 0-5 acres where premium subsidy was 100 percent with very few
farmers paying out the premium.
 The effect on yield and adoption of climate smart technology will unfold once the farmers realize
the purpose of the insurance scheme and benefits it entails.
 The policy can support major crops without distorting the market through support prices.
 Farmers were paid out by insurance companies without much delay. This is expected to increase
farmers’ trust in the system and hence future rounds, with enhancement of awareness programs,
are expected to improve yields through adoption of climate smart technology, high yielding seed
varieties, and fertilizer uptake.
 Insurance for farmers is necessary to protect them against calamities and yield losses should be
implemented in other provinces as well.
References:
Mirza Waseem. 2019. Pilot Project Report- Kharif 2018. Crop Insurance Program Punjab
Stutley, Charles; Kalavakonda, Vijayasekar; Jansen, Johannes Georges Pius. 2018. A Feasibility Study: Assessing
the Potential for Large-Scale Agricultural Crop and Livestock Insurance in Punjab Province, Pakistan.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.

19
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Minor crops:
Figure 2.5: Area under Oilseeds Cultivation
For the oilseeds crops, growth
of 20.5 percent in total area FY17 FY18 FY19P FY19T
was estimated, which is 300

000 hectares
expected to lead to higher
200
production. Rapeseed/mustard
and canola cultivation 100
remained higher than target as
per provisional estimates, while 0
the sunflower crop could not

Sindh

Sindh
Pakistan

Pakistan
Punjab

Punjab
achieve its target (Figure 2.5).
Two observations are
Sunflower Rapeseed/Mustard &
noteworthy. First, a shift in Canola)
area from sunflower to canola P: Provisional and T: T arget set by FCA.
Data source: FCA Working Paper 2019-20.
and rapeseed/mustard in
Punjab occurred despite a promise of subsidy on sunflower at the time of sowing.9
This happened because the subsidy scheme for sunflower was characterized by
operational delays and shortages of seeds. Second, area under sunflower in Sindh
improved, while simultaneously area under canola and rapeseed/mustard declined.
Lack of clarity regarding the scheme in Punjab resulted in transfer of seed sales by
private seed companies at lower rates to farmers in Sindh, since the sowing season
in the latter begins earlier than in Punjab.

2.3 Industry10
As the impact of macroeconomic stabilization measures intensified, the
performance of the industrial sector slowed to 1.4 percent during FY19.11 The
impact of macroeconomic stabilization policies coupled with regulatory measures
was most evident in construction and manufacturing activities.

On one hand, fiscal consolidation measures resulted in reduced public sector

development spending, while CPEC related expenditure also witnessed marked
deceleration during FY19. On the other hand, regulatory measures such as
increase in regulatory duties, ban on non-filers to purchase new car and property12,
and shifting from furnace oil based electricity generation had a spillover impact on
construction-allied activities, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and POL production.

9 The subsidy scheme only available in Punjab offers a buyback assurance of Rs 3,000 per 40 kg and
a disbursement of Rs 4,000 on verification of planting of crop at time of harvesting.
10 This section is based on actual data up to March 2019. Therefore, numbers reported in this section

may not tally with those presented in Table 2.1, which are annual estimates.
11 During the previous five years, the industrial sector had grown by 5 percent on average.
12 The ban was ultimately reversed.

20
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

At the same time, tight Table 2.6: YoY Growth in LSM (Jul-Mar)
monetary policy increased growth in percent; contribution in percentage points
financial costs, and exchange YoY Growth
Contribution to
Weight Growth
rate depreciation also impaired
FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
activities of certain industrial
LSM 70.3 6.3 -2.9 - -
segments. Bank credit to the Textile 20.9 0.6 -0.3 0.2 -0.1
private sector, especially Cotton Yarn 13.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
working capital loans, surged Cotton Cloth 7.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
substantially due to increase in Jute Goods 0.3 33.4 -14.1 0.1 0.0
inventories and prices of raw Food 12.4 -0.3 -4.7 -0.1 -1.0
material, further escalating Sugar 3.5 -11.7 -13.3 -1.2 -1.1
costs, while loans for fixed Cigarettes 2.1 84.9 7.2 0.9 0.1
investment witnessed Vegetable Ghee 1.1 7.4 0.8 0.1 0.0
Cooking Oil 2.2 2.9 0.5 0.1 0.0
deceleration during FY19.
Soft Drinks 0.9 -7.6 -4.2 -0.2 -0.1
POL 5.5 12.3 -6.0 0.7 -0.4
Despite these adverse Steel 5.4 27.5 -11.0 1.0 -0.5
developments during the year, Non-Metallic
5.4 12.3 -5.0 1.3 -0.6
some sectors managed to Minerals
register healthy performances; Cement 5.3 12.4 -5.4 1.3 -0.6
Automobile 4.6 18.9 -7.6 1.3 -0.6
for instance, small scale and
Jeeps and Cars 2.8 22.1 -0.1 0.7 0.0
household manufacturing and
Fertilizer 4.4 -8.3 4.5 -0.5 0.2
the electricity generation and Pharmaceutical 3.6 4.2 -8.4 0.4 -0.7
distribution and gas Paper 2.3 9.0 -3.9 0.3 -0.1
distribution. Growth in the Electronics 2.0 106.6 23.7 1.8 0.8
latter sub-sector touched Chemicals 1.7 0.5 -3.9 0.0 -0.1
historical highs as relatively Caustic Soda 0.4 21.1 -4.7 0.1 0.0
efficient CPEC-related (RLNG Leather Products 0.9 -8.2 1.0 -0.1 0.0
and coal-based) energy Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
projects replaced inefficient furnace oil-based plants, coupled with an upward
adjustment in energy prices.

LSM
Large-scale manufacturing activities witnessed a broad based contraction (11 out
of 15 major industries). Barring fertilizer sector, all the leading sectors posted
decreases over the previous corresponding period (Table 2.6).

Automobile
The downslide in automobile sector became more noticeable during Q3-FY19
compared to the previous two quarters. Resultantly, the sector contracted by 7.6
percent during Jul-Mar FY19 compared to an impressive growth of 18.9 percent
during the same period last year (Figure 2.6).

21
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Policy measures like regulatory Figure 2.6: Automobile Sector Growth (Jul-Mar)
restrictions prohibiting non- Cars M'cycles Tractors
filers from purchase of LCVs Trucks Buses
Overall
vehicles,13 and increase in
interest rates dented the 40
demand in the automobile 23.5
17.1 18.7

percent
14
segment to some extent. 20 11.4
Furthermore, significant
depreciation of PKR increased -7.6
the cost of production, 0
resulting in escalated prices
and dampening the demand -20
further. The severity of dip in FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
economic activities, especially Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
agriculture incomes, was more
evident in tractors and motorcycles (mainly rural demand) and commercial
vehicles that showed double-digit contraction in growth (Table 2.7).
Table 2.7: Automobile Sector Production (Jul-Mar)
Absolute values Percent growth
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
All Cars 111,830 127,893 148,899 156,038 16 5
Cars <800 cc 27,893 29,966 36,438 30,649 22 (16)
Cars 800-1000 cc 19,139 26,180 38,377 45,627 47 19
Cars >1000cc 64,798 71,747 74,084 79,762 3 8
SUVs 621 812 9,841 5,745 1,112 (42)
LCVs 29,529 18,637 22,605 19,098 21 (16)
Trucks 3,940 5,489 6,907 5,027 26 (27)
746 893 555 649 17
Buses (38)
Tractors 21,942 37,938 52,551 37,457 39 (29)
Motorbikes 982,174 1,211,454 1,425,453 1,342,185 18 (6)
Data Source: Pakistan Automotive Manufacturers Association

The car segment managed to grow by 5 percent during Jul-Mar FY19, benefiting
largely from earlier bookings which partially diluted the impact of regulatory
restrictions (especially on non-filers). The delivery times were 6-9 months for
certain popular variants until June 2018, before the enforcement of regulatory
measure requiring buyers to be active tax filers. The impact of earlier bookings

13
The ban remained intact from July 2018 to March 2019.
14
Bank lending for auto financing declined from Rs 13.9 billion in Q3-FY18 to Rs 5.9 billion during
Q3-FY19.

22
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

lasted till December 2018. Subsequently, the production of cars contracted by 12

percent in Q3-FY19, compared to a growth of 4.6 percent in H1-FY19. Besides,
the stringent imported used-car policy also helped in diverting consumers towards
domestically produced cars, evident from reduced influx of imported used cars
during FY19.

Construction Allied Industries

Construction sector witnessed a sharp contraction of 7.6 percent in FY19 from 8.2
percent growth during FY18. Other than the aforementioned macroeconomic
factors, sector-specific issues like restriction on purchase of immovable property
worth more than four million by non-filers and court proceedings against a leading
property developer dampened demand in the property market.

Another major factor was the decline in margins of the real estate developers.
With prices of imported raw materials rising, the cost of construction increased
substantially. The increase in financing costs further escalated the cost of
production. Also, restrictive regulatory measures created uncertainty in the real
estate markets. However, the increase in costs was not commensurate with
increase in prices of housing units. As margins weakened, more projects became
unviable for developers due to the prevailing market dynamics.

Cement
Cement production recorded contraction of 5.4 percent during Jul-Mar FY19,
compared to double-digit growth of 12.4 percent in the same period last year; this
was the first decline in last eight years during Jul-Mar period. The decline may
have been greater had it not been for cement exports, which partially offset the
weakness in domestic demand.

The cement sector has been going through a major expansionary phase in recent
years, mirroring the increase in economic activity in the country. Public sector
development spending, complemented by CPEC outlays on infrastructure,
provided a boost to the cement industry. However, this type of support may not
be as forthcoming during the ongoing phase of macroeconomic stabilization.

Steel
Steel industry witnessed a double-digit decline of 11.0 percent during Jul-Mar
FY19 compared to remarkable increase of 27.5 percent during the same period last
year. In addition to policy related impact, the exchange rate depreciation played a
detrimental role in the sector’s outcome as price of imported raw material (i.e.
scrap and coal) soared. Upward adjustment in electricity prices further dented

23
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

domestic steel producers’ margins. On the international market front, US-China

trade tensions kept steel prices
Figure 2.7: Growth in Quarterly Average Prices
suppressed in the global
market, which put the Scrap Finished-Steel
importers in the driving seat 30
(Figure 2.7). Consequently,
the earlier imposed anti- 20

percent
dumping duties on imports 10
became ineffective, adding to
0
the already challenging
business environment for the -10
domestic steel producers. -20
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3
POL FY18 FY19
The petroleum industry
registered a decline of 6.0 Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

percent during Jul-Mar FY19 against the growth of 12.3 percent in the previous
period. The industry’s output suffered from: (a) the policy move to shift away
from furnace oil and towards RLNG for electricity generation, which hampered
the demand for furnace oil (one of the major products of the local refineries); (b)
increase in prices of petroleum products due to exchange rate depreciation; and (c)
overall slowdown in economic activities, which also affected demand.
Government’s move to shift from expensive electricity generation to efficient and
environment friendly electricity generation like RLNG, hydel, solar, wind based
generation is a step in the right direction.

Pharmaceutical
The pharmaceutical industry Figure 2.8: Pharmaceutical Sector Growth (Jul-Mar)
witnessed its worst period in 40
well over a decade as its
production contracted by 8.4 30
percent during Jul-Mar FY19
percent

against 4.2 percent growth in 20

same period last year (Figure
2.8). One of the major 10
explanations was the price
0
adjustment mechanism in the
country. During the course of -10
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY07
FY08
FY09

FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19

the year, the pharmaceutical

firms and regulatory authority,
DRAP, were at odds about the Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

24
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

price-setting mechanism. This situation led to an increased dependence on

imported pharmaceutical products. Resultantly, imports of medicinal products
rose by 9.7 and 7.3 percent in quantum and value terms respectively.

Another possible reason of this decline in pharmaceutical production was the

shifting of some production units from Sindh to Punjab, which created temporary
disruption.

Food
The food processing industry during Jul-Mar FY19 was pulled down by sub-par
performance of the sugar sector, which accounts for more than one-fourth of the
total food industry. Prospects of the sugar industry were uncertain from the start
of the year since the raw material was scarce; sugarcane cultivation posted 17.9
percent decrease over last year. Lack of implementation of indicative sugarcane
prices and water scarcity in certain parts of the country mainly resulted in lower
sugarcane cultivation this year.
Table 2.8: Distortions in the Sugar Industry vis-à-vis Inefficient Pricing Mechanism
million tons Indicative Prices (Rs./Kg)
Sugar Sugar Cane Domestic Global
Cane Prod. Cons. Surplus (Rs./40Kg) Sugar Sugar Differential
harvested (I) (II) (I -II) (III) (IV) (III-IV)
FY15 62.8 5.1 4.6 0.5 180 57 48 10
FY16 65.5 5.1 4.8 0.3 180 63 41 21
FY17 75.5 7.0 5.1 1.9 180 65 39 26
FY18 83.3 6.6 5.3 1.3 180 55 34 21
FY19 67.7 6.5E 5.3 1.2 180 57 33 24
Min. 62.8 5.1 4.6 0.3 180 55 33 10
Max. 81.1 7.0 5.3 1.9 180 65 48 26
Range 18.3 1.9 0.7 1.6 0 11 14 16
Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, USDA, Estimate (USDA)

For several years now, the government’s intervention in the sugarcane market has
been broadly ineffective. It could neither provide price security to growers at
times of bumper crops, nor ensure smooth supply of sugarcane to the millers. The
government has kept the price of commodity at the same level in the past few
years, while the production has remained erratic and prices have not reflected the
scarcity (or oversupply) of the product in the market (Table 2.8).

This inefficient sugarcane pricing mechanism has repercussions for the external
sector as well. High price of domestic sugar relative to global benchmarks means
that the country can export surplus sugar only with export subsidy. With ample
capacity to produce exportable surplus, the government needs to reconsider its

25
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

pricing mechanism such that it reflects the true cost of resource usage, incentivizes
market agents to make decisions in the wake of prevailing market dynamics and
enhances the possibility of exporting sugar without any subsidy.

Meanwhile, the cigarette sector’s growth was recorded at 7.2 percent during Jul-
Mar FY19. The government’s prudent policy of three tier duty structure15 and
crackdown on illicit production continues to propel the sector towards formal
market mechanism.

Textile
During FY19, cotton production declined by 17.5 percent, compared to last year.
This prevented the textile sector from taking full advantage of the recent bouts of
exchange rate depreciation, as exports barely grew from last year’s level. Despite
all concessions and incentive packages, the performance of the textile sector
remained anemic.16

Higher production costs, especially the high cost of electricity, imported

machinery and labor cost, amid depressed prices in the international market, have
eaten into the margins of the industry. As profitability has waned over time, so
has the investors’ interest. Leading domestic textile firms continued to shift their
attention to the domestic markets, where the margins have tended to be higher
compared to exports. As a result, the exportable surplus has waned. Therefore, the
economy kept on missing out on a significant chunk of foreign exchange earnings
that the textile sector could potentially have generated.

Fertilizers
The performance of fertilizer industry depends on availability of concessionary
gas to fertilizer plants. In current fiscal year, some small urea plants managed to
resume operations that helped the industry to post a growth of 4.5 percent during
Jul-Mar FY19 whereas in preceding year production had shrunk by 8.3 percent.
Government had earlier provided relief to the small urea producers by providing
mix of domestic and imported RLNG at subsidized rates.17 The government
extended the subsidy up till October 2019 to ensure availability of urea at
affordable rates.18

15
Last year, duty structure on cigarettes was revised by FBR in which duty on lower tier cigarettes
was reduced to merely Rs 800 per thousand cigarettes (Source: SRO 407(I)/2017)
16 Prime Minister’s Export Package and multiple incentives in form of taxes and interest rate

relaxations relative to other industries.

17 Ministry of Finance Press Release No. 9 (September 3, 2018)
18
Ministry of Finance Press Release No. 88 (February 19, 2019)

26
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Despite this relief offered by the government, the fertilizer industry was unable to
recover to the production level
of FY17. The industry Figure 2.9: Fertilizer Production by Type of Unit
managed to recover only 2.4 Large urea units Small urea units Other
percent during Jul-Mar FY19
7
in terms of urea production, 6.0 6.1
5.6 5.8
compared to 8.3 percent 6 5.2

million tons
decline in same period last 5
year. Some recovery in 4
production owed largely to the
3
resumption of activities at the
smaller fertilizer units. 2
Meanwhile, the production of 1
larger firms, that contribute 0
almost 90 percent of total urea FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
output, declined by 1.3 percent; Data source: National Fertilizer Development Centre
last year, these firms had
witnessed growth of 2.1 percent (Figure 2.9).19

Prices of fertilizers rose sharply during Jul-Mar FY19 period on YoY basis;
specifically, prices of urea increased by 27.0 percent and DAP 16.6 percent. This
reflects the increase in cost of production plus price adjustment after exchange rate
depreciation. Increase in prices of fertilizers provided reprieve for the
manufacturers by keeping their Table 2.9: Performance of the Services Sector
margins intact. While growth and share in percent, contribution in percentage points
imported DAP price is mainly Share in Growth Contrib
ution to
reflective of international GDP
FY19 FY18R FY19P Services
benchmarks, urea is still highly in FY19
discounted compared to the Wholesale and retail trade 18.9 6.6 3.1 1.0
international market. Trans, storage & comm. 12.9 2.2 3.3 0.7
Finance and insurance 3.5 7.0 5.1 0.3
Housing services 6.6 4.0 4.0 0.4
2.4 Services
General government
The services sector grew by services
8.4 11.8 8.0 1.1
4.7 percent during FY19.20 Other private services 11.0 8.1 7.0 1.2
This represented a slowdown Services 61.2 6.2 4.7 4.7
compared to last year, and was Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

19 Reason being constrained domestic gas supply to large producers.

20 The dominance of the services sector within the economy (relative to industry and agriculture)
continued to grow; its share in GDP rose from 60.4 percent in FY18 to 61.2 percent during FY19. If
left unchecked, the evolving dynamics of domestic consumption relative to production may further
exacerbate the gap between demand and supply.

27
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

also much lower than the annual target of 6.5 percent (Table 2.9).

Growth in the wholesale and retail trade segment more than halved during FY19
compared to last year. On one hand, the lackluster performance of the
commodity-producing sectors dragged the output of the subsector to some extent.
On the other hand, despite a net contraction in LSM and crops, the increase in
wholesale and retail trade still reflects higher price impact of imports, due to
exchange rate depreciation, despite the decline in their growth in FY19.

Transport, storage and communication performed better during FY19 compared

to a year earlier (Table 2.10).
Table 2.10: Transport, Storage & Communication
Growth in road transport, one GVA Growth
of the heavyweight segments, (Rs. billion) P (percent)
FY18R FY19 FY18R FY19P
nearly doubled compared to Railways 7,068 9,820 338.1 38.9
last year. Also noteworthy was Water transport 62,998 60,676 20.5 -3.7
the continuing improvement in Air transport 101,671 105,108 3.4 3.4
the railways segment. Pipeline transport 1,970 1,941 4.1 -1.5
According to official sources, Communication 250,286 255,305 -4.1 2.0
Pakistan Railways generated Road transport 1,140,789 1,184,667 2.0 3.9
higher earnings during Jul-Mar Storage 42,552 43,797 6.7 2.9
Total 1,607,333 1,661,314 2.2 3.4
FY19 compared to a year
Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
earlier, having introduced 24
new trains as well as a trains tracking system which helped improve fuel
efficiency.21 On the other hand, growth in the air transport segment remained at
3.4 percent, similar to last year. The Q3-FY19 period appeared to offer some
respite to PIA, as the national flag carrier claimed to have reached operational
break-even during the period.22 Elsewhere, in the telecom sector, cellular
teledensity continued to rise, from 72.8 percent as of June 2018 to 75.9 percent by
end-March 2019; similarly, broadband penetration increased from 28.3 percent as
of June 2018 to 32.6 percent as of March 2019.23 The Q3-FY19 period was an
eventful one for PTCL, with profits for the three-month period nearly doubling

21 For details, see the Associated Press of Pakistan news report titled ‘Railways earns Rs 39 billion
till March 2019’, dated 5 May 2019.
22 According to anecdotal evidence, contributing factors included an improvement in the seat

occupancy per flight, the return of four planes previously grounded for repair and maintenance to the
operational fleet, employee cutbacks, lower ticket reservation cost, better cargo load factor, and more
flights on profit-making routes.
23
Data sources: PTA Annual Report 2018 for June 2018 figures; PTA website for March 2019
figures. Broadband penetration is the ratio between the number of subscribers and total population,
multiplied by 100 to represent broadband penetration per 100 inhabitants.

28
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

compared to a year earlier.24

Finance and insurance also witnessed a slowdown compared to last year (Table
2.11). Lower growth in gross value addition by scheduled banks, which have the
greatest share in the segment, set the tone for the moderation in the face of
subdued growth of deposits while their investments declined. Meanwhile,
performance of the equity market remained dismal. Since the portfolio of
insurance companies and mutual funds is largely dominated by investments in
equity market, that also adversely effected the segment’s performance.

From a long-term perspective, Table 2.11: Finance & Insurance

Percent
it is worth highlighting that
Share in Growth
gaps in logistics performance FY19 FY18 FY19
may have prevented the Central Banking 1.7 15.6 -12.5
services sector from realizing Other Monetary Intermediation 87.0 8.8 6.2
its full potential over the years. Scheduled Banks 82.1 7.5 5.3
This especially applies to Non-scheduled Banks 4.9 46.1 24.6
segments like wholesale and Other Financial Services 1.1 -3.7 -8.2
retail trade and transport, Insurance, reinsurance and
5.0 26.3 12.8
pension fund
storage and communication, Activities auxiliary to financial
5.2 -21.7 -7.3
which have the largest weight services
within services. More broadly, Finance and Insurance 100.0 7.0 5.1
better logistics can also Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
enhance the output of commodity-producing sectors, and thus impact real GDP
growth as a whole. Thus, being mindful of and addressing the gaps in logistics
performance merits high priority (Box 2.2).

Box 2.2: Logistics Performance Index Identifies Room for Improvement

Efficient logistics lie at the heart of competitiveness, both at the firm and country level. They enable
firms to connect with domestic and international markets, and affect a country’s prospects of
integration within global value chains. Logistics impact trade, job creation, and economic
development (Hofman, 2017).

Given its importance, there is a need to track logistics performance and take corrective action as
needed. To this end, the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (LPI) serves as a benchmarking
tool that scores and ranks logistics performance. The index can be further decomposed into 6
distinct components, namely:

1. International shipments: The ease of arranging competitively priced international shipments

2. Logistics competence: The competence and quality of logistics services.

24
PTCL’s profit for the three months ended 31 March 2019 (after provision for income tax) was
approximately Rs 2.0 billion, compared to Rs 1.0 billion during the comparable period a year earlier.
Data source: PTCL 1st Quarter Report 2019 (Unaudited).

29
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

3. Infrastructure: The quality of trade- Figure 2.2.1: Aggregated LPI for Selected Countries*
and transport-related infrastructure
LPI Score** LPI Rank*** (rhs)
(example, ports, roads, railroads,
5 100 125
information technology) 92 95
4. Customs: The efficiency of customs 4 100
51 64

Rank
Score
and border management clearance. 3 75
45
5. Timeliness: The frequency with 2 34 35 42 50
which shipments reach consignees 1 5 25
within the scheduled or expected 0 0

Singapore
Thailand

Pakistan
Indonesia
Philippines
Sri Lanka
India
Malaysia

Vietnam

Bangladesh
delivery time.
6. Tracking and tracing: The ability to
track and trace consignments
* Amongst 167 countries in all, for the period 2012-2018
Furthermore, the Aggregated LPI
** Lower score indicates worse performance. Range: 1 to 5.
2012-2018 provides a composite, *** Higher ranking indicates worse performance. Ranks are
weighted score and ranking based on labelled within the figure.
four surveys, which minimizes Data source: World Bank
random variations across individual
surveys and facilitates comparison across 167 countries.25

Figure 2.2.2: Ranking Across Six Aggregated LPI Components for Selected South Asian Countries
India Sri Lanka Pakistan* Bangladesh
130 112 112
100 104
104
79 80
Rank

78

52

26

0
International Logistics Infrastructure Customs Timeliness Tracking &
shipments competence tracing
* Only the bars representing Pakistan's ranking are labelled within the figure, for ease of reference
Data source: World Bank

Pakistan ranks 95th among 167 countries on the Aggregated LPI, trailing behind a number of its
Asian counterparts (Figure 2.2.1). Moreover, decomposing the index into its six components
reveals that the weaknesses are broad-based (Figure 2.2.2). In four out of six components,
Pakistan’s ranking ranges from 100th to 112th; in fact, the country ranks rock-bottom on the
‘Tracking and tracing’ component compared to selected South Asian countries.

