Asset 1

Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTI) 2020 launched                    111,75 Think Tanks across the world ranked in different categories.                SDPI is ranked 90th among “Top Think Tanks Worldwide (non-US)”.           SDPI stands 11th among Top Think Tanks in South & South East Asia & the Pacific (excluding India).            SDPI notches 33rd position in “Best New Idea or Paradigm Developed by A Think Tank” category.                SDPI remains 42nd in “Best Quality Assurance and Integrity Policies and Procedure” category.              SDPI stands 49th in “Think Tank to Watch in 2020”.            SDPI gets 52nd position among “Best Independent Think Tanks”.                           SDPI becomes 63rd in “Best Advocacy Campaign” category.                   SDPI secures 60th position in “Best Institutional Collaboration Involving Two or More Think Tanks” category.                       SDPI obtains 64th position in “Best Use of Media (Print & Electronic)” category.               SDPI gains 66th position in “Top Environment Policy Tink Tanks” category.                SDPI achieves 76th position in “Think Tanks With Best External Relations/Public Engagement Program” category.                    SDPI notches 99th position in “Top Social Policy Think Tanks”.            SDPI wins 140th position among “Top Domestic Economic Policy Think Tanks”.               SDPI is placed among special non-ranked category of Think Tanks – “Best Policy and Institutional Response to COVID-19”.                                            Owing to COVID-19 outbreak, SDPI staff is working from home from 9am to 5pm five days a week. All our staff members are available on phone, email and/or any other digital/electronic modes of communication during our usual official hours. You can also find all our work related to COVID-19 in orange entries in our publications section below.    The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) is pleased to announce its Twenty-third Sustainable Development Conference (SDC) from 14 – 17 December 2020 in Islamabad, Pakistan. The overarching theme of this year’s Conference is Sustainable Development in the Times of COVID-19. Read more…       FOOD SECIRITY DASHBOARD: On 4th Nov, SDPI has shared the first prototype of Food Security Dashboard with Dr Moeed Yousaf, the Special Assistant to Prime Minister on  National Security and Economic Outreach in the presence of stakeholders, including Ministry of National Food Security and Research. Provincial and district authorities attended the event in person or through zoom. The dashboard will help the government monitor and regulate the supply chain of essential food commodities.

Number of Downlaods: 14

Published Date: Feb 1, 2009

Natural Resource Allocation in Balochistan and NWFP: Reasons for Discontent(W-111)

Meezan Z. Khwaja, Abid Q. Suleriand Babar ShahbazWorking

November 2009

 

The two
provinces of Pakistan where there is much contestation over the access and
benefit sharing of natural resources are Balochistan and North West Frontier
Province (NWFP).  The key issue is the
underlying relationship between natural resources and conflicts, the latter
often emerging as a result of unequal access and benefit sharing to the former.
The central thesis of this paper is that the natural gas royalty issue in
Balochistan (Western Province of Pakistan) and the water royalty issue in North
West Frontier Province (NWFP) have not been granted adequate attention at the
federal level in Pakistan leading to what can be called the politics of
discontent and the fuelling of separatist nationalist movements gradually
resorting to militancy in the provinces from which these natural resources are
captured. Greater provincial autonomy that partly
translates into uncontested access to benefits accruing from their natural
resources has been the demand of major political parties (that are termed as
nationalist parties in local context) in Balochistan and NWFP and the issue of
royalties plays an important role in electoral politics in these provinces.

Natural resource
based political conflicts are not only unique to Pakistan, but are now quite
visible in many developing and transition countries and this topic has also
caught the interest of development researchers and political policy analysts.[1],[2] Various root causes of resource related conflicts have been
documented in the literature. Some of these are for example, scarcity of
natural resources[3],[4], access to, and entitlements for these resources[5], quest for sustaining national energy needs by the state,[6] unclear and inequitable policy, population growth, vested political
interests, distrust between different actors[7], unequal power relations, and unjust resource sharing/distribution
paradigm[8]. Development researchers and practitioners agree that, for deeper
understanding of resource based conflicts, a thorough analysis of people’s
reliance on the resource[9] and historical perspective of the access to and command over
resources in the context of poverty and inequality is needed.5 On these lines, this paper presents and explores the link between
the struggle for access to natural resources by the state, poverty and local
resistance in Pakistan. This paper specifically discusses how political
instability or armed conflict result from, and/or are exacerbated by,
competition for natural resources. We focus on examples from Balochistan
province (over natural gas royalty issue) and the North West Frontier Province
(over water royalty issue).


[1]
Nie, M. (2003) “Drivers of Natural
Resource-based Political Conflicts,” Policy
Sciences
, 36, pp. 307-341.

[2]
Mukherji, M. (2006) “Political Ecology
of Groundwater: The Contrasting Case of Water-Abundant West Bengal and
Water-scarce Gujarat, India,” Hydrogeology
Journal,
14, pp. 392–406.

[3]
Brown, K. (Jan. 1998) “The Political
Ecology of Biodiversity, Conservation and Development in Nepal’s Terai:
Confused Meanings, Means and Ends,” Ecological
Economics
, 24(1), pp.73-87.

[4]
Turner, M. D. (Sept. 2004) “Political
Ecology and the Moral Dimensions of “Resource Conflicts”: The Case of
Farmer–Herder Conflicts in the Sahel,” Political
Geography
, 23(7).

[5]
Moore, DS. (Oct. 1993) “Contesting
Terrain in Zimbabwe’s Eastern Highlands: Political Ecology, Ethnography and
Peasant Resource Struggles,” Economic
Geography,
vol. 69, no. 4, Environment and Development, Part 2, pp.
380-401.

[6]
Nie, M. (2003) “Drivers of Natural
Resource-based Political Conflicts,” Policy
Sciences
, 36, pp. 307-341.

[7]
Shahbaz B. et al. (2008) “Trees, Trust
and the State: Analysis of Participatory Forest Governance in Pakistan and
Tanzania,” International J. Development,
20, pp. 641-653.

[8]
Ahmed, Iftikhar et al. (2007)
“National Finance Commission Awards in Pakistan: A Historical Perspective,”
PIDE Working Paper 33, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE),
Islamabad, Pakistan.

[9]
Twyman, C. (2001) “Natural Resource
Use and Livelihoods,” Economic Geography,
vol. 69, no. 4, Environment and Development, Part 2 (Oct., 1993), pp. 380-401
and “Botswana’s Wildlife Management Areas,” Applied
Geography
, 21(1), January 2001, pp. 45-68.