Redirected funds

There is something deeply troubling about a development programme designed to help some of Balochistan's poorest flood victims becoming the subject of a dispute over whether its funds should be diverted elsewhere. The World Bank's strong objection to the redirection of housing funds should not be dismissed as donor interference. Nor, however, should the government's broader development priorities be ignored. The real question is whether the two can be reconciled without making the province's most vulnerable people pay the price.

The numbers explain why this matters. According to the World Bank, 119,049 verified and eligible households have been left without identified financing after the housing component was capped. These are overwhelmingly poor families as around 84% of eligible beneficiaries are classified as ultra-poor and vulnerable, while many depend on daily wages. That is precisely why the government needs to explain the decision to redirect funds. The World Bank is also right to flag the potential consequences of exclusion. The purpose of resilient reconstruction is not simply to replace a damaged roof with another structure. It is to prevent vulnerable families from being pushed back into the same cycle of deprivation every time a flood, storm, heatwave or any other disaster strikes. However, development in Balochistan cannot be reduced to the construction of physical infrastructure while the people for whom that infrastructure is ostensibly being built remain unable to secure basic shelter. A road can connect a community to a market but it cannot compensate a family living in a damaged house.

The government's response to allegations of fraud and corruption must likewise be firm but targeted. If there are fraudulent claims, they should be identified and prosecuted. Islamabad should sit down with the World Bank and revisit the allocation rather than allow an avoidable disagreement to undermine an already fragile reconstruction effort.