Going forward, Pakistan’s performance on the infrastructure component of the LPI may improve,
particularly in the wake of CPEC-related development of roads, railways, and the Gwadar port. In
addition, CPEC is also expected to give a boost to the prospects of the shipping industry, and

25
The four LPI surveys in question were conducted in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018 respectively.

30
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

forward-thinking investors are reportedly keen to explore such opportunities.26

That said, a more concerted policy focus is required to tackle the shortcomings reflected in other LPI
components. These can be viewed as a subset of the ease of doing business, and may thus be added
to the agenda items that the country is looking to address in order to attract more FDI and boost
exports.

References:
Hofman, B. (2017). Performance and Prospects of Global Logistics, Keynote speech at the CaiNiao
Global Smart Logistics Conference.

26For instance, a Singapore-based company has expressed interest in making a US$ 2 billion
investment in Pakistan’s shipping sector, according to newspaper reports published in Q3-FY19.

31
3 Inflation and Monetary Policy
3.1 Overview
Inflationary pressures strengthened further in Q3-FY19 in terms of both
magnitude as well as dispersion (Figure 3.1). The headline CPI inflation surged
steeply to 8.3 percent during Q3-FY19, compared to 6.5 in the preceding quarter,
and only 3.8 percent recorded in the same quarter last year. Attributed primarily
to cost-push triggers, and given the fact that the economy was already in
stabilization phase for over a year, these pressures warranted careful management.

Figure 3.1a: Growing Inflationary Pressures Figure 3.1b: Frequency Distribution of Inflation in
Exchange rate depreciation (YoY) Various CPI Subindices
Administered prices (YoY) >10 6-10 0-6 <0
Headline CPI (YoY) (rhs)

share of total CPIsubindices

share of total CPI subindices

40 10 100 100
32 8 80 80
percent

24 6
percent

60 60
16 4
8 2 40 40
0 0 20 20
-8 -2 0 0
Jan-17

Jan-18

Jan-19
Oct-17

Oct-18
Jul-17

Jul-18
Apr-17

Apr-18

Mar-17
Jun-16

Mar-18
Jun-18

Mar-19
Jun-17
Sep-16

Sep-17

Sep-18
Dec-16

Dec-17

Dec-18

Data source: State Bank of Pakistan and Pakistan

Bureau of Statistics Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

Four factors explained the recent surge in inflation. First, the needed stabilization
measures induced the government to make upward adjustment in administered
prices (of petrol, gas and electricity); not only did this inflate the energy (and by
extension, transport services) component of the headline CPI, but also escalated
businesses’ energy expenses. Second, the lagged impact of PKR depreciation
continued to seep through the broader economy via rising input costs and capital
outlay, and also fed inflation expectations in the economy. Third, food inflation,
which had remained benign over the past 5 years, began to creep up due to supply-
side constraints (mainly meat and tomatoes), costly transportation and the PKR-
led price increases in imported items (such as pulses and tea). And finally, house
rents posted a sharp YoY increase during Q3-FY19 due to base effect – quarterly
revisions in house rents were unusually modest in Q3-FY18.
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

The important concern from the monetary policy perspective was the likely
continuation in these trends. Specifically, the persistence of large twin deficits
entailed risks to overall macroeconomic stability as well as inflation outlook over
the near-to-medium term. In addition to this, cost-push pressures on inflation
were not expected to subside for the rest of FY19: the elevated level of the current
account deficit and weak FX reserves position meant that near-term pressures on
the exchange rate (and their spillover to domestic inflation) were still strong.
Similarly, on the fiscal front, revenue shortfalls and more-than-expected security-
related expenses had left little room for the government to absorb commodity
price variations; a breach of the targeted deficit was imminent already. In the
context of these concerns, even the lower-bound of the SBP’s near-term inflation
forecast range stayed above the 6 percent target. Therefore, preserving
macroeconomic stability required continuation of tight monetary conditions.

Taking stock of these developments, the monetary policy committee (MPC)

increased the policy rate further by aggregate 75 basis points in the two meetings
held during Q3-FY19. With these increases, the cumulative adjustment in the
policy rate since the beginning of the on-going tightening cycle, reached 500 bps
by the end of Q3-FY19. Importantly, while the tight monetary policy gained
support from other stabilization and regulatory measures in its efforts of reining in
excess demand in the economy, its implementation was complicated by
voluminous budgetary transactions in the banking system. The overnight repo
market remained volatile, necessitating frequent interventions by the central bank
(Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Liquidity Management Indicators

Recourse to SBP facility Avg. outstanding Avg. deviation
No. of
Ceiling Floor OMO b/w ONR & PR
OMOs No. of Visits
(billion Rs) (billion Rs) (billion Rs) (bps)*
2018 7 1 0 12.4 1135.8 -5
Jan
2019 29 5 49.9 162 -1148.2 -16
2018 8 2 12.4 0 1338.3 -2
Feb
2019 18 4 109.4 4.7 -183.6 -1
2018 9 4 47 47.8 917.3 +3
Mar
2019 11 5 57.3 16.2 -547.3 0
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan; * ONR-=Overnight rate, PR= policy rate

The most important development was the record-high net retirements of

government borrowing to commercial banks, and its replacement with the SBP
debt. Specifically, over Rs 6.0 trillion worth of government debt (all T-bills) was
scheduled to mature during Q3-FY19, only 60 percent of which was rolled over by
banks – they were not willing to invest in government papers due to persistent

34
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

expectations of rising interest rates. The month of January 2019 was particularly
challenging, as the government retired Rs 2.4 trillion to commercial banks on net
basis; public agencies retired another Rs 69.0 billion. To absorb excess liquidity
from the market, SBP had to conduct 29 OMOs during the month (almost every
day). Although these mop-ups were largely helpful in diluting their impact on the
interbank liquidity, the overnight rates remained on average 16 bps below the
policy rate during January 2019. The situation improved in subsequent months as
overnight rates remained close to the policy rate – in fact, for most days in March
2019, these remained higher than the policy rate (Section 3.2). However, in these
two months as well, SBP had to intervene on average every second day to ensure
stability in the market.

The entrenched liquidity surpluses in the interbank liquidity can be explained by

weakening momentum of private sector credit on account of unfavorable
macroeconomic conditions. Specifically, Q3-FY19 observed a sudden and sharp
slowdown in the off-take of private credit, especially after its sizable expansion in
the preceding quarter. The working capital component tumbled the most, as
scheduled retirements by textiles and fertilizer manufacturers largely offset
borrowings of sugar, dairy and beverages sectors. It may be recalled here that
producers had borrowed heavily in the preceding quarter in the wake of rising
export demand for value-added products, as well as a steep rise in cotton/yarn
prices; the magnitude of their retirements in Q3-FY19 was particularly large.
Among non-manufacturing sectors, power generating firms deleveraged, as their
cash flows improved after the issuance of energy-related Sukuks by the
government. A YoY decline in power generation during the quarter further
subdued their financing requirements.

It is important to note here that businesses have been navigating through

challenging times from the start of this fiscal year, as sharp depreciation of the
PKR, rising input costs, flagging domestic demand, PSDP cutbacks, regulatory
tightening, and unintended inventory accumulation, were all taking toll on
industrial volumes. Contractions were visible in LSM right from the start of
FY19, but rising input costs and cash flow constraints kept the credit growth intact
till the end of the second quarter. However, deepening growth constraints have
now started weighing on businesses’ credit appetite, especially in view of elevated
level of interest rates. As for the fixed investment loans, while most firms are
reluctant to take a long-term view of the economy due to prevailing uncertainties,
few large corporates have stuck to their planned capex, especially in the power
sector.

35
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

3.2 SBP’s Liquidity Management

Three factors primarily explained volatile liquidity conditions in the interbank
market during Q3-FY19:
(i) Persistent expectations of policy rate hikes by commercial banks that kept
them away from investing in government papers. As a result, the government
retired Rs 2.0 trillion to
commercial banks during the Figure 3.2: Volume and Numberof Mop-ups
quarter; Volume Number (rhs)
(ii) Although banks invested 20 60
Rs. 496.1 billion in PIB

number of mop-ups
auctions (fixed and floating 16 48
trillion Rs

combined) during the quarter, 12 36

these were partly offloaded to
insurance companies and 8 24
money market funds, bringing 4 12
the liquidity back into the
banking system; and 0 0
Q2

Q1
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q2
Q3
(iii) A sharp slowdown in the
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
offtake of private credit
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
Together, these developments
more than offset the impact of a significant deceleration in commercial banks’
deposits (non-government) during Q3-FY19. Consequently, the SBP continued to
intervene regularly in the interbank market with an aim to maintain stability and
ensure smooth implementation of monetary policy. Keeping in view the
operational target, SBP conducted 52 open market operations to absorb surplus
liquidity during the third Figure 3.3: Key Liquidity Indicators
quarter. The aggregate mop-up
Outstanding OMO WAONR Policy rate
volumes in these operations
were historic-highs (Figure 2000 10.6
3.2). As a result, outstanding
1000 10.1
mop-ups at end-March stood at
billion Rs

percent

Rs 1.1 trillion compared to net 0 9.6

injection of Rs 1.5 trillion at
end-FY18. -1000 9.1

Due to these heavy mop ups, -2000 8.6

5-Mar-19
1-Jan-19
8-Jan-19

5-Feb-19

12-Mar-19
19-Mar-19
26-Mar-19
12-Feb-19
19-Feb-19
26-Feb-19
15-Jan-19
22-Jan-19
29-Jan-19

liquidity conditions had

relatively tightened from
January 2019 through March
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
2019 (Figure 3.3). This is

36
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

evident from the fact that the weighted average overnight rate (WAONR)
remained above the policy rate in only 3 days in January 2019, whereas the
frequency rose to 11 days and 21 days in February 2019 and March 2019,
respectively.
Table 3.2: Monetary Aggregates
billion Rupees
FY18 FY19
H1 Q3 Jul-Mar H1 Q3 Jul-Mar
Money supply (M2) 336.4 366.0 702.4 577.3 235.6 812.9
Net foreign assets -174.4 -308.6 -483.1 -681.2 67.4 -613.7
Net domestic assets 510.8 674.7 1185.5 1,258.4 168.2 1,426.6
Net budgetary borrowing 313.2 457.4 770.6 650.6 178.2 828.8
SBP -2.7 2,164.2 2,161.5 1257.1 2,187.8 3,444.9
Scheduled banks 315.9 -1,706.8 -1,390.9 -60;6.5 -2,009.6 -2,616.1
Credit to private sector 296.3 177.4 473.7 570.4 41.1 611.5
Credit to PSEs 66.0 107.6 173.6 145.1 165.1 310.2
Other items (net) -152.5 -26.7 -179.3 -25.3 -135.1 -160.4
Currency in Circulation 15.6 171.6 187.3 143.3 206.4 349.7
Total Deposits 320.8 194.0 514.8 433.8 29.0 462.8
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

3.3 Monetary Aggregates Figure 3.4: Money Supply- Liability Side

After increasing sharply in the
CiC Other Deposits with SBP Total Deposits
first half of the year, the pace
of monetary expansion slowed 600
down in Q3-FY19. This trend 450
was attributed to a modest
billion Rs

300
increase in overall budgetary
borrowings from the banking 150
system, as well as a subdued
0
offtake in the credit to private
sector. Therefore, a limited -150
Q1-FY18

Q2-FY18

Q3-FY18

Q1-FY19

Q2-FY19

Q3-FY19

expansion was visible in net

domestic assets (NDA) of the
banking system (Table 3.2).
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

Importantly, net foreign assets of the banking system posted an increase after
falling consistently for the previous 4 quarters. This increase reflected the impact
of official loans from bilateral resources, especially in March 2019, which allowed
the government to partly retire its borrowings from the banking system.
3.1. On the liability side, the contribution of currency in circulation remained
glaringly dominant against deposits during Q3-FY19 (Figure 3.4). Around 88

37
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

percent of the monetary expansion during the quarter was comprised of currency
in circulation, and as a result, the currency to deposit ratio touched a level of 39.6
percent. This trend can partly be traced to an increase in the rates of return on
NSS instruments, which attracted Rs 229.9 billion worth of net investments during
Q3-FY19. Effective January 1st 2019, the profit rates on savings certificates were
increased by more than 200 bps. On a cumulative basis, the returns on these
instruments since the beginning of monetary tightening cycle have increased by
over 500 bps, which compares favorably with only 277 bps increase in case of
bank deposits. Possibly, some interest-sensitive deposit holders have shifted their
savings from banks to NSS instruments.

Another reason behind a slower deposit mobilization was the expectation of

further depreciation of the exchange rate. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
general public resorted to dollar holdings in order to preserve their purchasing
powers (as reflected from widening kerb premium – Chapter 5). It may be
recalled here that back in April 2018, non-filers were barred from depositing cash
dollars in their foreign currency accounts; therefore, for majority of public, the
available option was to hold them in cash.

Thus, in order to reduce the cash orientation and informality in the economy, there
is a need to take corrective measures that may encourage the use of formal savings
channels. It may be highlighted here that the government has recently removed
withholding tax (WHT) on cash withdrawals for filers; however, as documented in
SBP Annual Report of 2016-17, the impact of this WHT on deposits mobilization
was (statistically) insignificant. The major impact on currency growth and
currency-to-deposits ratio was Figure 3.5: Budgetary Support from the Banking System
coming from WHT on non- (stocks)
cash banking transactions, SBP Scheduled banks Total (rhs)
which is still in place for non-
8 11
filers.
trillion Rs

trillion Rs

6 10
Government Budgetary
Borrowings 4 9
Budgetary borrowings from the
2 8
banking system slowed down
during Q3-FY19 due to 0 7
Mar-18

Mar-19
Jun-17

Jun-18
Sep-17

Sep-18
Dec-17

Dec-18

increased availability of non-

bank and external funding.
Within the banking system, the Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
government continued to
borrow heavily from SBP, and made significant retirements to scheduled banks

38
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

(Figure 3.5).1 This trend was attributed to the persistence of rate hike
expectations in the interbank market, which kept banks away from rolling over
debt maturities. Similar to trend in previous few quarters, the incremental
investments in T-bills during Q3-FY19 were concentrated in 3-month tenor, which
took the share of these instruments in entire T-bill stock to 99.9 percent.

Table 3.3: Auction Profile of Government Securities (face value)

billion Rupees
T-Bills PIB -fixed rate PIB -floating rate
Target Offered* Accepted Target Offered* Accepted Target Offered* Accepted
In gross terms
Q1-FY18 3,900.0 4,511.2 4,406.3 300.0 104.1 55.6 - - -
Q2-FY18 3,600.0 4,586.5 3,601.2 200.0 54.3 0.0 - - -
Q3-FY18 5,375.0 5,396.5 4,214.7 200.0 55.7 0 - - -
Q1-FY19 5,450.0 5,119.0 4,687.0 150.0 64.1 20.6 150.0 151.5 108.3
Q2-FY19 4,600.0 5,779.7 5,431.4 150.0 45.3 22.5 150.0 93.4 0.0
Q3-FY19 6,050.0 3,775.6 3,690.6 200.0 945.5 397.9 250.0 232.6 98.2
Net of maturity
Q1-FY18 218.5 829.7 724.8 -296.6 -492.5 -541.0 - - -
Q2-FY18 -5.0 981.5 -3.8 200.0 54.3 0.0 - - -
Q3-FY18 315.8 337.3 -844.5 -326.8 -471.1 -526.8 - - -
Q1-FY19 -210.6 -541.6 -973.6 -311.1 -397.1 -440.6 150.0 151.5 108.3
Q2-FY19 198.5 1,378.2 1,030.0 150.0 45.3 22.5 150.0 93.4 0.0
Q3-FY19 30.5 -2,243.9 -2,328.9 200.0 945.5 397.9 250.0 232.6 98.2
* Offered amount excludes non-competitive bids
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

An important development during the quarter was the market’s renewed interest in
long-term debt instruments (Table 3.3). This was potentially in the backdrop of a
hike in the PIB cutoff rates in December 2018 auction. That in turn signaled the
market regarding a shift in the government’s strategy in favor of PIBs. During
Q3-FY19, total offers for PIBs (both floating rate and fixed rate) soared to Rs 1.2
trillion against the target of Rs 450 billion. Of these, Rs 496.1 billion were
accepted.

Credit to PSEs and Commodity Financing

Credit to PSEs registered a significant increase during Q3-FY19 compared to the
corresponding period last year. Almost the entire borrowing represented the
investment of Islamic banks in Sukuk worth Rs 200 billion, issued by the Ministry
of Energy. This amount was mobilized by the Ministry via Power Holding Private
Ltd. (PHPL) in order to address liquidity constraints in the energy sector.

1Until H1-FY19, the overall volume of budgetary support from the banking system was more than
twice that of last year.

39
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Reportedly, PHPL has made its due payments to the IPPs and OMCs, which
brought some improvement in their cash flows.

As for the commodity Table 3.4: Commodity Financing

operations, higher net billion Rupees
FY18 FY19
retirements were entirely
H1 Q3 Jul-Mar H1 Q3 Jul-Mar
driven by the repayment of
Wheat -11.2 -44.3 -55.4 -91.8 -82.3 -174.1
loans for wheat procurement Cotton 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
during Q3-FY19 (Table 3.4). Rice 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Wheat sales within the country Sugar -2.1 0.3 -1.8 2.1 0.6 2.7
as well as exports enabled the Urea -1.5 0.1 -1.4 4.2 0.9 5.1
procurement agencies to make Total -14.6 -43.9 -58.4 -85.5 -80.7 -166.1
significant loan retirements Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
during the period.2

3.4 Credit to Private Sector

The first 9-month position of private credit showed an encouraging picture, as the
off-take rose to Rs 611.5 billion in Jul-Mar FY19, compared to Rs 473.7 billion
recorded in the same period last year. However, focusing only on Q3-FY19,
private credit moderated significantly as the offtake fell from Rs 177.4 billion in
Q3-FY18 to only Rs 41.1 billion in Q3-FY19 ( Figure 3.6). Textiles and fertilizer
sectors, which had borrowed aggressively in H1-FY19, made heavy retirements
during the quarter under review.

Net retirements in textile, fertilizer and edible oil muted working capital loans
Export-led activity in the textile sector coupled with rising input costs drove up
working capital borrowing in H1-FY19, during which the sector borrowed Rs
187.4 billion. Because the sector received 25.2 percent higher export revenues in
PKR terms during the quarter, it retired Rs 32.5 billion of short-term loans in Q3-
FY19, compared to borrowing of Rs 4.0 billion in the same period last year.
Furthermore, it might have been challenging for some firms to roll over their bank
debt, due to higher interest cost.

2 During H1-FY19, 461.3 thousand MT wheat was exported as compared to 0.2 thousand MT in the
same period last year, whereas in Q3-FY19, 96.2 thousand MT was exported compared to 307.2
thousand MT in Q3-FY18. Moreover, procurement agencies offloaded almost double the quantity of
wheat during Q3-FY19 compared to Q3-FY18.

40
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

In the case of fertilizer, the net

Figure 3.6: Credit to Private Sector (YoY growth)
retirements of short-term loans
was mainly due to longer than 22
usual maintenance shutdown of
plants of few major 18
manufacturers in Q3-FY19.

percent
Fertilizer offtake during the 14
quarter also contracted due to
its higher prices, lower area
10
under cultivation of major
crops and low rainfall in the
sowing season, all of which 6

Mar-17

Mar-18

Mar-19
Sep-16

Sep-17

Sep-18
Jan-17

Jan-18

Jan-19
Nov-16

Nov-17

Nov-18
Jul-16

Jul-17

Jul-18
May-17

May-18
resulted in decline in
production during Q3-FY19.
Similarly, edible oil firms Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
made seasonal retirement of Rs 6.9 billion in Q3-FY19, majority of which were
loans taken for import financing purpose.
Table 3.5: Loans to Private Sector Businesses during Q3 (flow)
billion Rupees
Total Loans Working Capital* Fixed Investment
FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
Private Sector Businesses 159.8 47.9 85.5 1.8 74.2 46.1
Manufacturing 104.4 66.1 83.8 50.6 20.6 15.5
Sugar 93.3 94.3 86.4 83.1 6.9 11.2
Basic chemicals -7.6 20.1 -5.2 11.3 -2.4 8.8
Dairy 12.4 11.0 2.1 10.9 10.4 0.1
Soft drinks & beverages 4.1 9.2 1.3 7.0 2.8 2.2
Cement 20.4 6.2 2.6 5.1 17.7 1.1
Iron & Steel 7.5 3.4 5.3 4.0 2.3 -0.6
Refined Petroleum 5.6 0.6 7.4 2.7 -1.8 -2.1
Edible oil and ghee -2.3 -6.5 -2.2 -6.9 -0.1 0.4
Fertilizer -27.8 -13.5 -19.2 -12.3 -8.6 -1.3
Textiles -8.6 -28.6 4.0 -32.5 -12.6 3.9
Prod., trans. & dist. of electricity 46.2 10.7 26.0 -21.0 20.2 31.7
Mining and Quarrying 3.1 6.8 -0.7 4.5 3.7 2.4
Real estate & related 10.9 1.2 1.2 0.2 9.7 1.0
Commerce and Trade -6.1 2.7 -13.4 -7.3 7.3 9.9
Construction 11.5 -5.6 8.2 2.4 3.2 -8.0
Transport, stor. &communication 2.3 -9.2 -6.2 -6.0 8.5 -3.2
Agriculture -5.9 -10.7 -4.0 -7.6 -1.8 -3.1
Ship breaking etc. -3.8 -14.0 -3.6 -14.0 -0.2 -0.1
*includes trade financing
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

41
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Higher input cost raised financing requirement in sugar

Despite the fall in production of sugarcane on YoY basis, sugar sector borrowed at
previous year’s level during Q3-FY19.3 However, unlike last year when most of
the borrowing was activity-driven, the borrowings during Q3-FY19 period mainly
reflected firms’ liquidity constraints. It is important to recall here that a number of
sugar manufacturing firms had defaulted on their bank loans in the preceding
quarter, as prices remained depressed in the domestic market and the government
was not able to make full payment of the export subsidy amount. An additional
pressure in the third quarter was the increase in sugarcane prices by 16.6 percent
YoY, compared to a decline of 4.2 percent last year. The liquidity constraints
were also reflected in deposit withdrawals by the sector during Q3-FY19.

Besides sugar, other manufacturers also borrowed short term loans to finance their
seasonal needs. These included dairy, soft drinks & beverages sectors, which
borrowed a combined Rs 17.9 billion in Q3-FY19, compared to Rs 3.4 billion last
year. However, their impact was diluted by the net retirements in textile, fertilizer
and edible oil & ghee sectors. As a result, working capital loans in manufacturing
grew only Rs 50.6 billion, compared to Rs 83.8 billion in the same period last year
(Table 3.5).

Capex in power transmission helped push fixed investment loans

Unlike the first two quarters of FY19 when working capital dominated the
increase in loans to private business, fixed investment loans constituted the major
part of the increase in private credit. Sectors such as power generation, sugar and
basic chemicals were the major beneficiaries. The major chunk of these loans was
taken by power generation sector, as K-Electric (KE) is in the process of
upgrading its power grids and the overall transmission network. It is pertinent to
mention that the utility provider is investing heavily to strengthen power supply
and improve operational efficiency.

Consumer financing remained depressed

Consumer financing rose Rs 43.0 billion in Jul-Mar FY19, compared to Rs 57.2
billion last year and consistently declined in all quarters. The major drag came
from the segments such as auto and house financing. The decline in auto loans can
be attributed to ban on non-filers from purchasing/registering cars, as well as
rising markup cost. Moreover, house financing remained virtually stagnant in Q3-
FY19, compared to Rs 2.7 billion increase in the same period last year (Table
3.6).

3The second estimate for the Kharif season reveals a contraction in the production of sugarcane by
15.9 percent compared to the corresponding period last year.

42
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Table 3.6: Consumer Financing (flow)

billion Rupees
Jul-Mar Q1 Q2 Q3
FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
Total 57.2 43.0 18.4 15.3 17.1 14.5 21.7 13.2
For Transport: Car 34.6 17.7 11.2 5.0 9.6 6.8 13.9 5.9
House building 15.1 8.3 6.3 5.4 6.1 2.9 2.7 0.0
Personal loans 1.8 9.8 0.8 3.5 -4.6 2.1 5.6 4.2
Credit cards 4.7 4.0 1.6 1.1 2.5 2.5 0.6 0.3
Consumer durables 1.0 3.2 -1.5 0.3 3.5 0.1 -1.1 2.8
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

It may be noted that the SBP has introduced a policy for promoting low cost
housing in March 2019 for Figure 3.7: Headline CPI Inflation (YoY)
lower income and special
10
segments of the society, such 9
as widows, children of martyrs, 8
transgender people, and 7
persons in areas severely 6
percent

affected by terrorism. The 5

4
central bank has allowed
3
certain regulatory relaxations 2
to banks/DFIs. With 90:10 loan 1
to value ratio, a housing 0
Mar-14

Mar-15

Mar-16

Mar-17

Mar-18

Mar-19
Jun-14

Jun-15

Jun-16

Jun-17

Jun-18
Sep-17
Sep-14

Sep-15

Sep-16

Sep-18
Dec-14

Dec-15

Dec-16

Dec-17

Dec-18
unit/apartment having up to Rs
3 million value can be financed
at a relatively low rate of 5 Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
percent for up to 12.5 years.
The loans are refinanced by SBP and banks have been exempted from the
exposure limit of 10 percent on real estate to the extent of exposure taken on low
cost housing.

3.5 Inflation
CPI inflation (YoY) consistently rose on a quarterly basis and reached 8.3 percent
on average during Q3-FY19 (Figure 3.7). As a result, the average headline CPI
inflation recorded highest third-quarter inflation since FY12 at 8.3 percent,
compared to 3.8 percent during Q3-FY18 (Table 3.7).

43
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Table 3.7: Average CPI Inflation and Contribution during Q3

growth in percent, contribution in percentage points
Growth Contribution
Weight
FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
Overall CPI 100.0 3.8 8.3 3.8 8.3
Food of which 37.5 2.0 5.2 0.8 2.1
Meat 2.4 8.4 13.6 0.3 0.4
Cigarette 1.4 -19.8 14.5 -0.5 0.3
Tomatoes 0.4 -14.9 136.5 0.0 0.3
Milk 6.7 4.0 4.1 0.3 0.3
Sugar 1.0 -16.6 14.0 -0.2 0.1
Energy of which 9.0 3.3 20.9 0.3 1.7
Gas 1.6 0.0 85.3 0.0 1.0
Electricity 4.4 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.4
Fuel 3.0 12.9 14.9 0.3 0.3
Non Food Non Energy of which 53.5 5.4 8.6 2.7 4.5
House rent 21.8 5.4 8.2 1.0 1.6
Transport services 2.7 1.3 15.1 0.0 0.4
Education 3.9 14.0 8.7 0.6 0.4
Personal equipment 0.8 9.1 12.4 0.1 0.2
Footwear 1.6 0.6 7.9 0.0 0.1
Drug medicine 1.3 2.0 7.9 0.0 0.1
Construction input item 0.6 4.9 12.0 0.0 0.1
Motor vehicle 0.7 5.7 12.8 0.0 0.1
Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

Major reasons for the rise in inflation included: (i) sustained pressures on twin
deficits, which induced the government to adjust administered prices upwards and
also impose regulatory duties on imported items; (ii) supply constraints of certain
food items and imposition of FED on cigarettes; (iii) the second-round impact of
rise in fuel prices and exchange rate depreciations; and (iv) a sharp YoY increase
in house rents during Q3-FY19 due to base effect. As mentioned before, the
inflationary pressures throughout FY19 have remained broad-based, as around 70
percent of the sub-indices showed more than 6 percent (target) inflation during
Q3-FY19. Furthermore, around one-third of the sub-indices have grown by more
than 10 percent.

Government price adjustments steered energy inflation

Administered prices, which primarily comprise of energy and important food
items, posted a steep rise during Q3-FY19 (Figure 3.8). This increase was
reflected in a high inflation in natural gas (85.3 percent), electricity (8.5 percent),
and motor fuel (14.9 percent) during the third quarter. On aggregate, these
contributed about 20 percent (1.7 percentage points) to the overall headline

44
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

inflation of 8.3 percent during the quarter. Last year, these CPI sub-indices had
contributed only 7 percent to the headline inflation.

In particular, adjustments in Figure 3.8: International and Domestic Fuel Prices

domestic gas prices were Domestic (Petrol) International (rhs)
necessary for the government 100 90
to ease alleviate its current
90 80
expenditures and also to bring

US$ / barrel
Rs / litre
down losses of gas distribution 80
70
companies. It is important to 70
recall here that the increase in 60
60
natural gas tariffs was long due 50 50
as gross underpricing of the
40 40
commodity over the years has

Mar-18

Mar-19
Sep-17

Sep-18
Jan-18

Jan-19
Nov-17

Nov-18
Jul-17

Jul-18
May-18
not just led to its
overutilization but has also
burdened the national Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics and Bloomberg
exchequer significantly. While
efficiency improvement at distribution level would help, it is important to reiterate
that gas pricing needs to be much more competitive at the upstream level, in order
to make bring online those gas fields that are presently commercially unviable.4

As for the motor fuel, it is important to mention here that after increasing
consistently during FY18, domestic petrol prices have remained stable at an
elevated level during Jul-Mar FY19.5 This stability came on the back of a cut in
sales tax on domestic motor fuel prices from July 2018 onwards, as well as a sharp
decline in global crude prices in Q2-FY19. Although global crude prices surged
again in Q3-FY19, their impact on domestic motor fuel prices did not materialize
during the quarter.6

Food inflation began to surge

Food inflation during Q3-FY19 more than doubled to 5.2 percent, compared to 2.0
percent during Q3-FY18. While this increase was broad-based, the rise in prices
of tomatoes, sugar and cigarettes was particularly steep. The surge in prices of

4 This would also encourage fresh exploration, which could increase total gas reserves in the country
and alleviate pressure on retail price of gas over the medium term.
5 Petrol prices had been increasing throughout during FY18, surging from Rs 72.8 per liter to Rs 92

per liter at end June 2018. In the first 9 months of FY19, the average petrol price stayed at Rs 93.8
per liter.
6 This impact was materialized with a lag in May 2019, when the government increased the petrol

prices by Rs 9.5 per liter, and HSD prices by Rs 4.9 per liter.

45
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

tomatoes was due to supply shortages emanating from lower domestic production,
as well as tensions with India during the period that restricted its imports during
Q3-FY19. In case of cigarettes, the imposition of federal excise duty from
October 2018 onwards, resulted in a sharp rise in their prices.

The surge in sugar prices, which had stayed low and stable over the past couple of
years, had been visible since the commencement of the current cane crushing
season. By end-March 2019, sugar prices had soared to Rs 61.1 per kg in the
domestic market from Rs 54/kg at the start of the year. It is also important to note
here that sugar exports have already fallen this year in the absence of subsidies;
compared to the export of 1 million ton of sugar in Jul-Mar FY18, only 123,000
tons was exported this year. However, the government is now mulling over
banning the export of the commodity to keep domestic prices under check.

Prices of non-food-non-energy items remained high

House rent, second round Figure 3.9: House Rent Index (YoY)
impact of fuel prices, and 9
multiple phases of exchange
rate depreciation played a 8
critical role in driving the
7
percent

NFNE inflation during Jul-Mar

FY19. With the highest weight 6
of 21.8 percent in the CPI,
house rent contributes strongly 5
to CPI inflation. During Q3-
4
FY19, it added 1.6 percentage
Q4-FY15
Q1-FY16

Q4-FY18
Q4-FY14
Q1-FY15
Q2-FY15
Q3-FY15

Q2-FY16
Q3-FY16
Q4-FY16
Q1-FY17
Q2-FY17
Q3-FY17
Q4-FY17
Q1-FY18
Q2-FY18
Q3-FY18

Q1-FY19
Q2-FY19
Q3-FY19

points to the headline CPI

inflation against 1.0 percentage
point contribution in Q3-FY18. Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
Specifically, during Q3-FY19,
house rent (YoY) inflation rose by 8.2 percent, which is the highest level since
Q4-FY14; it may be highlighted here that upward adjustments in house rent during
Q3-FY18 were quite low compared to the trend observed during the last three
years (Figure 3.9). City-wise segregated data shows that 9 out of 40 cities
showed a double-digit rise in rents, while 23 cities observed increase in rent by
more than 6 percent, which is the target rate set for the overall CPI.

Triggered by rise in fuel prices, transport services posted an inflation of 15.1

percent during Q3-FY19. Moreover, private courier services also hiked up their
prices during Q3-FY19 following an increase in their transportation cost.

46
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Additionally, some of those items that rely on imported inputs recorded higher
inflation during Q3-FY19; these included motor vehicles (12.8 percent), motor
vehicle accessories (10.3 percent), medicines (7.9 percent), medical equipment
(6.3 percent) and telephone sets (9.8 percent). Resultantly, NFNE recorded an
increase of 8.6 percent during Q3-FY19, compared to 5.4 percent during the same
period last year.

Income group-wise CPI Inflation

Though inflationary pressures
Figure 3.10: CPI Income Group-Wise Inflation
have accelerated since the <Rs 8 thousand Rs 8-12 thousand
beginning of FY19, their Rs 12- 18 thousand Rs 18- 35 thousand
incidence on low-income > Rs 35 thousand
groups (with incomes less than 12
Rs 12,000) remained quite
9
benign till the end of the
percent

second quarter (Figure 3.10). 6

During Q3-FY19, however,
3
inflation incidence on these
income groups grew stronger, 0
Mar-18

Mar-19
Jun-18
Feb-18

Sep-18

Feb-19
Dec-18
Jan-18

Jan-19
Aug-18

Nov-18
Jul-18

Oct-18
Apr-18
May-18

as the inflation doubled from

around 4.0 percent YoY in
December 2018 to slightly Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
more than 8.0 percent YoY by
March 2019. Since consumption basket of low-income groups is mainly
constituted of essential items, a broad-based rise in food prices have started to
affect this group. Furthermore, the double-digit inflation in sensitive price index
(which includes 53 essential items) during February and March 2019 also
confirms that lower income groups have been more prone to rising inflationary
pressures during Q3-FY19.

47
4 Fiscal Policy and Public Debt

4.1 Overview
The third quarter of FY19 Figure 4.1: Fiscal Balance Indicators (Jul-Mar)
recorded a major deterioration Fiscal balance Revenue balance Primary balance
of fiscal indicators. Mainly
due to a large expansion in 0.0
current expenditures and
percent of GDP
-1.0
stagnancy in revenue
-2.0
collections during Q3-FY19,
another 2.3 percentage points -3.0
were added to the cumulative
-4.0
fiscal deficit of the first half of
FY19. Resultantly, the budget -5.0
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
deficit widened to a historic
high of 5.0 percent of GDP Data source: Ministry of Finance and SBP calculations
during Jul-Mar FY19 (Figure
4.1). Revenue and primary balances also deteriorated during the period under
review.
Broad-based expansion in current expenditures with major contribution from
higher than budgeted interest payments and security related expenditures did not
bode well for the overall fiscal consolidation despite a major cut down in PSDP
expenditures. The quarter-wise data shows that the increase in current
expenditures gathered further pace and grew by an amount of Rs1,814.0 billion in
Q3-FY19 as compared to the increase of Rs 1,530.2 billion during Q3-FY18. As a
result, on a cumulative basis the current expenditure reached to Rs 4,798.4 billion
in Jul-Mar FY19, which is 17.7 percent higher than that recorded in Jul-Mar
FY18.
The moderation of economic activity (particularly in the industrial sector) and
measures such as suspension of taxes on telephones, reduction in taxes on salary
income, and lower sales tax on petroleum products adversely impacted the growth
of tax revenue. Nonetheless, a double-digit growth was recorded in the collection
of FED and customs duty (although still lower than the growth in FY18), mainly
on the back of PKR depreciation and higher regulatory duties. A sharp fall in non-
tax revenues (mainly due to the base-effect) and a slowdown in tax revenues,
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

dragged down the ratio of revenues to GDP from 10.3 percent in Jul-Mar FY18 to
9.3 percent during Jul-Mar
FY19 (Table 4.1), the lowest Table 4.1: Summary of Fiscal Operations (Jul-Mar)
since FY14.1 billion Rupees and percent
Actual Growth
Additional financing needs, FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
along with PKR depreciation, A. Total revenue 3,582.4 3,583.7 13.9 0.0
led to accelerated Tax revenue 3,076.2 3162.1 14.2 2.8
accumulation of public debt Non-tax revenue 506.2 421.6 12.2 -16.7
on both external and domestic B. Total expenditure* 5077.9 5482.5 16.0 8.0
fronts during Jul-Mar FY19. Current 4,075.4 4798.4 13.0 17.7
Interest payments 1,172.8 1459.2 7.2 24.4
The surge in the former was
Defence 623.8 774.7 16.5 24.2
largely an outcome of PKR Development 993.3 655.9 23.6 -34.0
depreciation as the financing Net lending 9.2 28.3 -126.8 208.0
component was almost at last C. Statistical discrepancy -14.6 23.7 -265.6 -262.3
year’s level (Table 4.2). As Fiscal balance (A-B-C) -1480.9 -1922.5
fresh borrowing from external Revenue balance -493.0 -1214.6
sources was not sufficient, the Primary balance -308.1 -463.3
government had to rely on Financing 1,480.9 1922.5
domestic sources, which led to External sources 524.3 524.5
accelerated accumulation of Domestic sources 956.6 1398.0
Banks 813.5 787.7
domestic debt during the
Non-bank 143.1 610.4
review period. Meanwhile, Privatization - -
the composition of domestic percent of GDP
debt was tilted towards the Total Revenue 10.3 9.3
borrowing from the central Tax revenue 8.9 8.2
bank since commercial banks Non tax revenue 1.5 1.1
showed reluctance in lending Total Expenditure 14.6 14.3
to the government at the Current 11.8 12.4
prevailing rates in anticipation Development 2.9 1.7
* Excluding statistical discrepancy
of higher future interest rates. Data source: Ministry of Finance and SBP calculations
The current composition of
domestic debt highlights the need of a better debt management strategy to avoid
re-pricing and rollover risks of short-term debt. Further, a significant increase in
borrowing from the central bank does not bode well for the economy as it carries
the risk of generating inflationary pressures.

1
Non-tax revenue also recorded a sharp fall of 16.7 percent during Jul-Mar FY19 in contrast to a
rise of 12.2 percent during the same period last year. The surge in FY18 was largely due to increase
in provincial non-tax revenue – transfer of hydel profits to provinces.

50
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

4.2 Revenue
A sharp decline in non-tax Figure 4.2: Growth in Revenue Collection (Jul-Mar)
revenues and restrained growth Non Tax Tax Total revenue
in tax revenues kept the overall 20
revenue collection almost at
last year’s level (Figure 4.2). 10

percent
Despite different measures
implemented by the tax 0
authorities to increase the tax -10
base, the tax collection
remained almost stagnant. -20
Considering the fact that the
-30
growth in tax revenues was FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
lower than the growth of
Data source: Ministry of Finance
nominal GDP, it suggests the
need for more rigorous tax efforts to provide the much needed uplift to revenue
collection.2
Table 4.2: FBR Revenue Drivers (Jul-Mar)
billion Rupees
Collection Abs. Change Growth in percent
Target FY19
FY18 FY19 FY19 FY18 FY19
Direct taxes 1,727.0 1,001.4 993.2 -8.2 12.2 -0.8
Indirect taxes 2,671.0 1,626.4 1,709.1 82.7 18.9 5.1
Customs duty 735.0 428.4 506.5 78.1 24.8 18.2
FED 266.0 144.3 162.9 18.6 13.5 12.9
Sales tax 1670.0 1,053.7 1,039.7 -14.0 17.4 -1.3
Total taxes 4,398.0 2,627.8 2,702.3 74.5 16.2 2.8
Data source: Federal Board of Revenue

FBR taxes
FBR tax collection grew only by 2.8 percent during Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to
a double-digit growth of 16.2 percent during the same period last year (Table 4.2).
A decline in sales tax and direct taxes (particularly withholding taxes) along with a
deceleration in customs duty and FED explained the overall slowdown of FBR tax
collection.

FBR tax collection at the end of third quarter stood at 61.4 percent of the annual
target, which leaves around 38.6 percent for the last quarter. In absolute terms,
almost Rs 1,700 billion is to be collected in Q4; keeping in view the historical
2 The tax to GDP ratio declined from 8.9 percent in FY18 to 8.2 percent in FY19.

51
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

trend, achieving the target seems challenging.3

Decline in direct taxes owing to some policy measures

Direct taxes having a share of 37.0 percent in overall FBR tax collection recorded
a decline of 0.8 percent during Jul-Mar FY19 in contrast to a rise of 12.2 percent
during the same period last year (Table 4.3). Measures like the suspension of tax
on mobile top-ups; reduction in come tax rates on salaries; reduction in the
withholding tax rate on dividends; and spending under the PSDP explain the
decline in direct taxes.
Table 4.3: Drivers of Change in Direct Taxes
Within direct taxes, major hit billion Rupees; growth in percent
emerged from withholding Jul-Mar Changes in FY19
taxes (largest contributor in FY18 FY19 Absolute Percent
direct taxes), which recorded a A. Withholding taxes 749.7 684.5 -65.2 -8.7
contraction of 8.7 percent of which
during Jul-Mar FY19 against a Telephone/Mobiles 38.0 5.3 -32.7 -86.1
rise of 16.1 percent during the Salaries 95.2 53.5 -41.7 -43.8
Contracts 194.6 164.8 -29.8 -15.3
same period last year. One-
Imports 159.8 168.2 8.4 5.3
half of the decline in total Bank interest &
withholding taxes is in the 34.5 44.0 9.5 27.5
securities
category of telephone/mobiles. B. Voluntary payments 240.0 274.3 34.3 14.3
Collection from telephone was C. Collection on demand 68.4 74.3 5.9 8.6
only Rs 5.3 billion during Jul- D. Miscellaneous 4.0 2.0 -2.0 -50.0
Gross income tax
Mar FY19 compared to a [A+B+C+D]
1062.1 1035.2 -26.9 -2.5
collection of Rs 38.0 billion Net direct tax 1001.4 993.2 -8.2 -0.8
during the same period last Data source: Federal Board of Revenue
year. This lower collection
from telephone/mobile phones was not surprising amid suspension of taxes on
mobile phone top-up by the Supreme Court.

Tax collection on salaries also remained much lower than last year. In absolute
terms, tax on salaries declined by Rs 41.7 billion during the review period, mainly
due to changes in income tax rates for all income slabs. Receipts from contracts
were also lower compared to last year largely owing to a cut in the PSDP.4
Voluntary payments increased by Rs 34.3 billion during Jul-Mar FY19.5 It is

3 The average collection of Q4 is Rs 964.8 billion and the maximum is Rs 1,214.2 billion during the
last five years.
4 As compared to Rs 931.4 billion in FY18, the size of PSDP was only Rs 562.3 billion in FY19.
5 VP comprises of payments with returns and advance tax payments on the basis of self-assessed

expected income within the PAYE (pay as you earn) regime.

52
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

important to mention that during FY18, voluntary payments remained much lower
than its average.6 Collection on demand increased by Rs 5.9 billion compared to
an increase of Rs 8.8 billion during the same period last year. This marginal
deceleration is apparently an outcome of extension in the deadline for e-filing of
tax returns in FY19. In practice, the deadline is usually within the second quarter
of the fiscal year; however, in FY19, the deadline was extended beyond Q3-FY19.

Lower Collection of Indirect Taxes as Industrial Sector Faced Slowdown

As compared to a growth of Table 4.4: Drivers of Change in Excise and Custom Duty
18.9 percent during Jul-Mar (Jul-Mar)
FY18, the indirect taxes grew billion Rupees and percent
Abs.
only by 5.1 percent during Jul- FY18 FY19
Change
Growth
Mar FY19. Disaggregated Custom Duty
analysis of indirect taxes show Vehicles 70.3 66.1 -4.2 -6.0
a contraction of 1.3 percent in Mineral Fuel, oil and their
46.9 59.2 12.3 26.2
products
sales tax during Jul-Mar FY19 Iron and Steel 30.3 35.5 5.2 17.2
in contrast to a growth of 17.4 Total 428.4 506.5 78.1 18.2
percent during the same period FED
last year. Both categories of Cigarettes & Tobacco 41.9 58.2 16.3 38.9
sales tax, i.e. domestic and Cement 38.5 42.6 4.2 10.9
import, recorded a negative Total services 32.4 30.7 -1.7 -5.2
growth. Lower industrial Beverages & Concentrates 13.6 13.8 0.2 1.5
growth, moderation in overall Total 144.3 162.9 18.7 12.9
economic activity and subdued Data source: Federal Board of Revenue
import demand contributed to this decline.

Within sales tax, major fall was in the category of petroleum products. Lower tax
rates on various petroleum products and lower import quantum during Jul-Mar
FY19 were the primary reasons of the decline in tax collection.7 Similarly, sales
tax collection on iron & steel products declined amid contained domestic demand
& lower import quantum during the period under analysis.8 Sales tax collection
from cement also recorded a fall because of lower sales volume.9

6 The decline in voluntary payments during FY18 was primarily driven by reduction in corporate tax
rate and lower bank profitability.
7 Import quantum of petroleum products declined to 7.5 million MT during Jul-Mar FY19 compared

to 11.1 million MT during Jul-Mar FY18.

8 Import quantum of iron & steel declined to 2.3 million MT during Jul-Mar FY19 from 2.8 million

MT during the same period last year.

9 Cement sales recorded a decline of 0.5 percent during Jul-MarFY19 (Source: APCMA)

53
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Custom and excise duty collections record double-digit growth

The depreciation of PKR, imposition of regulatory duty, and an increase in excise
duties led to a double-digit growth in custom and excise collection during
Jul-Mar FY19. FED and customs duty recorded a YoY growth of 12.9 and 18.2
percent respectively during Jul-Mar FY19. As highlighted in the second quarterly
report for FY19, though there was a slowdown in the quantum of imports, the
PKR depreciation mainly helped maintain the overall growth in value terms. With
the exception of vehicles, custom collection on other major categories i.e. iron &
steel, and electrical machinery & equipment increased significantly during the
period under review (Table 4.4). The FED collection increased by Rs 18.7
billion, out of which Rs 16.3 Table 4.5: Non-tax Revenues (Jul-Mar)
billion was collected from billion Rupees and growth in percent
cigarettes, largely due to FY18 FY19 Growth
upward revision of FED on Mark-up 21.7 14.4 -33.8
locally produced cigarettes.10 Dividend 33.6 32.2 -4.2
Profits from post office/PTA 8.8 16.2 83.9
Non-tax revenues SBP profits 143.2 138.2 -3.5
Defence 9.3 10.7 15.5
The overall collection of non-
tax revenues remained subdued Passport & other fees 11.9 16.3 37.1
Discount retained on crude oil 6.5 10.4 60.2
during Jul-Mar FY19 Royalties on Oil/Gas 42.4 61.8 45.7
compared to last year despite Petroleum levy on LPG 2.3 6.1 163.5
higher collection in most of the Others* 225.4 112.5 -50.1
categories (Table 4.5). A Total 506.2 421.6 -16.7
major hit to non-tax revenues *Includes provincial non-tax revenue
largely emanated from the fall Data source: Ministry of Finance
in SBP profits and a delay in the transfer of hydel profits to provinces. The surge
in defence, passport & other fees, royalties on oil & gas, and windfall levy on
crude oil was not sufficient to offset this decline.

4.3 Expenditure
Led by interest payments and defence expenses, a marked increase in current
expenditure was registered in Jul-Mar FY19. However, it was partially offset by a
substantial reduction in the development spending. Resultantly, the overall fiscal
spending growth was contained to 8.0 percent in Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to a
16.0 percent increase in the corresponding period of last year. As percent of GDP,
the overall expenditure was recorded at 12.6 percent in Jul-Mar FY19, which is
lower than 14.8 percent in Jul-Mar FY18 (Table 4.6).

10 Effective from 18th September 2018, the government revised FED on different cigarette brands.

54
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Table 4.6: Analysis of Fiscal Spending

billion Rupees
Jul-Mar Abs. Growth in percent
FY18 FY19 change FY18 FY19
Current expenditures 4,075.4 4,798.4 723.0 13.0 17.7
Federal of which 2,653.3 3,180.9 527.6 8.8 19.9
Interest payments 1,172.8 1,459.2 286.4 7.2 24.4
(i) Domestic Debt Servicing 1,071.4 1,276.8 205.4 6.1 19.2
(ii) Foreign Debt Servicing 101.4 182.4 81.0 19.9 79.9
Defense 623.8 774.7 150.9 16.4 24.2
Public order and safety 94.0 106.1 12.1 14.8 12.9
Others 762.7 131.2 -631.5 4.9 -82.8
Provincial 1,422.1 1,617.4 195.3 22.0 13.7
Development expenditures 993.3 655.9 -337.4 23.6 -34.0
PSDP 931.4 578.5 -352.9 24.7 -37.9
Federal 353.6 302.4 -51.2 9.1 -14.5
Provincial 577.8 276.0 -301.8 36.7 -52.2
Others (including BISP) 61.9 77.4 15.5 8.2 25.0
Net lending 9.2 28.3 19.1 -126.9 207.6
Total Expenditure* 5,077.9 5,482.5 404.5 16.0 8.0
* Excluding statistical discrepancy
Data source: Ministry of Finance

The increase in interest payments was due to a higher debt stock, an increase in
interest rates, and continued exchange rate depreciation. Quarter-wise data shows
that the interest expenditures recorded a substantial increase of Rs 582.5 billion
Q3-FY19 as compared to increase of Rs 421.4 billion in Q3-FY18.11 Resultantly,
the interest payments as percent of GDP reached to its 17-year high level of 3.8
percent in Jul-Mar FY19. Owing to heightened security-related needs in the
country, the defense expenditures also recorded a sharp increase. During Jul-Mar
FY19, the expenditures on defence increased by 24.2 percent and reached to Rs
774.7 billion.12

11 During Jul-Mar FY19, the government domestic debt increased by Rs 1,754.3 billion as compared
to Rs 1,224.8 billion in same period of last year. During Q3-FY19, the government borrowed Rs
634.9 billion, which is highest as compared to last two quarters.
12 As percent of GDP, the defence expenditures stood at 2.0 percent in Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to

1.8 percent in Jul-Mar FY18.

55
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

The other components of current expenditures also remained at elevated levels

during Jul-Mar FY19.13 For instance, current expenditure excluding interest
payments was 8.8 percent of GDP in Jul-Mar FY19, the highest since FY02 (the
data point from where information on quarterly fiscal accounts is available).
Similarly, current expenditures excluding both interest payments as well as
defence expenditures reached to 6.8 percent of GDP in Jul-Mar FY19, which was
also the highest since FY02.

Amid elevated current expenditures, the burden of fiscal consolidation fell on the
development expenditures as reflected in the sharp decline of PSDP releases
compared to last year. The disaggregated data of PSDP shows that the reduction
mainly emanated from a cut in funds pertaining to corporations (NHA,
NTDC/PEPCO), special areas, and other specialized programs. The PSDP funds
for federal ministries, on the other hand, recorded an increase from Rs138.9 billion
in Jul-Mar FY18 to Rs173.9 billion in Jul-Mar FY19.

4.4 Provincial Fiscal Operations

Provincial revenue generation also recorded a significant moderation
The provinces also recorded a marked slowdown in revenue growth that grew by
only 1.5 percent in Jul-Mar FY19 against 24.8 percent growth in the same period
of last year. Due to a slowdown in FBR’s revenue collection, the ‘provinces share
in federal revenue’ recorded a moderation and increased by 7.9 percent in Jul-Mar
FY19 as compared to 16.0 percent in Jul-Mar FY18. The provinces’ own revenue
collection also remained lower than last year, which added to the slowdown in
overall revenue growth at the provincial level. (Table 4.7)

The disaggregated data of provincial revenue sources shows a substantial

reduction in non-tax revenues, which observed a decline of 48.4 percent during
Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to a growth of 113.5 percent in Jul-Mar FY18. The
decline in non-tax revenues was mainly due to lower profits transfer from
hydroelectricity from the federal government.

Within tax revenues, the General Sales Tax on Services (GSTS), that constitutes
around 50 percent share in provincial tax collection, recorded an increase of Rs
142.3 billion in Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to Rs 149.4 billion in the same period
of last year. This relatively lower revenue in the current period can be attributed to

13Other major components include superannuation allowances & pension, grants (other than
provinces), other general public service, public order and safety affairs, economic affairs.

56
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

a slowdown in the growth of services sector in the GDP during FY19.14 The other
major components, such as stamp duties and motor vehicle tax, also recorded
some moderation in Jul-Mar FY19. For instance, the collection from stamp
duties, which constitute around 15 percent share in provincial tax revenues, grew
by 11.7 percent in Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to 62.7 percent growth in Jul-Mar
FY18. The provinces-wise break-up of tax revenues shows a relatively higher
growth of 6.5 percent in Sindh, while tax collections in other provinces remained
broadly close to their last year levels.

Table 4.7: Provincial Fiscal Operations (Jul-Mar)

billion Rupees
Punjab Sindh KP Baluchistan Total Growth
FY19
A. Total Revenue 1,046.4 598.1 355.6 198.2 2,198.3 1.5
Provincial share in federal revenue 866.6 441.9 290.4 180.3 1,779.1 7.9
Provincial own revenue (I+II) 167.5 133.6 41.1 10.8 353.0 -13.2
I. Taxes 141.1 126.7 13.4 6.5 287.7 2.8
II. Non-tax revenue 26.4 6.9 27.7 4.3 65.3 -48.4
Fed loans and transfers 12.3 22.6 24.1 7.1 66.1 -40.3
B. Total expenditure 889.1 545.7 316.8 154.5 1,906.0 -5.2
Current 769.8 466.4 252.3 141.6 1,630.0 13.8
Development 119.3 79.3 64.5 12.9 276.0 -52.2
Gap (A-B) 157.3 52.4 38.8 43.7 292.3 87.4
Financing* (overall balance) -172.5 -57.4 -16.7 -45.0 -291.6 52.6
FY18
A. Total Revenue 1,036.0 584.9 361.3 184.1 2,166.3 24.8
Provincial share in federal revenue 801.7 418.1 269.3 159.9 1,649.0 16.0
Provincial own revenue (I+II) 190.5 131.5 69.9 14.8 406.6 40.3
I. Taxes 141.2 119.3 13.0 6.5 280.0 21.5
II. Non-tax revenue 49.3 12.2 57.0 8.3 126.6 113.6
Fed loans and transfers 43.9 35.3 22.1 9.4 110.7 357.3
B. Total expenditure 1,018.8 529.1 321.4 141.2 2,010.5 25.8
Current 659.5 413.9 237.7 121.6 1,432.7 21.8
Development 359.3 115.2 83.7 19.6 577.8 36.7
Gap (A-B) 17.3 55.8 39.9 42.9 155.9 13.3
Financing* (overall balance) -62.8 -50.0 -24.5 -53.8 -191.0 -16.1
Negative sign in financing means surplus.
Data source: Ministry of Finance and SBP calculations

14According to provisional estimates, the services sector has recorded a growth of 4.7 percent in
FY19 from 6.2 percent in FY18.

57
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

A sharp decline in provincial development expenditure as well

Following the trend of federal fiscal accounts, a sharp reduction in development
expenditures was also recorded at provincial level during Jul-Mar FY19.
Specifically, a reduction of 52.2 percent in Jul-Mar FY19 was recorded as
compared to a growth of 36.7 percent in the same period of last year. Although
remaining robust, the provinces witnessed a slight slowdown in the growth of
current expenditures that grew by 13.8 percent in the current period as compared
to 21.8 percent in Jul-Mar FY18. Therefore, overall expenditures at the provincial
level decreased by 5.2 percent in Jul-Mar FY19 against an increase of 25.8 percent
in Jul-Mar FY18.

In terms of growth in current expenditures, Punjab and Balochistan recorded the

highest growth of 16.8 percent each, followed by 12.6 percent in Sindh and 6.0
percent in KPK. While all provinces recorded a decline in development
expenditures, it was more pronounced in Punjab (-66.9 percent), followed by
Balochistan (-33.7 percent), Sindh (-31.4 percent) and KPK (-23.5 percent).
During Jul-Mar FY19, the share of development expenditure in total expenditures
was the highest in KPK (20.2 percent), followed by Sindh (14.5 percent), Punjab
(13.4 percent) and Balochistan (8.4 percent).15
Table 4.8: Pakistan's Public Debt Profile
billion Rupees
Flows
End period stocks
Jul-Mar FY19
Jun-18 Mar-19 FY18 FY19 Q1 Q2 Q3
Gross public debt 24,952.9 28,607.5 2,667.7 3,654.6 830.6 1,672.4 1,151.6
Government domestic debt 16,416.3 18,170.6 1,224.8 1,754.3 503.6 615.9 634.9
Government external debt 7,795.8 9,625.7 1,350.9 1,829.9 327.1 978.2 524.6
Debt from the IMF 740.8 811.2 91.9 70.4 -0.1 78.3 -7.8
Total debt of the government* 23,024.0 26,368.1 2,424.3 3,344.1 668.0 1,546.2 1,129.9
*Gross public debt minus government deposits with the banking system.
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan and Economic Affairs Division

Consequently, owing to a sharp reduction in development spending and some

moderation in the growth of current expenditures, the provinces recorded a
combined surplus of Rs 291.6 billion in Jul-Mar FY19, which stands higher as
compared to Rs 191.0 billion recorded in Jul-Mar FY18. While all provinces
recorded a surplus, Punjab and Sindh contributed most with Rs 172.5 billion and
Rs 57.4 billion, respectively.

15
During Jul-Mar FY18, Punjab had highest share of 35.3 percent followed by Sindh (21.8 percent),
KPK (26.0 percent), and Balochistan (13.9 percent).

58
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

4.5 Public Debt

As the government struggled to generate sufficient financing from multilateral
sources amid ongoing negotiations with the IMF, the government was forced to
borrow from the domestic sources. Within domestic debt, borrowing from the
central bank increased as Table 4.9: Absolute Change in Government Domestic Debt
commercial banks showed billion Rupees
reluctance in lending to the Jul-Mar FY19
government amid the ongoing FY18 FY19 Q1 Q2 Q3
phase of monetary tightening. Domestic debt 1,224.8 1,754.3 503.6 615.9 634.9
On the face of it, the external Permanent debt -999.2 143.6 -290.2 12.8 421.0
of which
debt increased by Rs. 1,800
PIBs -1,067.7 183.0 -332.3 22.5 492.8
billion (Table 4.8). However,
Prize bond 68.5 97.2 42.1 35.5 19.6
this acceleration was largely Floating debt 2,174.7 1,381.5 778.7 619.9 -17.1
due to PKR depreciation as the of which
financing component was at MTBs -57.0 -2,265.1 -970.7 993.5 -2,287.9
the last year’s level. MRTBs 2,231.7 3,646.6 1,749.5 -373.7 2,270.8
Unfunded debt 49.0 228.4 14.8 -17.4 230.9
Domestic Debt o/w
Domestic debt reached Rs 18.2 NSS 48.7 225.3 10.5 -15.1 229.9
trillion at end-March 2019 - an FC loans 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.1
addition of Rs 1.75 trillion Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

during Jul-Mar FY19, compared to Rs 1.22 trillion during the previous

corresponding period. As mentioned earlier, the composition of domestic debt
reflects heavy reliance on central bank borrowing intended for retirements to
commercial banks (Table 4.9 and Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3: Sources of Domestic Debt Figure 4.4: Maturity-wise Composition of
Domestic Debt
Scheduled banks SBP Non-bank
Long-term Short-term
3000 60
percent share
billion Rs

1500 55

0 50
Q3-FY19
-1500 45

-3000 40
Mar-19
Mar-18
Sep-17

Sep-18
Jan-18

Jan-19
Nov-17

Nov-18
Jul-17

Jul-18
May-18

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
FY18 FY19
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

59
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Maturity-wise composition of domestic debt shows that up till the first half of
FY19, the banks mainly Table 4.10: Net Receipts under NSS Instruments* (Jul-Mar)
invested in 3-month papers, billion Rupees
which was an outcome of FY18 FY19
Abs.
Change
expectations of further
Defence Saving Certificates (DSC) 8.3 44.6 36.3
increase in the policy rates. Special Saving Certificates (SSC) -38.5 33.1 71.6
Resultantly, Market Treasury Regular Income Certificates (RIC) 1.9 102.9 100.9
Bills (MTBs) of maturity more Behbood Saving Certificates (BSC) 32.1 89.5 57.5
than 3-months remained Special Saving Accounts (SSA) 27.5 -75.4 -102.9
unattractive. Saving Accounts (SA) 2.2 -1.1 -3.3
Others 15.3 31.7 16.5
However, some interest in Total 48.7 225.3 176.6
Pakistan Investment Bonds *excludes short-term savings certificates
(PIBs) was also seen during Data source: Central Directorate of National Savings

Q3-FY19; out of Rs 1,215.1 Figure 4.5: Institution-wise Composition of Debt during

billion offered, more than one- Jul-Mar FY19
third of the bids were accepted PIBs GOP Ijara Sukuk MTBs
which amounted to Rs 496.1 3000
billion. Hence, the overall Non-bank
volume for PIBs for Jul-Mar
billion Rs

FY19 was notably higher than 2000

the corresponding period last
year. This was a positive 1000
development as it marginally
improved the maturity profile 0
of domestic debt particularly in Insurance Funds Corporates/ Bank
the third quarter (Figure 4.4). Cos Others
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
NSS volume increased due to higher returns
In addition, the unfunded debt presented some positive picture as net receipts
of National Saving Schemes (NSS) surged to Rs 225.3 billion, compared to only
Rs 48.7 billion recorded in the previous corresponding period (Table 4.10). The
major rise was observed only in Q3 where the main contribution was from Regular
Income Certificates (RICs), followed by Behbood Saving Certificates (BSCs) and
Defense Saving Certificates (DSCs). This is due to higher rates offered on these
instruments (refer to Chapter 3).16 However, saving and special saving accounts

16Central Directorate of National Savings (CDNS) has increased profit rates on the savings’
instruments under NSS w.e.f. January 2019. For more details, visit: savings.gov.pk/revised-rates-
notification/

60
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

recorded a decline during Jul-Mar FY19.

Table 4.11: Public External Debt & Liabilities
billion US dollars
Stock Flows
End-period Jul-Mar FY19
Jun-18 Mar-19 FY18 FY19 Q1 Q2 Q3
External public debt &
75.4 84.2 6.9 8.9 1.0 2.1 5.8
liabilities (i+ii+iii)
External Public debt (i+ii) 70.2 74.2 6.7 3.9 1.0 0.1 2.7
i. Government debt 64.1 68.4 6.5 4.3 1.2 0.2 2.8
Of which;
Paris club 11.6 11.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
Multilateral 28.1 27.4 0.8 -0.7 -0.5 0.1 -0.3
Other bilateral 8.7 12.5 1.4 3.8 2.2 0.5 1.1
Euro/Sukuk bonds 7.3 7.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Commercial loans 6.8 8.9 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1
Short term 1.6 1.1 0.8 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 0.1
ii. IMF 6.1 5.8 0.2 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
iii. Foreign exchange
5.1 10.1 0.2 4.9 -0.1 2.0 3.1
liabilities
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan and Economic Affairs Division
The non-bank debt showed an uptick constituting mainly from PIBs held by the
insurance companies. Meanwhile, MTBs in the non-banking sector gathered some
volume that was primarily from corporates (Figure 4.5).

External Public Debt and Liabilities

External public debt and liabilities (EDL) went up by US$ 8.9 billion during Jul-
Mar FY19 to reach US$ 84.2 billion as of end March 2019 (Table 4.11).
Particularly, the third quarter witnessed a net increase of US$ 5.8 billion, the

Figure 4.6: Change in External Public Debt Figure 4.7: Gross Exte rnal Loan
and Liabilities Disbursement during Q 3
Debt
Liabilities 3000
6000
2250
million US$
million US$

4000
1500
2000
750
0
0
-2000
China

IDB (ST)

IDA
Comm Banks

ADB

Others
Q1-FY15

Q1-FY16
Q3-FY16
Q1-FY17
Q3-FY17

Q3-FY18
Q1-FY19
Q3-FY19
Q3-FY15

Q1-FY18

Data source: State Bank of Pakistan and

Economic Affairs Division Data source: Economic Affairs Division

61
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

highest ever quarterly increase in EDL observed during the last five years, driven
by changes in both debt and liabilities (Figure 4.6).

Although the higher amortization and revaluation gains contributed positively in

reducing public debt (in $ terms), significantly higher disbursement resulted in
around 12 percent growth in the external debt. In absolute terms, the combined
impact of both revaluation changes and amortization was around US$ 800 million
during the period under review. Particularly, the revaluation gains were on
account of depreciation of major borrowing currencies against US dollar. Having
around 34.3 percent share in public and publically guaranteed debt, the debt
dominated in three currencies (SDR, Euro and Chinese Yuan) explains around 92
percent of the revaluation changes observed during Jul-Mar FY19.17

Borrowing pattern remained Table 4.12: Servicing of Public External Debt (Jul-Mar)
skewed towards commercial million US dollars
loans FY18 FY19 Change
The external loan disbursement Principal (Long-term)
increased mainly on account of i. Government debt 2,045.0 2,511.9 466.9
US$ 2.6 billion from foreign of which
commercial banks (Figure Paris club 321.4 338.9 17.5
4.7). Moreover, external Multilateral 1,069.6 1,123.3 53.7
Other bilateral 170.1 304.7 134.6
liabilities increased by US$ 3
Commercial loans 463.9 745.0 281.1
billion in the form of deposit
ii IMF 43.6 250.5 206.9
held with the central bank from iii. External liabilities 0 0.0 0.0
Saudi Arabia and UAE during I. Total (i+ii+iii) 2,088.5 2,762.4 673.9
Q3-FY19. The inflows from Interest
commercial banks were for i. Government debt 997.6 1,361.3 363.7
budgetary support, while UAE of which
and Saudi Arabia made Paris club 128.2 121.7 -6.5
disbursement for BOP support. Multilateral 273 333.0 60.0
Within government debt, the Other bilateral 190.6 297.0 106.4
Euro/Sukuk bonds 171.9 284.2 112.3
project aid was only one-third
Commercial loans 155.2 275.5 120.3
of the total disbursement that
ii. IMF 94.6 108.2 13.6
came from China for the iii External liabilities 16.3 112.4 96.1
infrastructure development in II. Total (i+ii+iii) 1,108.50 1,581.9 473.4
the country. On contrary, there Grand Total (I+II) 3,197.0 4,344.3 1,147.3
was a net retirement to Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

17
Euro depreciated by 3.6 percent against US$, while SDR and Chinese yuan both depreciated
against US$ by 1.3 percent during Jul-Mar FY19.

62
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

multilateral donors during the period. However, these loans are likely to revive
with the inception of the IMF program that bodes well in terms of servicing cost,
as these loans are relatively long-term and concessional in nature.

External debt servicing increased

External debt servicing was up by US$ 1.1 billion, reaching US$ 4.3 billion during
Jul-Mar FY19 (Table 4.12). The increase was due to both higher amortization and
interest payments during the period. Within government debt, around half of the
repayments were made to multilateral donors. Moreover, the repayment to
commercial lenders and IMF’s EFF loan grew significantly during the period
under review.
Figure 4.8: Interest Payment viz a viz 3-Month
The interest payments LIBO R
Public Debt LIBOR (rhs)
increased by US$ 473.4
1600 3.0
million to reach US$ 1.6
billion during Jul-Mar FY19. 1200 2.3
US$ million

In line with the recent external

percent
borrowing trends, the interest 800 1.5
payments grew significantly
during the past few years. 400 0.8
Particularly, the interest
payment to commercial lenders 0 0.0
FY 15

FY 18
FY 14

FY 16

FY 17

FY19
and bilateral donors went up
during the period. Along with Data source: State Bank of Pakistan and
higher external debt stock, www.macrotrends.net
increase in the benchmark rate
(i.e. LIBOR) was also responsible for higher interest payments during the recent
years (Figure 4.8).

From the debt sustainability perspective, the country’s repayment capacity

weakened as debt servicing to foreign exchange earnings increased to 14.0 percent
during Jul-Mar FY19 from 9.7 percent in the same period last year. Similarly,
debt-bearing capacity measured in terms of public external debt to FX reserves
ratio also deteriorated to 4.8 in March 2019 from 4.1 in the same period last year.

63
5 External Sector
5.1 Overview
The improvement in Pakistan’s Figure 5.1: Yearly Tre nd in Current Account De ficit
current account balance gained
Jul-Mar Apr-Jun
further momentum in Q3-FY19
as a significant decline in 0
imports more than offset the -5
stagnancy in exports and billion US$

resulted in the shrinking of the -10

merchandize trade deficit. -15
Further support came from a
substantial recovery in the -20
services balance and healthy -25
growth in workers’
FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

FY17

FY18

FY19
remittances. However, despite
the contraction, the current Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
account deficit (CAD) still
remains at a higher level from the external account’s stability perspective. The
average CAD between FY11-15 was US$ 2.6 billion only, while this number is

Table 5.1: Pakistan's Balance of Payments

million US$
Q3 Jul-Mar
FY18 FY19 change FY18 FY19 change
Current account balance -4,560.0 -2,022.0 2,538.0 -13,589.0 -10,345.0 3,244.0
Trade balance -7,886.0 -5,820.0 2,066.0 -23,095.0 -21,813.0 1,282.0
Exports 6,463.0 6,170.0 -293.0 18,254.0 18,020.0 -234.0
Imports 14,349.0 11,990.0 -2,359.0 41,349.0 39,833.0 -1,516.0
Services balance -1,299.0 -693.0 606.0 -4,320.0 -2,776.0 1,544.0
Primary income balance -1,103.0 -1,237.0 -134.0 -3,683.0 -3,872.0 -189.0
Secondary income balance 5,728.0 5,728.0 0.0 17,509.0 18,116.0 607.0
Remittances 4,939.0 5,065.0 126.0 14,803.0 16,095.0 1,292.0
Financial account balance -2,060.0 -5,486.0 -3,426.0 -9,395.0 -11,720.0 -2,325.0
FDI inflows (net) 709.0 478.0 -231.0 2,622.0 1,274.0 -1,348.0
Portfolio investment (net) 14.0 21.0 7.0 2,332.0 -398.0 -2,730.0
Eurobond/Sukuk 0.0 0.0 - 2,500.0 0.0 -2,500.0
FX liabilities (net) 1,456.0 5,539.0 4,083.0 4,673.0 11,234.0 6,561.0
SBP reserves (end-period) 11,602.0 10,492.0 -1,110.0 11,602.0 10,492.0 -1,110.0
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

US$ 10.3 billion in Jul-Mar FY19 (Figure 5.1).1

The macroeconomic stabilization measures undertaken earlier resulted in a

slowdown in economic activity in the country. The sizable decline in machinery
imports following the conclusion of early phase of CPEC, lower quantum energy
imports (excluding LNG) amid lower power generation in Q2 and Q3, and a
temporary softening in global oil prices, all contributed significantly to
improvement in the CAD by lowering of import payments.

Specifically, import payments dropped quite sharply in Q3-FY19 (Table 5.1). In

percentage terms, it was the largest drop in almost 10 years, and was more than
sufficient to offset a marginal contraction in exports in the quarter. Specifically,
declines in both energy and non-energy import payments contributed to the
sharper decline in overall imports in the third quarter. Energy imports had peaked
in Q1, and then actually declined in Q3 for the first time in over two years. A
sizable reduction in crude oil import payments, a moderation in LNG imports in
the wake of lower power generation, and a temporary dip in global oil prices
contributed to this decline in energy imports (Section 5.5). Meanwhile, the drop
in the non-energy import payments, specifically machinery and transport, became
more pronounced as the year progressed.

At the same time, workers’ remittances registered a significant increase,

particularly from the US and UK, on the back of improved macroeconomic
conditions and wage rises in these countries. Moreover, increased efforts by the
Pakistan Remittance Initiative (PRI) also helped attract higher remittances from
the Pakistani diaspora.

Nonetheless, despite the improvement in the CAD, its management remains

challenging, especially when exports and foreign investments did not show
corresponding increases. In Jul-Mar FY19, foreign investments were unable to
pick up, partially due to the looming uncertainty regarding the exchange rate
adjustment and the finalization of the IMF program, which may have dented the
investors’ confidence. Besides, the lowering of Pakistan’s credit rating by Fitch in
December 2018, due to the country’s external financing risk and deteriorating
fiscal position, further exacerbated the situation.

In particular, foreign direct investment declined both in Q3 and Jul-Mar FY19.

1
FY11-15 was relatively more stable period for Pakistan’s external sector after the global
financial crisis. In terms of GDP, current account was 1.1 percent between FY11-15 and
4.7 percent during Jul-Mar FY19.

66
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

The drop was more pronounced in power and telecommunications; the former,
being the flagship of the CPEC, was the key recipient of FDI in recent years.
Similarly, private portfolio investment also witnessed a higher net outflow in Jul-
Mar FY19.

While foreign investment was insufficient to bridge the current account gap, the
external financing from
bilateral (China, Saudi Arabia Figure 5.2: YoY Change in Quarterly CAB
and the UAE) and commercial 2,587
3,000
sources not only plugged the
current account gap, but also 1,500 705 709
provided some support to
million US$

0
Pakistan’s FX reserves in the
third quarter. Resultantly, -1,500
SBP’s FX reserves jumped by -1,497 -1,293 -1,677
US$ 3.3 billion in Q3-FY19. -3,000
-2,809
As a result, the Pak rupee -4,500

Q2-FY19
Q1-FY18

Q2-FY18

Q3-FY18

Q4-FY18

Q1-FY19

Q3-FY19
remained relatively stable not
only in the interbank market,
but also in the open market
during Q3. Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

5.2 Current Account

The current account deficit narrowed substantially to US$ 10.3 billion in Jul-Mar
FY19, declining by US$ 3.2 billion from the same period last year. Importantly,
the third quarter witnessed a pronounced improvement; the deficit fell to US$ 2.0
billion from US$ 4.6 billion,
resulting in an improvement of Figure 5.3: Profit Repatriation and Interest Payments
US$ 2.6 billion in Q3-FY19, as Profit repatriation Interest payments
both merchandize and services
import payments declined 1.8
(Figure 5.2).
billion US$

1.2
The pressure on the primary
income account continued to
0.6
persist due to interest
payments. The primary income
deficit increased to US$ 3.9 0.0
FY16 FY17 FY18 Jul-Mar Jul-Mar
billion in Jul-Mar FY19 from FY18 FY19
US$ 3.7 billion in the same
period last year (Figure 5.3). Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

67
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

While the repatriation of profit declined to US$ 0.9 billion from US$ 1.4 billion
last year, it was more than offset by an increase in interest payments that climbed
to US$ 2.3 billion in Jul-Mar FY19 from US$ 1.8 billion realized in the same
period of FY18. This increase was driven by payments on short-term commercial
borrowings. As the commercial borrowings are largely benchmarked with
LIBOR, increase in the global interest rates contributed to the higher interest
payments by Pakistan.

5.2.2 Workers’ Remittances

Figure 5.4: Growth in Remittances from Key Corridors
Increased inflows in the
workers’ remittances further USA UK GCC
supported the CAB, which 45
maintained its rising trajectory. 30
Despite a slowdown in Q3
percent

15
from key corridors, the
momentum gathered in the 0
previous two quarters propelled -15
cumulative remittances to a -30
record US$ 16.1 billion in Jul-
Q1-FY18

Q2-FY18

Q3-FY18

Q4-FY18

Q1-FY19

Q2-FY19

Q3-FY19
March FY19 (Figure 5.4).
Inflows were up 8.7 percent
YoY in the period, almost Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
double the growth rate of last
year. Meanwhile, the growth in Q3-FY19 remained subdued at 2.6 percent on
YoY basis.
Table 5.2: Workers' Remittances to Pakistan
Pakistan Remittance Initiative
million US$
(PRI) has intensified its efforts
Q3 Jul-Mar
by launching campaigns in
Abs. Abs.
local and destination specific FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
Change Change
foreign media to encourage Total 4,939 5,066 127 14,803 16,096 1,293
overseas Pakistanis to remit GCC 2,825 2,732 -92 8,616 8,704 88
through legal means. S. Arabia 1,160 1,180 20 3,691 3,748 57
Moreover, PRI facilitated local UAE 1,113 1,066 -47 3,277 3,415 137
Others 552 487 -65 1,648 1,542 -106
exchange companies to
Non-GCC 2147 2333 187 6,187 7,392 1,205
increase their tie-ups with the
US 697 784 87 2,037 2,517 480
international money transfer UK 714 828 114 2,117 2,476 358
operators. This may be Malaysia 319 351 32 820 1,139 318
supporting the higher EU 164 125 -39 481 438 -43
remittances inflows in the Others 252 245 -7 732 823 91
ongoing fiscal year. Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

68
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

The country specific data suggests that the major impetus came from the non-GCC
corridor, specifically the US, the UK and Malaysia (Table 5.2), as inflows from
these countries increased by 23.5 percent, 17.0 percent and 39.0 percent
respectively.

In fact, remittances from the US crossed the US$ 2.5 billion mark for the first
time. The sharp increase from the US was primarily driven by higher economic
activity. Tax reforms enacted by the US authorities have stimulated investment
activities in the economy and resulted in low unemployment and increase in
wages.2 The unemployment rate in the US fell to 3.8 percent in March 2019, the
lowest in the last 49 years.

Meanwhile, uncertainty in the UK over Brexit is fueling labor demand, as the

firms are cautious on committing for long-term investment in case Britain crashes
out of the European Union without any deal.3 This situation is powering the labor
wages in the UK, and leading to higher remittance outflow from the country.4

On the other hand, remittances from the GCC witnessed a marginal recovery of
1.0 percent in Jul-Mar FY19, after declining 3.2 percent in the same period last
year. Nevertheless, the GCC remains the largest source of remittances for
Pakistan. The moderate recovery in inflows from the GCC could be attributed to
increased government spending in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The
Saudi government announced 7.0 percent increase in the state spending in 2019.5

5.3 Financial Account

Foreign investments in Pakistan failed to show improved picture in Jul-Mar FY19.
While inflows in FDI remained substantially lower than the last year, the portfolio
investment actually witnessed an accelerated outflow. Uncertainty regarding the
exchange rate adjustment and finalization of IMF program, country’s vulnerable
external and fiscal position, and downgrading of Pakistan’s credit rating by Fitch
in December 2018 may have dented the investors’ confidence.

2 Source: Bloomberg available at, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-28/u-s-gdp-

grows-above-forecast-2-6-as-business-spending-picks-up
3 Source: Bloomberg available at, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-16/u-k-labor-

market-remains-robust-as-employment-surges
4 During March 2019, the UK’s wage growth rate was 3.3 percent (source: Office for National

Statistics, UK).
5 Source: Reuters, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-arabia-budget-instant-

view/saudi-2019-state-budget-boosts-spending-idUSKBN1OH1SG

69
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Despite the unfavorable condition, Pakistan managed to finance its current account
gap by the substantial external financing from friendly countries and commercial
banks. Most of this financing was realized in the third quarter, which supported
the country’s depleting FX reserves.

Foreign direct investment Table 5.3: Sector-wise Net FDI in Pakistan

The net foreign direct million US$
investment in the country Q3 Jul-Mar
dropped 32.6 percent in Q3- FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
FY19 over the same period Construction 176 97.6 527.3 385.4
last year. Cumulatively, net Oil & gas explorations 122.2 95.9 295.4 253.2
Financial business 85 45.4 361.2 247.6
FDI plunged by 51.4 percent
Electrical machinery 2.9 1.9 13.8 126.6
to US$ 1.3 billion in the first Chemicals -3.4 33.1 27.6 113.9
nine months of this fiscal year, Beverages -2.4 23.1 -7.2 86.3
from US$ 2.6 billion realized Transport (automobiles) 10.1 29.9 11.6 84.3
in the same period of FY18 Food 69 -20 82.9 -16.2
(Table 5.3). Telecommunications 3.2 -20.1 -12.1 -157.4
Power 108.1 35.7 929.1 -293.7
The power sector, which Others 138.9 155.5 392.1 443.8
remained the single largest Total 709.6 478 2,621.7 1,273.8
recipient of the CPEC-related o/w: CPEC 69.7 27.5 829.1 -307.1
Non-CPEC 639.9 450.5 1,792.6 1,580.8
FDI over the last few years
Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
witnessed an outflow of US$
293.7 million during Jul-Mar FY19. This was due to the repayment of an
intercompany loan of around US$ 530.0 million by a power entity to its parent
company in October 2018.

With regards to non-CPEC FDI, an outflow from telecommunications dragged

down the overall investment during Jul-Mar FY19, as telecom firms operating in
Pakistan made principal loan repayments to their parent companies abroad.

On a positive note, some other sectors, including chemicals, beverages and

automobiles, were on the investors’ radar during the period under review. A few
automakers have now started investing in Pakistan, following the incentives
announced under the Automotive Development Policy 2016-21.

Foreign portfolio investment

During Jul-Mar FY19, overall portfolio investment witnessed an outflow of US$
398.0 million against an inflow of US$ 2.3 billion in last year, when the
government had raised US$ 2.5 billion from Eurobond and Sukuk.

70
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Pakistan’s macroeconomic situation in FY19, specifically external, made it

challenging for the government to raise capital from the global financial market.
Instead, the government had launched US dollar denominated Pakistan Banao
Certificates (PBCs) in January 31, 2019, to attract the overseas Pakistani
investors.6 However, initial response from investors was not very encouraging; in
Q3-FY19, the PBCs attracted
US$ 9.3 million only. Figure 5.5: Foreign Portfolio Flows to Pakistani Equities
and P/E ratio
Uncertainty regarding the
country’s external account and FIPI (net) Price to Earning-rhs
probably weak marketing 120 11.0
strategy could have had been 80 10.5
million US$

the factors behind the 40 10.0

ratio
lukewarm response. 0 9.5
-40 9.0
In the absence of these official -80 8.5
inflows, the outflow of US$ -120 8.0
Mar-18

Mar-19
Sep-18
Jan-18

Jan-19
Nov-18
Jul-18
May-18

408.0 million in private equity

investment in Jul-Mar FY19 set
the tone of the overall portfolio Data source: National Clearing Company of Pakistan Limited and
investment. In Jul-Mar FY18, Bloomberg
outflows in private equity were relatively lower at US$ 118.6 million.

In contrast, the foreign selling pressure eased in Q3-FY19, as private portfolio

investment recorded an inflow Figure 5.6: Net Incurrence of Liabilities
of US$ 10.3 million. Pakistani
6,000
equities, after declining by
almost 5,000 points between 5,000
million US$

Jul-Dec FY19, became 4,000

attractive for investors as the 3,000
price-to-earnings ratio was
2,000
bottoming out by the end of
2018 (Figure 5.5). 1,000
0
Q1-FY15
Q3-FY15

Q1-FY16

Q3-FY16
Q1-FY17

Q3-FY17
Q1-FY18

Q3-FY18
Q1-FY19

Q3-FY19

Other investment
During Jul-Mar FY19, the net
inflow of FX liabilities more
than doubled to US$ 11.2 Data source: State Bank of Pakistan

6
PBCs provide opportunity to overseas Pakistanis to safely invest their savings at higher profits.
PBCs are offered for 3 years and 5 years maturity having profit rates, payable semiannually, of 6.25
percent and 6.75 percent, respectively. Moreover, minimum investment amount is US$ 5,000 or
higher in the integral multiple of US$ 1,000 with no maximum limit.

71
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

billion compared to US$ 4.7 billion recorded last year (Figure 5.6). The major
inflows came from commercial and bilateral sources, namely China (US$ 6.3
billion), Saudi Arabia (US$ 3 billion) and the UAE (US$ 2 billion). Most of these
inflows were realized in Q3-FY19.

In net terms, the government Table 5.4: Pak Rupee vis-à-vis Major Currencies
loans increased substantially percent change*
by US$ 1.4 billion during Jul- FY18 FY19
Mar FY19. Most of the Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
activity was observed in the US dollar -0.5 -4.5 -4.4 -4.9 -2.2 -10.5 -1.4
long-term loans, where the Euro -3.8 -6.0 -7.1 0.6 -1.8 -9.2 0.5
Japanese yen 0.0 -4.5 -9.9 -0.9 0.2 -13.2 -0.8
government had realized US$
British pound -3.4 -5.4 -8.2 1.5 -1.4 -8.3 -3.5
4.9 billion, against retirement *Mark-to-market exchange rate;
of US$ 2.5 billion. While in Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
the short-term, retirements
exceeded disbursements, as the government retired US$ 1.4 billion, against an
inflow of US$ 819 million last year.

5.4 Exchange rate

The mounting pressure on the Figure 5.7: Rupee-Dollar Parity
Pak rupee-US dollar exchange Interbank Kerb
rate over the past few quarters 140
seemed to have eased in Q3-
FY19, owing to the external 130
PKR / USD

Q 3-FY18: Avg kerb

hefty FX inflows received premium: Rs 1.1
during the quarter (Table 5.4). 120
As a result, SBP’s FX reserves Q 3-FY19: Avg kerb
premium: Rs 0.0
jumped by US$ 3.3 billion in 110
Q3-FY19.
100
Mar-18

Mar-19
Sep-18
Sep-17

Jan-18

Jan-19
Nov-17

Nov-18
Jul-17

Jul-18
May-18

Resultantly, the local currency

remained relatively stable not
only in the interbank market, Data source: State Bank of Pakistan
but also in the open market
during Q3-FY19 (Figure 5.7). The latter was partially due to the SBP’s efforts to
strengthen the AML/CFT regime for exchange companies in order to control
market speculation and discourage US dollar hoarding.7

7The SBP, via FE Circular No. 15, dated 12 December 2018, standardized the monitoring
mechanism for exchange companies by mandating the installation of CCTV cameras at company
outlets.

72
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

In real terms, the PKR slightly appreciated by 2.1 percent during Q3-FY19,
against a huge depreciation of 6.3 percent witnessed during the same period last
year. The appreciation was mainly driven by a higher relative price index (RPI),
as the local currency’s NEER slightly depreciated during Q3-FY19. Most of the
other emerging market currencies, including Chinese yuan, Thai baht, Indonesian
rupiah, Malaysian ringgit and the Indian rupee, also appreciated in Q3-FY19,
helped by the temporary easing in the US-China trade dispute and a pause in
interest rate hikes by the Fed.

5.5 Trade Account8 Figure 5.8: Growth in Exports, Imports & Trade Deficit (YoY)
The trade deficit declined by Exports Imports Trade Deficit (rhs)
13.1 percent to US$ 23.6
billion in Jul-Mar FY19; in 30 70
percent change

percent change
comparison, the deficit had
risen by 16.9 percent in the 15 45
same period last year. The
entire improvement in the 0 20
deficit came from the import
side, as exports stagnated at -15 -5
last year’s levels.
-30 -30
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1

Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Most of the deficit reduction Q3
during Jul-Mar FY19 was FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
recorded in Q3, when imports
dropped quite sharply in response to a deepening decline in purchases of foreign
power generation machinery, aircraft and railway locomotives; technical and
administrative hiccups in LNG imports (and power generation); and a temporary
softening in global oil prices.9

Further support came from regulatory and macro stabilization measures taken
earlier, which impacted industrial performance and reduced demand for imported
raw materials (such as iron and steel), and also curtailed consumers’ demand for
cars (thereby lowering imports of CBUs). In percentage terms, the 18.1 percent
decline in the overall imports in Q3-FY19 was the largest drop in a quarter in

8 This section is based on customs data reported by the PBS. The information in this section may not
tally with the SBP data reported in Section 5.1. To understand the difference between these two data
series, please see Annexure on data explanatory notes.
9 Arab light crude oil prices were, on average, 2.1 percent lower in Q3-FY19 than in Q3-FY18.

Quantum crude oil imports declined by a much higher 26.4 percent YoY in Q3-FY19, as compared
to drops of 11.2 percent and 8.2 percent recorded in Q1 and Q2 respectively.

73
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

almost 10 years. It was more than sufficient to offset a 3.3 percent contraction in
exports in the quarter, and led the trade deficit to drop by a sizable 27.6 percent
(Figure 5.8).

On the other hand, the overall export values stagnated during Jul-Mar FY19 and
actually declined in Q3 on YoY basis. This lackluster performance can be
attributed to: (i) a drop in dollar-based unit prices of readymade garments and
knitwear, which offset healthy increases in their quantum exports; (ii) lower
quantum yarn exports amid stagnant domestic production and strong domestic
demand; and (iii) the phasing out of export subsidies on sugar and wheat, which
led to lower quantum exports of both commodities from Q2 onwards.

Exports
Pakistan’s exports were
recorded at US$ 17.1 billion Figure 5.9: Absolute YoY Change in Export Values (Jul-Mar)
during Jul-Mar FY19, FY18 FY19
unchanged from the same Sugar
period last year (when they had Knitwear
grown by 13.0 percent). The
Non-basmati
broad-based slowdown in
R. Garments
growth originated from
quantum-led drops in sugar and POL Prod & Crude
non-basmati rice exports, tepid Basmati
overall textile exports amid Towels
generally falling unit prices, Bedwear
and sluggishness in exports of Wheat
other items, such as leather and Yarn
sports goods (Figure 5.9).
Plastic
Leather Manuf.
Textile exports
Pakistan’s textile exports Fabrics
amounted to US$ 10.0 billion Leather
during Jul-Mar FY19, Cement
unchanged from the same -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
period last year. million US$
Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
The stagnation in overall textile
exports stemmed from a slowdown in export growth (in value terms) of
readymade garments and knitwear items, and YoY declines in cotton fabric and
yarn exports. Except for yarn, export values of all these major products suffered
from a drop in unit prices, as quantum exports grew appreciably. The drop in

74
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

dollar-based unit prices was mainly owed to exchange rate adjustments, as exports
rose significantly in PKR terms.10

(i) Apparel exports

In case of apparel, quantum Figure 5.10: Growth in Pakistan's Quantum Apparel Exports
exports have been rising 30
consistently at a higher pace 25
(Figure 5.10). Especially in
20
Q3-FY19, both the US and the percent change, YoY
EU contributed to the uptick in 15
quantum exports. 10
Interestingly, in the EU, despite 5
a slowdown in the bloc’s
0
import demand for clothing,
Pakistani exporters managed to -5
Q1-FY18

Q2-FY18

Q3-FY18

Q4-FY18

Q1-FY19

Q2-FY19

Q3-FY19
ship 4.3 percent more clothing
items in Jul-Feb FY19 than
they did last year. Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

Meanwhile, export values had Figure 5.11: Growth in the EU's Apparel Imports from
also risen 4.7 percent YoY in Pakistan & US$/EUR Exchange Rate
euro terms. However, in dollar US$ Euros US$/euro (rhs)
terms, the uptick dwindled to 20 1.24
percent change, YoY

just 0.4 percent YoY (Figure

15 1.21
5.11), as the dollar appreciated US$ / euro
against both the euro and the 10 1.18
PKR during most of FY19. 5 1.15
This is in contrast to last year, 0 1.12
when the dollar was weakening
-5 1.09
against the euro, and Pakistan’s
Q1-FY18

Q2-FY18

Q3-FY18

Q4-FY18

Q1-FY19

Q2-FY19

Q3-FY19

apparel exports to the EU had

risen more strongly in dollar
terms (17.2 percent) than in Data sources: Eurostat & Bloomberg
euro terms (6.4 percent).

With regards to quantum apparel exports to the EU, Pakistan, Bangladesh,

10In PKR terms, overall textile exports have grown 23.1 percent YoY during Jul-Mar FY19, as
compared to a 0.1 percent growth recorded in US dollar terms. PKR export values for knitwear and
readymade garments have grown even more strongly, by 34.4 percent and 25.7 percent respectively
during the period. The substantial increase in PKR export values has allowed textile firms to
comfortably retire their borrowings to banks (Chapter 3).

75
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Cambodia and Turkey, all witnessed decent growths this year. Duty-free access
to the bloc, along with heavy currency depreciations against the euro (in case of
Pakistan and Turkey) kept the unit prices (in euros) of apparel exports of these
countries in check, and contributed to higher shipments. This was despite a
slowdown in demand from the bloc (Figure 5.12 a,b).11 The brunt of this
slowdown was faced by India and China, which could not effectively compete in
the bloc. Instead, these two countries deepened their presence in the US market.
Figure 5.12 a: Unit Value of the EU's Clothing Figure 5.12 b: Growth in EU's Q uantum Apparel
Imports (Jul-Mar) Imports from Major Suppliers (Jul-Mar)
FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19

2.5 20
2.0 percent change, YoY 15
euros

1.5 10
5
1.0
0
0.5 -5
0.0 -10
Pakistan

China

India
Cambodia

EU (Overall)
Bangladesh

Turkey

China

Pakistan
India

Cambodia

Bangladesh
EU (Overall)

Turkey
Data source: Eurostat Data source: Eurostat

The US’ quantum apparel imports have risen quite significantly as compared to
last year amid higher real GDP growth, falling unemployment and rising retail
sales.12 Exports of almost all major clothing suppliers to the US rose in quantum
terms, including Pakistan’s.

However, Pakistan could not benefit to the extent that China, Bangladesh and
Vietnam did during the year. In China’s case, most of the growth in its exports
was realized in Q2-FY19, as the US importers rushed their purchases before
Chinese textile and clothing products also came in the crosshairs of the ongoing

11 That said, most of the growth in Bangladesh’s exports came during the first (7.9 percent) and
second quarters of FY19 (11.3 percent), before the minimum wage hike kicked in early 2019, raising
production costs. As a result, quantum clothing exports grew by a lower 4.7 percent during Jan-Feb
2019 (source: Eurostat).
12 Real GDP growth in the US averaged 3.1 percent in Jul-Mar FY19, up from 2.5 percent in Jul-Mar

FY18. At the same time, the unemployment rate fell to 3.8 percent by March 2019, from 4.0 percent
in June 2018 (source: Haver Analytics). Retail clothing sales in the US grew at a higher rate of 3.0
percent YoY during Jul-Mar FY19, as compared to 2.0 percent growth recorded last year (source:
US Census Bureau).

76
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

US-China trade war.13 At the same time, US importers also shifted some of their
demand to other countries, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, which saw an
upsurge in their clothing shipments to the country.

(ii) Cotton yarn

Pakistan’s cotton yarn exports declined 15.4 percent to US$ 835.7 million in Jul-
Mar FY19. The decline was almost entirely driven by a 15.9 percent drop in
shipments, as unit prices rose marginally. Both domestic and foreign factors
played a role in the lower quantum exports during the period. On the domestic
front, yarn production was basically unchanged from last year, at 2.3 million MT.
However, demand for yarn by spinners has been rising in response to higher
demand by local garment manufacturers (including exporters). The stagnant
production amid higher demand boosted domestic yarn prices by an average of
21.0 percent YoY during Jul-Mar FY19.14 As a result, it made more business
sense for domestic spinners to cater to the local demand instead of going for
exports.15

Internationally, exports became unviable amid a challenging situation in the

primary market, China. According to Chinese customs data, cotton and yarn
imports by China had dropped by a sizable 17.2 percent in CY18, as the country
imposed additional retaliatory tariffs on its top yarn supplier, the United States (in
July 2018). To make up for the resultant shortfall, China started unloading the
sizable stockpile of cotton it had built up over the years to its ginning industry.16
At the same time, China diverted some of its import demand for higher count yarn
to Brazil, Australia and India, which managed to increase their market shares,
according to the USDA. However, due to a product mismatch, Pakistani exporters
could not benefit from this shift in Chinese demand, as Pakistan’s ginning industry
mostly produces low-count yarn, which is not widely used in apparel-making.

Food exports
Overall food exports declined 2.4 percent to US$ 3.3 billion during Jul-Mar FY19,

13
The continued uncertainty created by the US-China stand-off on trade has interfered with US
importers’ timing decisions and led to frontloading of purchases from China during Q2-FY19. As of
end-June 2019, both the US and China had raised tariff rates on imports that they had already
targeted in CY-18.
14 Data source: Emerging Textiles.
15 While the PKR’s depreciation also raised Pakistan’s yarn export prices in PKR terms (by an

average of 28.1 percent during Jul-Mar FY19), industry players said they preferred to sell to local
buyers at good prices as they wanted to avoid undertaking the procedural requirements entailed in
exporting the material.
16 Between August 2018 and July 2019, the USDA is estimating the ending stock of cotton in China

to decline by 13.0 percent (from 8.3 million tons to 7.2 million tons).

77
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

compared to a sizable 28.0 percent increase recorded last year.

(i) Sugar and wheat

The major drag on food exports Figure 5.13: Trends in Quantum Wheat and Sugar Exports
was sugar, whose exports Wheat Sugar
dropped by a hefty 68.2 percent 1,000
to US$ 115.1 million this year.
800
In the wake of a 12.4 percent
drop in average international '000MT 600
sugar prices during Jul-Mar
FY19, exporting sugar became 400
unfeasible for Pakistani
200
exporters in the absence of
subsidies. Once the subsidies 0

Q3-FY18
Q1-FY18

Q2-FY18

Q4-FY18

Q1-FY19

Q2-FY19

Q3-FY19
and the export quota (of 2.0
million MT announced in H1-
FY18) had expired by Q1- Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
FY19, the quantum sugar
exports tapered (Figure 5.13).

Then in December 2018, the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) allowed

the export of 1.1 million MT of sugar; however, it left the decision regarding the
scale and disbursement of any export subsidy to the provincial governments
Subsequently, by end-January 2019, the Punjab government announced a sliding-
scale subsidy of Rs 5.35/kg for sugar mills in the province, up to an expenditure
cap of Rs 3 billion and a quantum cap of 0.572 million MT.17 Mainly as a result
of this measure, some sugar exports were recorded in Q3-FY19. However, these
were quite low as compared to Q3-FY18, when a much higher federal subsidy was
in place.18

Similarly, in case of wheat, while the overall exports more than doubled to US$
121.9 million during Jul-Mar FY19, most of the exports were realized in the first
quarter, when subsidies were in place (Figure 5.13). Their culmination led to a
tapering in wheat exports in Q2-FY19. In Q3, quantum exports picked up slightly,

17 Via Punjab Finance Department’s notification No. FD (W&M)2-3/2018 dated January 31, 2019.
Also see EPD Circular Letter No. 04 of 2019 dated February 22, 2019, on the same subject.
18 A total of 377,678 MT of sugar was exported during Q3-FY19, down 62.6 percent from Q3-FY18.

Last year, the federal government had announced an export subsidy of up to US$ 97 per MT, which
worked out at around Rs 10.65 per kg (at FY18’s average exchange rate of 109.84). Against this,
only the Punjab government has announced an export subsidy in FY19, and that too of a lower
amount of Rs 5.35 per kg.

78
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

in response to the ECC’s November 2018 decision to allow exports of 0.5 million
MT, with the quota split between PASSCO and the Sindh and Punjab
governments. The federal and provincial governments were responsible for
subsidizing exports by PASSCO and private exporters, respectively.

From Pakistan’s perspective, the global environment appears favorable, as

international wheat prices have risen in response to lower production in major
exporters (the EU, Russia and China), and record demand from the
Philippines.19,20

(ii) Rice exports

Overall rice exports stayed almost flat at US$ 1.5 billion during Jul-Mar FY19,
with a 4.2 percent decline in non-basmati exports overshadowing a 10.0 percent
increase in basmati exports during the period. In fact, non-basmati rice has been
driving the overall trend in rice exports throughout the year, as steep declines in its
quantums during the first and second quarters had more than offset healthy
performance by basmati during the period.

However, the trends reversed Figure 5.14: Contribution of Quantum & Price Effects to
in Q3-FY19, with an uptick in Abs. YoY Change in Rice Exports
quantum non-basmati exports Quantity Value
countering the drag from a 50
price-led decline in basmati
million US$

25
rice exports (Figure 5.14). 0
Non-basmati rice exports to -25
-50
Afghanistan and China have
-75
risen significantly in Q3.21 In
Basmati

Non-basmati

Basmati

Non-basmati

Basmati

Non-basmati

case of Afghanistan, according

to the industry sources,
repeated border closures during
Jul-Dec FY19 had curtailed Q1-FY19 Q2-FY19 Q3-FY19
exports, and the reopening of Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

19 International wheat prices were, on average, up 16.4 percent during Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to
the same period last year (source: World Bank).
20 The Philippines is projected to import a record 7.0 million MT wheat in the 2018-19 year, up from

around 6.0 million MT imported last year, in response to continually rising consumption and a
typhoon that impacted domestic production (source: Grain: World Markets and Trade Report, USDA
April 2019). However, Pakistani exporters have yet to tap this demand, and have mostly focused on
Afghanistan and Indonesia so far this year.
21
Pakistan’s quantum non-basmati rice exports to Afghanistan rose 22.9 percent YoY during Q3-
FY19, while those to China increased by a sizable 113.5 percent.

79
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

the crossing in January 2019 led to the resumption of normal trade activities.

Cement exports
Cement exports grew 32.8 percent YoY to US$ 221.3 million in the period. A
hefty 55.5 percent increase in quantum exports offset the drag from lower unit
prices. Facing continuously rising surplus capacity and declining local sales amid
the slowdown in domestic economic activity, cement manufacturers have diverted
their attention to mostly African markets.22 That said, the lower unit prices reflect
the shift in the exporting product mix: Pakistani manufacturers are exporting more
of the low-value clinker (used as a raw material) than finished cement.

Imports
The overall imports declined by 8.1 percent to US$ 40.7 billion in Jul-Mar FY19,
after rising by 15.4 percent in the same period last year. The entire decline came
from the non-energy group, which contracted by 11.5 percent; this offset the
marginal 3.8 percent uptick in energy imports during Jul-Mar FY19.

With regards to energy imports, most of the increase was realized in Q1, with
imports actually dropping by Figure 5.15: Contribution to Growth in Imports (Jul-Mar)
16.9 percent YoY in Q3 – the Food Machinery Transport
first such decline since Q1- Energy Metals Others
FY17. The curtailment in Overall growth
20
quantum imports of both LNG
and crude oil led to declines in 15
percentage points

their import values, and 10

contributed to the decline in 5
overall energy imports in the
0
quarter. Further relief came
from the temporary dip in -5
global oil prices, which were -10
FY16

FY17

FY18

FY19

on average down 2.9 percent

during Q3-FY19 as compared
Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
to Q3-FY18. With negative
contribution from energy, overall imports dropped more steeply in Q3 than in
previous quarters of FY19 (Figure 5.15).

22According to the All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association, domestic surplus capacity
increased from 7.55 million tons in FY18 to 8.27 million tons by March 2019. Local cement
dispatches declined 6 percent during Jul-Mar FY19, after rising 15.9 percent in Jul-Mar FY18.

80
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

At the same time, the drop in Figure 5.16: Contribution to YoY Change in Imports
machinery imports, led by Energy Non-energy Total imports
power generation (following 40
the conclusion of early phase 30

percentage points
of CPEC), became more
20
pronounced as the year
progressed, and contributed 10
sizably to the YoY drop in 0
overall imports in Jul-Mar -10
FY19 (Figure 5.16).23 Major
support also came from the -20
Q1-FY16
Q2-FY16
Q3-FY16
Q4-FY16
Q1-FY17
Q2-FY17
Q3-FY17
Q4-FY17
Q1-FY18
Q2-FY18
Q3-FY18
Q4-FY18
Q1-FY19
Q2-FY19
Q3-FY19
normalization of imports of
aircraft and related parts, which
had inflated transport imports Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
last year.

Some support also came from the macro adjustment policies undertaken since
December 2017, including exchange rate adjustments, cuts in development
spending, policy rate hikes and regulatory measures, which have subdued the
performance of multiple sectors (particularly construction and auto industries),
and lowered their demand for imported raw materials. As a result, imports of
items like iron and steel (scrap, old ships for ship breaking, and finished products),
transport fuel for heavy commercial vehicles (diesel), and cars (CBUs), all
dropped in the year.

Energy imports
During Jul-Mar FY19, energy imports rose by 3.8 percent YoY to US$ 10.6
billion, as compared to the 31.8 percent increase recorded in the same period last
year. The entire increase in import values came from higher international oil
prices, as quantum imports of both crude oil and POL products declined
significantly during the period.24

The growth in energy imports had peaked out in Q1-FY19, and actually dropped
by double digits in Q3-FY19. The main factor was related to administrative and
technical issues that lowered quantum LNG imports in the period.25 As per energy

23 Machinery imports declined by a hefty 24.7 percent YoY in Q3-FY19, as compared to drops of
17.9 percent and 19.3 percent recorded in Q1 and Q2 respectively.
24 Arab Light crude oil prices were, on average, 19.3 percent higher in Jul-Mar FY19 as compared to

the same period last year.

25 The growth rate of quantum LNG imports fell from 44.3 percent YoY in Q1-FY19 to 19.1 percent

in Q2. These imports then declined by 6.3 percent in Q3-FY19 – the first such drop since the

81
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

industry sources, the government had curtailed LNG purchases during the winter
months (especially during December 2018 and January 2019). Given that LNG is
now a major fuel source for power generation in the country, the government
compensated for the lower LNG supplies to the power sector during these months
by shifting some of the generation to furnace oil (FO) and coal (Figure 5.17).

This had a two-fold effect: on Figure 5.17: Source-wise Power Generation

one hand, the country saved Hydel Coal Furnace oil Natural gas
forex by importing lower LNG; LNG Nuclear Others Total
on the other, the excessive FO 15
stocks built up with oil 12
refineries (which was now
'000 GWh

constraining their throughput 9

and therefore impacting 6
production of essential
transport fuels) was utilized. 3
That said, power generation 0
from FO could only partially
Mar-18

Mar-19
Jun-18
Feb-18

Sep-18

Feb-19
Dec-18
Jan-19
Aug-18

Nov-18
Jul-18

Oct-18
May-18
Apr-18

compensate for the decline in

generation from LNG. Data source: National Electric Power Regulatory Authority

On the technical side, two LNG power plants could not operate at full capacity
during Q2 and Q3, owing to low LNG supply and their inability to immediately
shift to FO.26 As a result, total power generation dropped 6.5 percent during Q3-
FY19.27 Since LNG was the top contributor to rising imports, a slowdown in its
purchases contributed significantly to the curtailment in overall as well as energy
imports from Q2-FY19 onwards.28

Meanwhile, coal imports followed a trend largely similar to that of LNG, at least
until December 2018.29 Its import values had surged in Q1-FY19, led by hefty

country started importing LNG in FY16. A 27.3 percent decline in average spot LNG prices during
Q3-FY19 also contributed to its lower import values in the period.
26 The summary of Nepra’s meeting to decide on fuel price adjustment for March 2019 mentioned

that “certain efficient power plants remained on forced outages during March 2019”. Such
underutilization of capacities is also referenced in summaries of meetings in other months as well.
27 Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggest that the lower LNG imports also led to lower gas supplies

to household consumers during the winter months.

28 In value terms, LNG imports grew 136.3 percent YoY in Q1-FY19, with the growth then slowing

down to 60.8 percent in Q2. Finally, imports declined 5.3 percent YoY in Q3.
29 Coal is classified under the “All other items” category in the import data of both PBS and SBP.

82
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

rises in both import quantities and unit prices, and then began to moderate in Q2.30
The slowdown in quantum imports also reflected lower demand from cement
manufacturers, which were facing lower capacity utilization and slumping overall
dispatches. However, quantum coal imports surged again during Q3-FY19, as it
partially compensated for lower LNG supply to the power sector during the
period.

On the POL product side, Table 5.5: Growth in Quantum Import of Energy Products
import values declined 15.3 percent change, YoY
percent YoY in Jul-Mar FY19 Q3 Jul-Mar
to US$ 4.6 billion, after rising FY18 FY19 FY18 FY19
12.6 percent in Jul-Mar FY18. HSD -2.8 -15.4 8.8 -29.9
Furnace oil -82.5 -100.0 -36.0 -91.1
The ban on FO imports
Petrol 2.3 7.8 4.2 2.1
(imposed in January 2019) Total Products -31.0 -12.3 -11.2 -36.5
brought their imports to zero in Crude oil 31.7 -27.3 24.1 -13.9
Q3 (Table 5.5). Even though Data source: Oil Companies Advisory Council
local FO production also
declined, existing stocks with refineries and fresh production were sufficient to
cater to already lower demand for FO from power producers.

Among other products, high speed diesel (HSD) imports dropped amid lower
demand from the transport sector; overall sales declined 18.9 percent in Jul-Mar
FY19, after rising 10.2 percent in Jul-Mar FY18. This is understandable, given
the overall slowdown in construction activity (including the building of new
power plants), which has curtailed the movement of heavy commercial vehicles
(which primarily run on diesel). In contrast, petrol imports rose 2.1 percent YoY
during Jul-Mar FY19, with most of the increase coming in Q3. This
corresponding with a decline in its local production in the quarter.31

The lower petrol production was in response to a rebuilding of FO stocks with

refineries from Q2-FY19 onwards, amid declining power generation from the fuel.
As per industry sources, refineries curtailed their throughput to avoid producing
even more FO, which they were already unable to sell to power producers. This,
in turn, led to a drop in refineries’ demand for crude oil as well. As a result of
these issues, quantum crude oil imports declined by double digits; nonetheless
higher oil prices (during H1-FY19) completely offset its impact and led to a 15.2

30 The growth in quantum coal imports peaked in Q1 at 70.8 percent YoY, before reaching 13.5
percent in Q2 and 14.3 percent in Q3-FY19. International coal prices were, on average, 22.0 percent
higher in Q1-FY19 on YoY basis; these grew by a much contained 3.5 percent in Q2, and declined
6.7 percent in Q3 (source: Bloomberg).
31 Petrol production declined 1.7 percent in Q3-FY19, after rising 13.1 percent in Jul-Dec FY19.

83
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

percent growth in import values, which reached US$ 3.4 billion in Jul-Mar FY19.

Non-energy imports
During Jul-Mar FY19, non-energy imports declined 11.5 percent YoY to US$
30.1 billion, after rising 11.2
Figure 5.18: Absolute Change in Machinery Imports (Jul-Mar)
percent in the same period last Power gen Other machinery*
year. Power generation Electrical machinery Total Machinery (rhs)
machinery was the single 1,500 3,000
largest drag on imports, with its
1,000 2,000
import values declining by

million US$
million US$

almost US$ 1.0 billion during 500 1,000

Jul-Mar FY19 (Figure 5.18), 0 0
and accounting for a quarter of
-500 -1,000
the YoY decline in non-energy
imports during the period. The -1,000 -2,000
conclusion of the initial phase FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

of CPEC power projects Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics

*mostly comprises parts and components related to power
largely explains this trend. generation and electrical machinery
Other items related to CPEC
power projects, captured under electrical and ‘other machinery’ categories, have
been following a similar trend, and also contributed significantly to the decline in
non-energy imports.

The transport group emerged as the second-largest drag, with its imports declining
35.8 percent YoY to US$ 2.1 billion during the nine-month period. As indicated
in Table 5.6, a large chunk of the decline came from aircraft- and railway-related
parts, whose imports had spiked last year and have normalized this year. Car
imports (both CBU and CKD) declined 13.8 percent during Jul-Mar FY19, after
growing by 23.5 percent last year. Lower CBU imports accounted for a large
proportion of this slowdown, and reflected tightening of regulations regarding
used car imports.32 Furthermore, multiple price hikes by auto manufacturers in the
wake of the PKR depreciation, lower auto financing amid rising interest rates
(Chapter 3), and the ban on non-filers from purchasing new vehicles, also

32In January 2019, the Ministry of Commerce, via SRO No. 52(I)/2019, reintroduced a restriction on
used car imports under the gift and personal baggage schemes, where the importer has to pay
applicable duties and taxes on the import in foreign exchange and provide documentary evidence
that this foreign exchange was received from abroad. A similar restriction was in place during
October 2017 to February 2018 as well.

84
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

impacted domestic new car sales.33,34 Faced with rising inventory, auto
manufacturers had to curtail production; this, in turn, lowered their CKD
imports.35

Among other products, palm Table 5.6: Composition of Transport Imports (Jul-Mar)
oil imports contracted by 10.2 million US$
percent YoY to US$ 1.4 Abs.
FY18 FY19 change
billion, with the entire decline
Aircrafts, ships and boats 757.5 222.0 -535.5
coming from lower unit prices, Tankers* 281.6 0 -281.6
as import quantums had risen Aircraft (complete)* 52.3 5.2 -47.1
9.5 percent. International Aircraft (parts)* 47.8 48.7 0.9
prices of the commodity were, Ships for shipbreaking* 350.5 135.5 -215.0
on average, down 18.7 percent Cars 951.3 820.4 -130.9
in Jul-Mar FY19 over the same CBU 358.6 209.0 -149.6
period last year, encouraging CKD 592.6 611.4 18.7
edible oil mills to build up Buses & trucks 464.9 370.0 -94.9
CBU 195.4 108.5 -86.9
their inventories. That said,
CKD 269.5 261.5 -8.0
international prices have
Other transport equipment 332.4 50.4 -282.0
bounced back from the trough Railway locomotives* 337.2 53.7 -283.5
hit in December 2018, and may Transport group 3,245.0 2,083.2 -1,161.8
exert upward pressure on *For Jul-Feb
imports going forward. Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
Domestic palm oil consumption is expected to increase five percent and reach a
record 5.0 million MT next year (as per USDA estimates).

In the case of iron and steel, cumulative imports (of both scrap and finished
products) declined by 8.0 percent to US$ 2.8 billion, with most of the decline
coming from lower imports of finished products. Lower quantum led the way for
both these categories, reflecting the slowdown in demand from construction and
automobile sectors.36

33 New car sales by PAMA members stagnated in Jul-Mar FY19, dropping 0.7 percent YoY, after
growing 15.6 percent in Jul-Mar FY18. In response, car production rose by just 2.4 percent YoY in
the period, against the rise of 15.9 percent recorded last year.
34 However, by end-March 2019, non-filers were again allowed to purchase new locally

manufactured vehicles, via the Finance Supplementary (Second Amendment) Bill 2019.
35 CKD car imports declined 6.6 percent in Q3-FY19; this was the first such decline since Q2-FY16.
36 Domestic steel production declined 12.3 percent YoY during Jul-Mar FY19, after rising

27.9percent last year. However, production of steel sheets (commonly used by the auto industry)
rose 3.1 percent; but this increase was more than offset by a 24.7 percent decline in billet (steel bar)
production.

85
Special Section 1: Why are Power Tariffs in Pakistan Consistently High?

S1.1 Introduction
The power generation sector in Figure S1.1: Fuel-wise Comparison of Power Generation
Pakistan has undergone Hydel FO Gas + RLNG Coal Others
significant changes during the 100
last 5 years. The overall
electricity generation capacity 80
increased by over 40 percent
from June 2013, with a visible percent
60

shift in fuel composition 40

towards cheaper sources
(Figure S1.1). The objective 20
behind this transformation was
to avoid power outages in the 0
country and to make energy FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
Data source: National Electric Power Regulatory Authority
affordable. While a significant
containment has occurred in load management over the past 5 years, the
affordability issues persist. Instead of declining, power tariffs determined by
Nepra remain stubbornly high, preventing the government from alleviating
subsidy expenses meaningfully.

This section will look into detail the process of power tariff determination in the
country and the reason why tariffs have not softened despite an apparent decline in
fuel cost. The analysis suggests that capacity payments constitute the bulk of
power tariffs in Pakistan, and a sharp increase in these payments in recent years
has completely offset gains from declining fuel cost. It appears that until a
significant amount of investment is done on transmission and distribution, the
increase in generation capacities would keep electricity tariffs at escalated levels.
Furthermore, if the government wants to do away with subsidies, it must carry out
reforms in the entire power sector value-chain in order to ensure affordable
electricity to households, exporters and other consumers.

S1.2 How are the power tariffs determined?

Before we dig deeper into the issue, it is important to understand how the power
tariffs are determined. In accordance with the Nepra Tariff Standard & Procedure
Rules, 1998, the authority determines the tariff for all the generation, transmission
and distribution companies. Details are summarized in Table S1.1.

At the generation level, the tariff is determined based on power purchase

agreements (PPA) between power producers (IPPs and public Gencos) and a
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

single buyer: Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA). The PPA allows
calculating the revenue requirements for an individual power producer based on (i)
a capacity charge, which includes costs pertaining to the design and construction
of power units, the guaranteed return on equity, and debt financing charges,
among others; and (ii) an energy charge, that covers variable costs, primarily fuel
(which is based on a benchmark for fuel price by Nepra), and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.1

Table S1.1: Tariff Components at Various Stages of Power Supply-chain

Generation Transmission Distribution (retail tariff)
A. Capacity transfer charge A. Power purchase price
Land purchase; design, procurement Capacity transfer charge
& construction; taxes & duties; fees Energy charge
and infrastructure; insurance; admin Variable O&M
& utilities; financing fee; debt Use of system charge
servicing charges; return on equity A. Use of system charge
B. Energy charge B. Distribution margin
Price of fuel; thermal efficiency O&M cost; salaries, wages and
including of ageing and cleaning; other benefits; depreciation; other
output; heat rate; caloric value; operating expenses; return on rate
and partial loading base; other income
C. Variable operation and C. Transmission and distribution
maintenance (O&M) component losses (allowed)
D. Prior year adjustments
End-consumer tariff (A+B+C+D)
Data source: National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra)

Importantly, the capacity charge is indexed periodically with multiple parameters

including exchange rate, domestic interest rates, foreign interest rates, etc.
Furthermore, power producers are allowed to impose this capacity charge
irrespective of the amount of electricity (produced and) sold by them.2 In contrast,
their variable cost depends on the estimated amount of electricity produced and
sold, reference fuel mix (e.g., furnace oil, RLNG, coal) and their prices. Fuel
costs above or below the Nepra benchmark are passed onto consumers as fuel
price adjustment (FPA); these appear on end-consumers’ electricity bills
separately based on units consumed in the previous month.3

1 Here, it is important to mention that capacity payments serves as a means to ensure electricity
adequacy at all the times. This concept implies that there should always be “enough supply available
to match demand but it does not reduce the need for reserves in order to meet real-time demand”.
Capacity payments are extensively used to encourage investment in power sector in a number of
countries including UK, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea and Indonesia. However,
mechanisms to determine these capacity payments differ across countries. Source: Report on Market
Design for Capacity Markets in India, published by GIZ.
2 The mechanism of capacity payments has been laid out in power purchase agreements with IPPs.
3 These can be driven by variation in the actual fuel mix versus Nepra’s reference mix (e.g., gas

shortages that force power plants to substitute gas with more costly high speed diesel); and/or

88
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

At the transmission level, the tariff includes the Use of System Charge (UoSC)
payable to NTDC. This charge takes into account the revenue requirement of
NTDC, which includes permissible expenses on administration, mark-up
payments, corporate taxes, and repair and maintenance, as well as on the return on
equity. Prior period adjustments are also allowed for any of these components.
The UoSC in terms of kWh is then calculated by dividing the revenue requirement
by the sum of maximum demand index of all distribution companies and bulk
power consumers connected to the NTDC transmission network.

Finally, the retail tariff is determined at the distribution stage. Here, the estimated
power purchase price (in terms of kw/hour) is calculated for each Disco, which
includes capacity and energy charge paid to power producers as well as UoSC
paid to the NTDC. On top of this, Nepra allows Discos to earn a permissible
distribution margin, which is meant to cover a part of their costs pertaining to
operation and maintenance, salaries, and depreciation as well as return on rate
base. Nepra also allows Discos to take some of the distribution losses incurred by
these entities to their tariff build-up. Prior year adjustments are also taken into
consideration while determining the end-user tariff.

The above discussion leads to following important insights about power tariffs:
(i) If a power producer does not sell even a single unit into the national grid, it
will still be paid for the capacity charge (fuel charge will be zero in this case) that
will eventually be included in the retail tariff;
(ii) Depreciation of the Pak rupee and/or increase in domestic or foreign interest
rate increase the capacity charge and the retail tariff;
(iii) If a new generation plant is installed, the overall revenue requirement for the
capacity charge will increase. If this new plant operates at 100 percent capacity
and is able to sell every single unit it produces, the capacity charge in terms of
Rs/kWh will remain unchanged. However, if it does not operate at full capacity,
the capacity charge in terms of Rs/kWh will increase, and so will the end-user
tariff.
(iv) If the thermal power composition shifts in favor of expensive fuels, say due
to shortage of cheaper fuels, the energy charge in terms of Rs/kWh will increase.
(v) If the merit order list is not followed and inefficient plants are allowed to
dispatch ahead of the efficient ones, the energy charge will increase.
(vi) If Nepra allows Discos to include more transmission and distribution (T&D)
losses as part of their tariff build-up, the end-user tariff will increase.
(vii) Additional staff hiring, if allowed by Nepra, at any stage of the power sector

changes in fuel prices in the global market. Either of these can automatically increase (or decrease)
the generation costs, and is passed on to consumers through FPAs.

89
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

value chain, increases the retail tariff.

(viii) The overall cost of electricity generation from renewables (hydel, wind and
solar) comprises primarily of the capacity charge, as the fuel charge is negligible
(if any).

However, it must be noted that while the end-user tariff determined by Nepra
changes with the developments mentioned above, the actual tariff is notified by
the government to unify tariff across all Discos. This incorporates the element of
subsidy to shield consumers from rising generation and/or distribution costs.

S1.3 The existing build-up of power tariffs

As shown in Figure S1.2, power purchase price constitutes on average 65 percent
of the end-user tariff determined by Nepra. In case of some of the efficient
Discos, such as Gepco and Iesco, the share of power purchase price in the end-
user tariff determined by Nepra, is as high as 76 and 71 percent, respectively. It is
also important to note that the tariff notified by the government to subsidize
households consuming up to 200 units, is even lower than the price at which
Discos procure electricity from the CPPA. This implies that while subsidizing
power to end-consumers, the government pays not only for the inefficiencies at
Discos level (especially those operating in Hyderabad, Sukkur and Peshawar
regions), but also for the inefficiencies and excess capacities in the generation
sector.

Figure S1.2: Composition of End-user Tariffs (Notified in January 2019)

Total PPP in Rs. /kWh Distribution margin PYA and prior
T&D losses 51-100 units* 101-200 units*

20
Rs / kWh

15

10

0
Gepco
Fesco

Pesco
Sepco
Lesco

Tesco
Iesco

Mepco
Qesco

Hesco

*Applicable variable charges

Data source: National Electric Power Regulatory Authority

The latter can be explained by the fact that the strongest contribution to power
purchase price comes from the capacity charge (Figure S1.3). In absolute terms,
capacity payments are estimated to be around Rs 664 billion for FY19,

90
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

representing an increase of around 60 percent over the preceding year. This rise
partially stemmed from an increase of approximately 729 MW capacity added into
the system during the year; modest growth in power supply; the increase in net
hydel profits (NHP) to provincial governments; and the associated arrears. As
discussed in the following section, rising capacity payments recently have been
the major contributing factor to the consistently high end-user tariffs (determined
by Nepra). As things stand, these are likely to increase even further going ahead.

Figure S1.3: Break-up of Power Purchase Price (as per tariffs notified in January 2019)

Fuel cost Capacity charge Variable O&M USoC

12
10
8
Rs / kWh

6
4
2
0
Qesco Hesco Fesco Iesco Lesco Gepco Mepco Sepco Pesco Tesco
Data source: National Electric Power Regulatory Authority

S1.4 Rising capacity payments offset the impact of declining fuel cost
If we compare the tariffs between 2013 and 2018, it becomes clear that while the
fuel charges have certainly softened due to lower oil prices and a shift in domestic
fuel composition, capacity charges have actually increased. For nearly all the
Discos, the increase in capacity charges have completely offset the fall in fuel
charges (Figure S1.4). Reasons for this trend are discussed below:

(1) Dispatch remained weaker than capacity additions

Since June 2014, the country’s power generation capacity has increased by 45.7
percent (7.8 percent CAGR) to reach 34,282 MW at end March 2019.4 This
reflects the massive investment from the government in the power sector, as well
as the completion of CPEC-related energy projects. Although power sold by
generation companies also increased during this period, this has not been
sufficient to keep the capacity cost unchanged. Here, Nepra’s estimates are useful
to put things in perspective: According to the regulatory authority, the energy sold
was required to be increased by at least 30 percent between FY18 and FY19 in

4Source: Pakistan Economic Survey 2018-19.

91
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

order to keep the capacity cost component at the FY17 level, and by at least 57
percent to keep the capacity cost component at the FY16 level.5 In actual, the
energy sold grew by only 12 percent during the year; therefore, the capacity cost
per kWh continued to increase. Multiple factors explain a subdued growth in
power dispatch including:

Figure S1.4: Trend in the Composition of Power Purchase Price

Fuel cost O&M
Capacity cost UoSC
Qesco Hesco Fesco
12 12 12
10 10 10
8 8 8
Rs/kWh

6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
2013 2015 2019 2013 2015 2019 2013 2015 2019

Iesco Lesco Gepco

12 12 12
10 10 10
8 8 8
Rs/kWh

6 6 6
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
2013 2015 2019 2013 2015 2019 2013 2015 2019
Data source: 2019 data: SRO No. 01(I)/2019 to SRO No. 12(I)/2019, dated January 01, 2019, Ministry of
Water and Power; 2015 data: SRO No. 566 (I)/2015 to SRO No. 575(1)/2015 dated June 10, 2015, Ministry
of Water and Power; 2013 data: SRO No. 911(I)/2013 to SRO No. 918(I)/2013, dated October 11, 2013,
Ministry of Water and Power

Constraints in transmission and distribution system

It is important to note here that the transmission and distribution capacity in the
country falls significantly short of the installed generation capacity. At the

5 Nepra’s State of Industry Report, 2017

92
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

transmission level, the available system can transfer only 25,339 MW (end- FY18)
at 220 KV level (this level represents the interconnection voltage level between
NTDC and the Discos – step down transformers) (Table S1.2). Therefore, NTDC
has to execute planned outages to avoid overloading of its transformers. At the
distribution level, situation is not different either: around 37 percent of the total
power transformers and 29 percent of the 11kV feeders in the Discos are
overloaded.

Feeders often need to be Table S1.2: Transmission and Distribution Infrastructure

switched off to avoid power No. of Percent
transformers overloaded
tripping and damages to
Transmission Level:
transformers, and Discos are, 550/220 kV 33 39.0
hence, not able to ensure 220/132 kV 143 55.0
smooth power supply. Thus, if Distribution Level:
the state of transmission and Power transformers 1,828 36.8
distribution does not change 11 kV feeders 8,454 29.0
significantly and if one goes by Distribution transformers 681,805 12.5
Nepra’s estimates, it is not Data source: State of Industry Report 2017, National Electric
Power Regulatory Authority
possible to increase the power
supply by 9 or 10 percent per annum in the coming years.6

Mismatch between electricity generation and demand

The overall pace of economic activity is likely to grow modestly during FY20,
especially in the industrial sector (only 2.3 percent). Resultantly, the GDP growth
for the year has been targeted to be around 4.0 percent. The subdued growth
environment, along with upward pressures on power tariffs, will make it
challenging to generate power demand sufficient to compensate for the expected
rise in capacity payments. This implies that if more generation capacity is added to
the system – the planned increase as per NTDC is 65 percent between FY19 and
FY25 –7 it will lead to further increases in capacity payments and the overall
power tariffs in the country.

(2) A sharp rise in net hydel profits

Net hydel profits (NHP), which the federal government is legally bound to pay to
provinces against the bulk hydropower generation, have posted a sharp rise in
recent years.8 Up till 2015, this amount was capped at Rs 6.0 billion per annum,

6
Source: State of Industry Report 2017, Nepra
7 Source: State of Industry Report 2017, Nepra
8 Article 161(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 states, “The net profits earned by the Federal

Government or any undertaking established or administered by the Federal Government for the bulk

93
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

and that too only for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province. However,
following the successful negotiations between the federal and KP governments
and their concurrence by the Council of Common Interest (CCI), Nepra allowed
the uncapping of these profits from FY16 onwards.
Table S1.3: Hydel Levies Tariff Determined by Nepra for FY18, FY19 and FY20
FY18 FY19** FY20
NHP Current 12-month Total NHP NHP NHP
Rs/kWh Province Arrears Year's NHP Irsa arrears* Payments Arrears Arrears
(a) (b) (c) (d) (a+b+c+d)
Mangla AJK - 0.15 0.005 - 0.155 - -
Gomalzam FATA - - 0.005 - 0.005 - -
Tarbela KP 0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Warsak KP 0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Chitral KP 0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
K. Garhi KP 0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Dargai KP 0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Jabban KP 0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Khan
0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Khwar KP
Allai
0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Khwar KP
Dubair
0.419 1.155 0.005 0.2595 1.838 0.4186 -
Khwar KP
Tarbela 4 KP - 1.155 0.005 - 1.160 - -
Golen Gol KP - 1.155 0.005 - 1.160 - -
Ghazi
- 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
Bharotha Punjab
Chashma Punjab - 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
Jinnah Punjab - 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
Rasull Punjab - 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
Shadiwal Punjab - 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
Nandipur Punjab - 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
Chichoki Punjab - 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
Renala Punjab - 1.155 0.005 3.9429 5.103 0.9456 0.9456
* Since the notification was issued on December 14, 2017, half of the year FY18 was passed. This column
refers to those arrears that account for months of FY18 prior the issuance of this notification.
**Total NHP for the year FY19 will be calculated as Rs 1.155/kw/hr + 5 percent indexation + NHP arrears to
be collected in FY19. Moreover, if additional capacities come online, their NHP will be included as well.
Data source: National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra)

Specifically, Wapda was allowed to charge from CPPA the net hydel profit of Rs
18.7 billion for FY16 against the purchase of hydro-electric power – this amount

generation of power at a hydro-electric station shall be paid to the province in which the hydro-
electric station is situated.”

94
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

was to be included in the capacity charge.9 In 2016, the CCI approved NHP
payment of Rs 83 billion to the government of Punjab for Ghazi-Barotha
Hydropower Project on the grounds similar to those in case of the KP government.

In 2017, Nepra issued a detailed ruling on the subject and determined the hydel
levies (including NHP, Irsa charges and water use charge) for all the provinces for
the year FY18. For KP and Punjab, the regulator also allowed 5 percent
indexation every year for the computation of NHP. Moreover, it also determined
the values of NHP arrears for the years FY19 and FY20 (Table S1.3).

However, there are certain caveats to this decision which need to be addressed
jointly by Wapda and CCI:

(i) First, the Constitution stipulates transfer of NHP incurred by the federal
government to provinces. However, the current arrangement applies a pre-
determined fixed rate of NHP uniformly to all hydel power stations, instead of
transferring actual profits earned by them. Since actual profitability differs across
various hydel generation plants, applying a notional fixed NHP rate (currently @
Rs1.155 / kWh) does not seem justified, as this would potentially turn even the
loss-making units into profitable ones.
(ii) Second, even before the imposition of NHP, consumers were paying hydel
profits (retail price minus the cost of generation). However, instead of transferring
these profits to relevant provincial governments, the federal government had been
using these for subsidizing the overall electricity in the country (by compensating
for expensive power generating units).
(iii) Third, it is important to note that hydel generation plants are given a must-run
status in the country, because they incur no fuel cost and thus produce the cheapest
electricity. However, if NHP is continuously passed on to the end-users, and is
indexed every year at 5 percent, a few hydel plants will eventually become more
expensive compared to some of the non-hydel plants.

The existing distortions in hydel tariffs need to be addressed. The NHP payments
will likely increase going forward not just because of indexation, but also on
account of planned additions in hydel capacity.
(3) Quarterly indexation of capacity payments against macroeconomic
variables
As mentioned earlier, the government has put in place an indexation mechanism

9However, in the absence of a clear interpretation of the term “net hydel profit”, Nepra termed this
an “interim arrangement” and emphasized on the need for increased consultation with CCI for the
distribution formula.

95
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

for the capacity charge against changes in exchange rate, interest rates, fuel prices,
US and domestic inflation, O&M costs, and other factors. Nepra is authorized to
decide in the matter of indexation/adjustment of capacity purchase price and O&M
on a quarterly basis.

With a sharp depreciation of the Pak rupee from FY18 onwards, and an increase in
the interest rates, capacity payments of all the power producers have increased
during the last couple of years. It is important to mention here that the returns
guaranteed to IPPs via power purchase agreements, and their dollar-based
indexation, is allowed on both foreign as well as domestic investments. Therefore,
the government and the regulator are finding it legally challenging to make any
adjustments in the granted incentives.

S1.5 Going forward

With pressures building on the country’s balance of payments as well as fiscal
resources, it has become imperative for the government to cut down its
expenditures and reduce (among others) the significant level of power subsidies.
However, chronic governance issues in state-owned Discos and rising capacity
payments mean that with the reduction in power subsidies, it will be challenging
for the government to achieve the objective of providing cheap electricity to
domestic users.
Table S1.4: Fuel related Expected Additions in Power Generation Capacity (Megawatt)
Additions every year
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coal 823 3,300 2,610 1,320 0 0
Gas/RLNG 420 0 0 0 0 0
Wind 0 1,224 0 0 0 0
Solar 600 0 0 0 0 0
Bagasse 144 0 0 0 0 0
Hydro 201 177 824 3,080 4,325 2,203
Nuclear 0 1,100 1,100 0 0 1,100
Year-wise addition 2,188 5,801 4,534 4,400 4,325 3,303
Capacity post additions 39,822 45,623 50,157 54,557 58,882 62,185
Data source: State of Industry Report 2017, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority

Here, the investment in transmission and distribution infrastructure that is

currently underway would be crucial going forward in terms of reducing T&D
losses. However, the capacity payments are likely to grow over the next 5-6 years,
as a number of ongoing power projects (mostly coal and renewables) come online
and, in the absence of a commensurate growth in demand amidst a challenging
macroeconomic environment, augment the capacity surplus situation in the

96
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

country (Table S1.4). As mentioned above, the resultant costs would eventually
be borne by the end-users.

In this regard, the practice of keeping government-notified tariffs below even the
levels of procurement costs for most of the Discos, is proving as a major
disincentive for such institutions to carry out the necessary investments at an
adequate scale. Hence, there is an urgent need for the government to review this
practice to ensure that the power sector is able to channel forward the coming
additions in generation to the industrial, domestic and other end-users.

Similarly, it is pertinent to note that the power purchase agreements – which allow
for guaranteed returns along with the indexation of capacity payments – of some
IPPs are going to expire in a 4-5 year period. It is vital now that for the renewal of
these agreements as well as for selection of new projects, the government takes a
long-term holistic view of the economy.

Finally yet importantly, the government must realize that if the capacity payment
structure remains unchanged, the desired effects of providing affordable energy to
the public by increasing the share of cheaper power sources in the generation mix
are unlikely to materialize. Here it is important to mention that the issue of
transfer of net hydel profits to provinces should be addressed in a more technical
manner. To this end, Nepra has repeatedly advised Wapda to take the matter to
CCI, so that CCI may issue policy guidelines to Nepra for NHP determination, in
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and Nepra Act, 1997. As
things stand, the rate of Rs 1.1 per kWh, indexed at 5 percent per annum, is only
an interim arrangement between Federal and KP governments, which may not be
used as a final settlement of the NHP computation.

All these challenges warrant a policy overhaul and rationalization strategy to be

implemented at the earliest. The entire sector needs to become more efficient and
financially sustainable in order to ensure smooth and affordable electricity to end-
users.

97
Special Section 2: The State of Food Security in Pakistan
Food security deals with the state of having reliable access to sufficient quantity of
affordable, nutritious food. Essentially a pressing social concern, the lack of food
security has strong economic implications. First, ensuring food security within the
country may entail large fiscal costs as governments incentivize farm sector to
ensure food self-sufficiency, and also resort to social safety net programs
(including direct transfers) to keep purchasing powers of poor population intact.
In case the food self-sufficiency is not achieved, the country has to bear balance of
payments cost to ensure food availability.

And second, the state of food security has strong linkages with the state of human
capital in the country. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
of the UN, high rate of malnutrition can cost an economy around 3-4 percent of
GDP. In case of Pakistan, estimates suggest that malnutrition and its outcomes
cost the economy 3 percent of GDP (US$ 7.6 billion) every year.1 In particular,
high child mortality rates, prevalence of zinc and iodine deficiencies, stunting, and
anemia, lead to deficits in physical and mental development that weakens labor
productivity and loss of future labor force in the country.

This section will focus on the state of food security in Pakistan and highlights
challenges the country is likely to face going forward. The analysis suggests that
despite the fact that Pakistan produces vast quantities of major staple and non-
staple food crops, the state of food security in the country is unsatisfactory.
Moreover, a high population growth and unfavorable water and climatic
conditions in the country mean that concerns regarding food security may increase
manifolds over the next two to three decades. More importantly, the overall fiscal
and BoP cost will also escalate just to maintain the current level of food security in
the country.

S2.1 The Concept of Food Security

According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the concept of
food security is flexible, but is widely believed to “exist when all people, at all
times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and
healthy life.” Major dimensions include:
(i) Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities and appropriate
quality of food, supplied through domestic production or imports (or aid).

1
Report on “The Economic Consequences of Undernutrition in Pakistan: An Assessment of Losses”
(2017), launched by the Pakistan Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Secretariat at the Ministry of Planning,
Development and Reform, in collaboration with UN’s World Food Program.
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

(ii) Food access: Access/entitlement by individuals to adequate resources for

acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
(iii) Stability: Population, household or individual should not risk losing access to
food as a consequence of
sudden shocks (e.g., Figure S2.1: Household Food Insecurity in Pakistan by
climatic crisis) or cyclical Province/Region
events (e.g., seasonal food Food Secure Mild Insecurity
shortages). In short, the Moderate insecurity Severe insecurity
100
percent of households
stability concept can refer
80
to both the availability and 60
access dimensions. 40
(iv) Utilization: Utilization of 20
food through adequate 0
GB

Sindh
KP

AJK

Pakistan
Punjab

Balochistan
diet, clean water,
sanitation and health care
to reach a state of
nutritional well-being Data source: National Nutritional Survey 2018; Ministry of
where all physiological Health and UNESCO
needs are met (this reflects
importance of non-food inputs in food security).

S2.2 The Current State of Food Security in Pakistan

Pakistan is presently self-sufficient in major staples – ranked at 8th in producing
wheat, 10th in rice, 5th in sugarcane, and 4th in milk production. Despite that,
only 63.1 percent of the country’s households are “food secure”, according to the
Ministry of Health and Unicef’s National Nutritional Survey 2018. The survey
incorporates the Food Insecurity Experience Scale developed by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The scale trifurcates
insecurity along the following dimensions: mild (worrying about the ability to
obtain food); moderate (compromising variety/quantity of food and often skipping
meals); and severe (experiencing hunger on a chronic basis). Alarmingly, of the
36.9 percent of the households in Pakistan labelled as “food insecure”, 18.3
percent face “severe” food insecurity.2 Across the provinces, KP and Gilgit-
Baltistan are relatively more food secure than Sindh and Balochistan (Figure
S2.1).

Furthermore, the latest available estimates of FAO suggested that the country lags
behind the progress of lower-middle income countries in all four dimensions of

2
The remaining 11.1 percent and 7.6 percent of the households face mild and moderate food
insecurity, respectively.

100
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

food security (Table S2.1). With per capita income of US$ 1,497, Pakistan is still
struggling with issues such as under-nourishment, micronutrient (iron, calcium,
vitamin-A etc.) deficiencies, 3 and a deficit of safe drinkable water. Per capita
consumption of food products that possess high-nutritional value like beef,
chicken, fish, milk, vegetables and fruits is almost 6-10 times lower than that of
developed countries.

Table S2.1: Indicators of Food Security

Lower-
Group Variables Unit Year World middle Pakistan
income
Avg. dietary energy supply
percent 2015-17 120 113 108
adequacy
Availability Average value of food production $ per capita 2014-16 313 210 196
Average protein supply gr/caput/day 2011-13 80 55 74
Average fat supply gr/caput/day 2011-13 79 64 64
GDP per capita (PPP) const. 2011$ 2016 15080.4 6298.5 4857.2
Prevalence of undernourishment percent 2015-17 10.8 13.9 20.5
Access
Share of food expenditure of poor percent 2015-16 48.52
% of population undernourished percent 2017 10.6 13.7 20.1
Cereal import dependency ratio percent 2011-13 0.9 -1.5 -17.3
% arable land equipped for irrigation percent 2013-15 23.3 32.8 66.3
Food imports / total exports percent 2011-13 5 9 16
Stability Political stability and absence of
Index 2016 -2.47
violence/terrorism
Per capita food prod. variability Const.2004-06 2016 2200 3600 2500
Per capita food supply variability kcal/caput/day 2013 6 18 21
People using at least basic drinking
percent 2015 88.5 88.5
water services
People using safely managed
percent 2015 71.2 35.6
drinking water services
People using at least basic sanitation percent 2015 68.0 58.3
Utilization Children under 5 years of age
percent 2012 10.5
affected by wasting
Children under 5 years of age who
percent 2012 24.9 45.0
are stunted
Prevalence of anemia among
percent 2016 32.8 52.1
women (15-49 years)
Data source: Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-
fs/ess-fadata/en/

More worryingly, almost half of the children under 5 years are stunted (low-
height-for-age) and one in ten has been suffering from wasting (low-weight-for-
height) in the country. Incorporating these factors, Pakistan was ranked 106th
among 119 countries surveyed for the Global Hunger Index, and has been
characterized as facing a “serious” level of hunger (Figure S2.2). In fact, Pakistan
is among those seven countries that cumulatively account for two-thirds of the

3 Source: National Food Security Policy, Government of Pakistan, June 2017

101
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

world’s under-nourished population (along with Bangladesh, China, Congo,

Ethiopia, India and Indonesia).4

While country rankings are Figure S2.2: Pakistan's Score in Global Hunger Index
important to view things in 38.3 (2000)
36 (2010)
relative terms, it is also crucial 32.6 (2018)
to understand the economic
implications of a large
> 50
malnourished population. The <9.9 10-19.9 20-34.9 35-49.9
Extremely
SUN Secretariat at the Ministry Low Mode rate S erious Alarming
Alarming
of Planning, Development and
Reform in collaboration with
the UN’s World Food Program, Factors Affecting Scores for Global Hunger Index
launched its report containing
assessment of malnutrition in
Pakistan and estimates of its
Inadequate
cost to the economy. Food Supply: Child
mortality
According to this report, under- Prevalence of (under 5
under-
5 malnutrition costs around nourishment
years)

US$ 7.5 billion every year,

which is equivalent to 3 Child undernutrition:
percent of GDP. This cost is * Child wasting (low-
weight-f or-height)
comprised of the following * Child stunting (low-
components: (i) US$ 2.24 height-f or-age)
billion is estimated as the loss
of future labor force resulting Data source: International Food Policy Research Institute
from under-5 mortality; (ii) US$ 1 billion is the estimated healthcare expense,
which the families incur to address diarrhea and respiratory infection among
children; (iii) US$ 3.7 billion is the estimated cost of low labor productivity
emanating from stunting, anemia or iodine deficiencies in childhood; and (iv) US$
657 million is the estimated cost of prevalence of chronic weakness and fatigue
among 10 million working adults with anemia experience.

S2.3 Reasons behind the current state of food security

In overall terms, the dismal state of food insecurity in Pakistan can be traced
primarily to the limited economic access of the poorest and most vulnerable to
disruptions in the food chain. A part of this can be explained by the prevalence of
poverty in the country: almost a quarter of Pakistan’s total population lives below
the poverty line (set at Rs 3,030.3 per adult equivalent per month). This means

4 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

102
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

that around 50 million people in the country are unable to access basic needs given
their incomes. Most of these people dwell in rural areas of the country where the
poverty rate is 30.7 percent. According to a World Bank’s report, the incidence of
under-5 malnutrition rates (which includes stunting and wasting) in Pakistan is
“considerably higher among poorer quintiles” of the expenditure distribution.5

Another factor that contributes to food insecurity in the country is the import-
dependence for certain items, which is partly responsible for significant variations
in their prices. In particular, limited (if any) attention has been paid to the local
production of minor crops and livestock produce, such as pulses, fruits,
vegetables, nuts and oilseeds, which not only contribute around 50 percent of
dietary energy, but also significantly contribute to the nutritional food security.6
Furthermore, prices of meat and dairy products have increased steadily. In
contrast, a large physical and financial infrastructure of government-run
commodity operations works in the country to implement the support/ indicative
prices for major food crops (especially wheat) to ensure their availability.
Although these operations entail a large fiscal cost, these have proved helpful in
maintaining commodity stocks and stabilizing the prices of these commodities
over the years.

This approach had two major fallouts. First, with population growing at a rapid
pace amidst changing consumption behaviors, food imports rose consistently over
the years, which reinforced the already stressed balance of payments. Second,
domestic prices of these food items have been governed by global trends. As
shown in Figure S2.3, while prices of major food crops (wheat, rice and sugar)
have remained fairly stable within and across years, prices of minor crops have
exhibited strong seasonal variations during the past few years.

This, coupled with the fact that the bottom 60 percent of households in the country
spend a substantial part of their incomes (45 percent on average) on food, has
compromised their nutritional security.7 Furthermore, it is important to note that
even if prices are relatively low and stable, poorest families still lack the
purchasing power to buy food. Thus, like other developing countries, Pakistan
also has to resort to in-kind and cash transfers to stabilize and increase the real

5 Mansuri, Ghazala; Sami, Mohammad Farhanullah; Ali, Muhammad; Doan, Hang Thi Thu; Javed,
Bilal; Pandey, Priyanka. 2018. “When Water Becomes a Hazard: A Diagnostic Report on The State
of Water Supply, Sanitation and Poverty in Pakistan and Its Impact on Child Stunting”. WASH
Poverty Diagnostic Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
6 Source: Draft National Food Security Policy, MNFSR, Government of Pakistan
7 Source: Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015-16

103
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

incomes of the poor. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of these transfers has often
been questioned due to governance issues and poor service delivery. 8

Figure S2.3: Tre nd in Price Indices of Major Figure S2.4: Distribution of Food Spending on
Food Ite ms Major Ite ms - A Comparison b/w Bottom and Top
Income Quintiles
Major crops Minor crops
Meat & dairy Bottom Quintile Top Quintile
30
Price index (2008=100)

300

percent
20
260
10
220 0

Readymade

Fruit
Cereals
Dairy

Meat (incl. seafood)

Dry Fruit
Pulses
Vegetables
Edible (Oil & Fats)
180
140
100
Jul-08
Jul-09
Jul-10
Jul-11
Jul-12
Jul-13
Jul-14
Jul-15
Jul-16
Jul-17
Jul-18

Data source: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics Data source: Household Integrated Economic Survey
(2015-16)

Furthermore, the level penetration of these social programs also varies across the
regions/provinces. For instance, only 0.3 percent of the population in Balochistan
and 1.8 percent of the people in Punjab benefit from social protection programs of
some kind.9 This ratio, however, is relatively higher for the people in Sindh (12.7
percent), Gilgit-Baltistan (10.3 percent), and KP (5.1 percent). The combined
effect of these developments is that there exists a huge disparity in dietary
composition across households of various income groups (Figure S2.4).

S2.3 Pakistan may not even sustain staple self-sufficiency in coming years
Food self-sufficiency per se does not guarantee food security. A country is
considered food secure if food is not only available, but is also accessible,
nutritious, and stable, regardless of its origin. Despite this, countries still make
efforts to achieve food self-sufficiency (by increasing production and imports, and

8 For instance, the government has set up utility stores all across the country to provide necessary
food items (wheat flour, edible oil/ghee, sugar, pulses, etc.) to the poorest households at subsidized
rates. However, anecdotal evidence points toward issues of poor service delivery in these stores,
some of which are often out-of-stock on crucial items, and customers also complain of substandard
quality of the items available for sale.
9
The survey distinguishes between three types of social protection programs: nutrition-sensitive
(protecting against all forms of malnourishment, explicitly incorporating nutrition objectives and
targeting the nutritionally vulnerable); risk responsive (reducing disaster risk vulnerability); and
shock responsive (strengthening livelihoods against the impact of a range of shocks and ensuring that
the households develop more resilience). Source: National Nutritional Survey 2018; Government of
Pakistan and Unicef.

104
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

constraining exports) in order to buffer themselves from volatility in global food

markets. In effect, self-sufficiency helps countries improve on at least the
availability and stability dimensions of food security.

Pakistan, too, provides support to its farm sector at various levels, in order to
encourage sufficient production levels of major food crops (particularly wheat and
sugarcane). As mentioned before, although the country relies heavily on imports
for certain food items such as edible oil, tea and pulses, it is able to provide for
major staples on its own. Following analysis will show that if population
increases at the existing pace over the next couple of decades, it will become
extremely challenging for Pakistan to sustain even the food self-sufficiency.

Land extension is not an option anymore

Pakistan experienced more than 65 percent land extension during 1947-80, when
the most fertile available land was brought into cultivation. Beyond this period,
cropping area did not exhibit any significant expansion. Furthermore, the available
agriculture land has been facing degradation caused by water and wind erosion,
depletion of soil fertility, deforestation, unsustainable livestock grazing and water
logging practices. According to latest estimates, water logging and salinity affects
11 and 5 million hectares, respectively, in the country. Moreover, the area
affected by water erosion has increased by 27.3 percent in the period 1998-2007,
whereas, degradation related to wind erosion increased by 17.4 percent during the
same period.10 According to the Economic Survey 2013-14, the cost associated
with loss of soil fertility alone is estimated to the extent of Rs 70 billion per year
in Pakistan. Furthermore, rapid urbanization also works as an important factor in
limiting the odds of land extension for agriculture purposes.

In the presence of current cropping practices, water shortages and expected

climatic changes, it will be challenging to improve yields substantially
In the absence of land extension, focus on yield improvements is the sole
alternative to sustaining the agriculture growth in the country. Table S2.2
compares the yield required to meet the domestic need of different agriculture
products (with current cropping practices), with respect to population growing at
different rates of 1.8, 2.1 and 2.4 percent (keeping the per capita consumption
unchanged). In case of sugarcane and wheat, even the combination of maximum
level of crop area and yield that the country has ever achieved, would not result in
production rising to a level sufficient to meet the growing domestic demand
beyond 2020.

10Source: Pakistan National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for achieving Aichi Biodiversity
Targets and Sustainable Development Goals

105
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Here it is important to Table S2.2: Yield Required to Meet Domestic Demand With
acknowledge that non- Different Projected Estimates of Population Growth
traditional cropping techniques thousand MT per Hectare
such as Hydroponics (growing Max. Required Yield
Population
Yield
plants without soil), Yield
growth (%)
achieved 2020 2030 2040
Aeroponics (growing plants 1.8 2.7 3.3 3.9
with no soil and very little 2.1 2.973 2.8 3.4 4.2
water), and Aero Farms Wheat 2.4 2.8 3.5 4.5
(vertical farming), all may 1.8 48.9 58.4 69.9
bring a drastic improvement in 2.1 61.972 49.3 60.7 74.8
crop yields in Pakistan. Sugarcane 2.4 49.8 63.1 80.0
However, not only would this Data source: Economic Survey of Pakistan
require large financial capital (infrastructure and R&D), but also a significant
amount of time to introduce these techniques on a mass scale and bring desirable
results. In the absence of these techniques, prospects of sizable yield
improvements are limited keeping in view the deteriorating water conditions and
rising temperatures in the country.

Currently, water productivity of most of the crops in Pakistan is lower than the
desirable range. For instance, sugarcane and wheat use around four times the
global average of irrigation water, while rice consumes more than six times the
world’s average. Going forward, growing water shortages are expected to drag
down yield of different crops on considerable scale. The latest estimates of
‘Aqueduct Projected Water Stress Country Rankings’ suggest that Pakistan will
fall to the rank of 18th most water-stressed country in 2020, compared to the
current ranking of 31.

S2.4 A focus on population control and timely implementation of policies

would be vital to ensure food security in the country
It appears that the state of food security in Pakistan may deteriorate further over
the next couple of decades. The major concern is that the fiscal cost of ensuring
food security – in the form of food subsidies, cash transfers through BISP,
nutrition interventions program, school feeding/Tawana Pakistan – would escalate
steadily if the population continues to grow at a rapid pace.

It is important to note that due to low and stable global and domestic food prices,
the government spending of Rs 95.7 billion during the previous 5 years (FY14 –
FY18) on food-related subsidies was quite modest compared to Rs 142.5 billion
spending in the preceding 5 years. However, with food prices now rising and
import-dependence growing, fiscal costs may increase substantially if the
government adheres to its food security objectives.

106
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Similarly, the demand-supply gap in the domestic market is likely to emerge in

major food crops going forward, even if population growth subsides. This implies
that the country will likely face a steady increase in its import bill of food and
non-food farm products. Food imports currently stand at US$ 6.2 billion (FY18),
constituting 10.2 percent of the country’s total import bill. More importantly,
these imports have more than doubled in the span of only 12 years – food bill was
only US$ 2.7 billion in FY07 – representing the impact of growing domestic
demand, limited availability of locally-produced food items, and rising global
prices.

Taking stock of these concerns, the Ministry of National Food Security and
Research of Pakistan announced and published a Draft National Food Security
Policy in 2018. This has been considered as a major development in terms of
solving an issue of significant importance. The policymakers have realized that
food security is an issue that warrants immediate attention, and have highlighted
main challenges that need to be resolved, such as an inadequate focus on nutrition;
supply-side constraints pertaining to agricultural inputs; slow rate of technological
diffusion; trade restrictions; degradation of land; alarming water scarcity levels;
and the impending impact of climate change. The draft also stressed on the poor
state of public sector investment in Pakistan’s agricultural R&D compared to other
countries and limitations of concerned authorities to achieve goal of modern
agriculture.

Resultantly, the policy lays out twenty different qualitative and quantitative goals,
stretching from 4 percent per annum growth in agriculture sector and eradication
of poverty, to the achievement of the zero hunger SDG and implementation of
provincial agricultural policies.11 Other objectives pertain to the enhancement of
legislation for food safety and the associated trade regime.

As much as it is necessary to appreciate the announcement of the draft food

security policy as a timely and ambitious silver lining, it is equally, if not more,
important to urge that the agenda included therein is implemented in its full spirit.
It is understandable that this would not be an easy task for the authorities,
especially in terms of acquiring funding amidst the current atmosphere of limited
fiscal space and persistent balance of payments constraints. However, gauging the
stock of existing situation and communicating clear objectives is a good start, and

11
SDGs refers to Sustainable Development Goals came into effect in January 2016; these include 17
different goals aimed to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and
prosperity.

107
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

the government now needs to build on that. Furthermore, the policy does not
factor in the case of population growth and its impact on the food security over the
long term. This is important, considering that the country’s population is
estimated to double over the next 25 years at the present annual growth rate of 2.4
percent. With that, the urgency of addressing food security concerns would also
commensurately escalate.

108
Annexure: Data Explanatory Notes

1) GDP: SBP uses the GDP target for the ongoing year, as given in the Annual
Plan by the Planning Commission, for calculating the ratios of different
variables with GDP, e.g., fiscal deficit, public debt, current account balance,
trade balance, etc. SBP does not use its own projections of GDP to calculate
these ratios in order to ensure consistency, as these projections may vary
across different quarters of the year, with changing economic conditions.
Moreover, different analysts may have their own projections; if everyone uses
a unique projected GDP as the denominator, the debate on economic issues
would become very confusing. Hence, the use of a common number helps in
meaningful debate on economic issues, and the number given by the Planning
Commission better serves this purpose.

2) Inflation: There are three numbers that are usually used for measuring
inflation: (i) period average inflation; (ii) YoY or yearly inflation; and (iii)
MoM or monthly inflation. Period average inflation refers to the percent
change of the average CPI from July to a given month of the year over the
corresponding period last year. YoY inflation is percent change in the CPI of a
given month over the same month last year; and monthly inflation is percent
change of CPI of a given month over the previous month. The formulae for
these definitions of inflation are given below:

 t 1 
  I t i 
Period average inflation (πHt) = t 1  i 0
 1  100
 
  I t 12i 
 i 0 
 I 
YoY inflation (πYoYt) =  t  1  100
 I t 12 
 I 
Monthly inflation (πMoMt) =  t  1  100
 I t 1 

Where It is consumer price index in tth month of a year.

3) Change in debt stock vs. financing of fiscal deficit: The change in the stock
of public debt does not correspond with the fiscal financing data provided by
the Ministry of Finance. This is because of multiple factors, including: (i) The
stock of debt takes into account the gross value of government borrowing,
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

whereas borrowing is adjusted for government deposits with the banking

system, when calculating the financing data; (ii) changes in the stock of debt
also occur due to changes in the exchange rate, which affects the rupee value
of external debt, and (iii) the movement of various other cross-country
exchange rates also affect the US Dollar rate and, hence, the rupee value of
external debt.

4) Government borrowing: Government borrowing from the banking system

has different forms and every form has its own features and implications, as
discussed here:

(a) Government borrowing for budgetary support:

Borrowing from State Bank: The federal government may borrow directly
from SBP either through the “Ways and Means Advance” channel or
through the purchase (by SBP) of Market Related Treasury Bills
(MRTBs). The Ways and Means Advance is extended for the
government borrowings up to Rs 100 million in a year at an interest
rate of 4 percent per annum; higher amounts are realized through the
purchase of 6-month MTBs by SBP at the weighted average yield
determined in the most recent fortnightly auction of treasury bills.

Provincial governments and the Government of Azad Jammu &

Kashmir may also borrow directly from SBP by raising their debtor
balances (overdrafts) within limits defined for them. The interest rate
charged on the borrowings is the three month average yield of 6-
month MTBs. If the overdraft limits are breached, the provinces are
penalized by charging an incremental rate of 4 percent per annum.

Borrowing from scheduled banks: This is mainly through the fortnightly

auction of 3, 6 and 12-month Market Treasury Bills (MTBs). The
Government of Pakistan also borrows by auctions of 3, 5, 10, 15, 20
and 30 year Pakistan Investment Bonds (PIBs). However, provincial
governments are not allowed to borrow from scheduled banks.

(b) Commodity finance:

Both federal and provincial governments borrow from scheduled banks to

finance their purchases of commodities e.g., wheat, sugar, etc. The
proceeds from the sale of these commodities are subsequently used to
retire commodity borrowing.

110
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

5) Differences in different data sources: SBP data for a number of variables,

such as government borrowing, public debt, debt servicing, foreign trade, etc.,
often does not match with the information provided by MoF and PBS. This is
because of differences in data definitions, coverage, etc. Some of the typical
cases are given below:

(a) Financing of budget deficit (numbers reported by MoF vs. SBP):

There is often a discrepancy in the financing numbers provided by MoF in
its quarterly tables of fiscal operations and those reported by SBP in its
monetary survey. This is because MoF reports government bank
borrowing on a cash basis, while SBP’s monetary survey is compiled on
an accrual basis, i.e., by taking into account accrued interest payments on
T-bills.

(b) Foreign trade (SBP vs. PBS): The trade figures reported by SBP in the
balance of payments do not match with the information provided by the
Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. This is because the trade statistics compiled
by SBP are based on exchange record data, which depends on the actual
receipt and payment of foreign exchange, whereas the PBS records data
on the physical movement of goods (customs record). Furthermore, SBP
reports both exports and imports as free on board (fob), while PBS records
exports as free on board (fob) and imports include the cost of freight and
insurance (cif).

In addition, the variation in import data also arises due to differences in

data coverage; e.g., SBP import data does not include non-repatriable
investments (NRI) by non-resident Pakistanis;1 imports under foreign
assistance; land-borne imports with Afghanistan, etc. In export data, these
differences emerge as PBS statistics do not take into account short
shipments and cancellations, while SBP data does not take into account
land-borne exports to Afghanistan, export samples given to prospective
buyers by exporters, exports by EPZs, etc.

1
The non-repatriable investment (NRI) consists of small investments made by expatriate
Pakistanis transporting machinery into the country that has been bought and paid for abroad and the
purchases made from the duty-free shops.

111
Acronyms

3m Three month
AC&MFD Agricultural Credit and Microfinance Department
AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir
AML Anti-Money Laundering
APCMA All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association
Avg Average
AWD Alternate Wet and Drying
AYII Area-Yield-Index-Insurance
BISP Benazir Income Support Program
bln billion
BMR Balancing, Modernization and Replacement
BoP Balance of Payments
BPO Business Process Outsourcing
Bps Basis Points
BSC Behbood Saving Certificates
CAD Current Account Deficit
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CBU Completely Built Up
cc cubic centimeters
CCI Council of Common Interests
CiC Currency in circulation
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CDNS Central Directorate of National Savings
CFT Combating the Financing of Terrorism
CKD Completely Knocked Down
CLIS Crop Loan Insurance Scheme
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CIP Crop Insurance Program
CPEC China Pakistan Economic Corridor
CPI Consumer Price Index
CPPA Central Power Purchasing Agency
CSF Coalition Support Fund
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

DAP Diammonium Phosphate

DFIs Development Financial Institutions
DISCO Distribution Companies
DRAP Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan
DSC Defence Savings Certificate
EDL External Debt and Liabilities
EM Emerging Markets
EU European Union
FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FBR Federal Board of Revenue
FCA Federal Committee on Agriculture
FDA United States Food and Drug Administration
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FED Federal Excise Duty
FEE Foreign Exchange Earnings
FESCO Faisalabad Electric Supply Company
FIPI Foreign Investors Portfolio Investment
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
FO Furnace Oil
FPA Fuel Price Adjustments
FX Foreign Exchange
FY Fiscal Year (July to June)
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council
GDP Gross Domestic Product
Genco Power Generation Companies
Gepco Gujranwala Electric Power Company
GFCF Gross Fixed Capital Formation
GHPL Government Holdings (Private) Limited
GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
GoP Government of Pakistan
GSTS General Sales Tax on Services
GVA Gross Value Addition
H1 First Half (July-December)

114
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

H2 Second Half (January-June)

HCI Human Capital Index
HDI Human Development Index
Hesco Hyderabad Electric Supply Company
HRW Hard Red Winter (wheat)
HSD High Speed Diesel
ICT Information and Communications Technology
Iesco Islamabad Electric Supply Company
ILO International Labor Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
International Model for Policy Analysis of
IMPACT Agriculture Commodities and Trade (FAO)
IPPs Independent Power Producers
IRSA Indus River System Authority
IT Information Technology
JPY Japanese Yen
KEL K-Electric Limited
KIBOR Karachi Interbank Offer Rate
KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
LC Letter of Credit
LCV Light Commercial Vehicle
Lesco Lahore Electric Supply Company
LIBOR London Interbank Offer Rate
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LPI Logistics Performance Index
LSM Large Scale Manufacturing
LT Long Term
LTFF Long Term Financing Facility
M3 Cubic meters
MAF Million Acre-Feet
Mepco Multan Electric Power Company
mln million
mmbtu One Million British Thermal Units

115
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

MNFSR Ministry of National Food Security and Research

MoF Ministry of Finance
MPC Monetary Policy Committee
MSCI Morgan Stanley Capital International
MT Metric Ton
MTBs Market Treasury Bills
MRTBs Market Related Treasury Bills
MTO Money Transfer Operators
MW Megawatt
M2 Money Supply
MYT Multi Year Tariff
NAC National Accounts Committee
NCCPL National Clearing Company of Pakistan Limited
NDA Net Domestic Assets
NDFC National Development Finance Corporation
NEER Nominal Effective Exchange Rate
NEPRA National Electric Power Regulatory Authority
NFNE Non-food-non-energy
NHA National Highways Authority
NHP Net Hydel Profits
NIC National Incubation Center
NPL Non-Performing Loan
NSS National Saving Scheme
NTDC National Transmission and Dispatch Company
O/N Overnight
OCAC Oil Companies Advisory Committee
OGRA Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority
OGDCL Oil and Gas Development Company
OMCs Oil Marketing Companies
OMOs Open Market Operations
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OTEXA Office of Textiles and Apparel
PAMA Pakistan Automotive Manufacturers Association
Parco Pak Arab Refinery Ltd

116
 Third Quarterly Report for FY19

Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services

PASSCO Corporation Limited
PAYE Pay As You Earn
PBC Pakistan Banao Certificates
PBS Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
PEPCO Pakistan Electric Power Company
Pesco Peshawar Electric Supply Company
PHPL Power Holding Private Limited
PIA Pakistan International Airlines
PIBs Pakistan Investment Banks
PKR Pakistani Rupee
POL Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants
PPA Power Purchase Agreements
PPL Pakistan Petroleum Limited
PPP Power Purchase Price
PR Pakistan Railways
PR Policy Rate
PRI Pakistan Remittance Initiative
PSDP Public Sector Development Program
PSEs Public Sector Enterprises
PSM Pakistan Steel Mills
PSO Pakistan State Oil
PTA Pakistan Telecommunication Authority
PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited
PYA Prior Year Adjustment
Q1 First Quarter (Jul-Sep)
Q2 Second Quarter (Oct-Dec)
Q3 Third Quarter (Jan-Mar)
Q4 Fourth quarter (Apr-Jun)
Qesco Quetta Electric Supply Company
REER Real Effective Exchange Rate
Rhs Right Hand Side
RIC Regular Income Certificate
RLNG Re-Gasified Liquefied Natural Gas
RM Malaysian Ringgit

117
The State of Pakistan’s Economy

Rs Pakistan Rupees
SA Savings Account
SBP State Bank of Pakistan
SDR Special Drawing Rights
Sepco Sukkur Electric Supply Company
Strengthening Markets for Agriculture and Rural
SMART Transformation
SNGPL Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited
SOEs State Owned Enterprises
SRO Statutory Regulatory Order
SSA Special Saving Account
SSC Special Saving Certificate
SSGC Sui Southern Gas Company Limited
ST Short Term
SUV Sports Utility Vehicle
SYT Single Year Tariff
T-bill Treasury Bill
Tesco Tribal Electric Supply Company
T&D Transmission and Distribution
UAE United Arab Emirates
UAI Unit Area of insurance
UBL United Bank Limited
UK United Kingdom
UoSC Use of System Charge
US$ US Dollar
USA/US United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WALR Weighted Average Lending Rate
WAPDA Water and Power Development Authority
WAONR Weighted Average Overnight Rate
WHT Withholding Tax
WPI Wholesale Price Index
YoY Year-on-Year

118