Unveiling the true culprit behind economic woes

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Sri Lankans have a very negative view of imports, which are often portrayed on TV as the problem behind the economic crisis. Not only politicians, but also those who have opinions on our economy subscribe to the idea that imports are the problem.

Our politicians’ favourite pastime is to blame imports and impose various tariffs or ban imports. Banning imports also makes for a very pro-Sri Lankan image, because a common excuse provided is that high imports are damaging to local industries. Accordingly, the banning of imports has been portrayed as a measure to help develop local industries.

A favourite area when it comes to cutting down imports is food imports. Often, media headlines and politicians comment aggressively, even quoting figures on the value of food imported. The middle class, upper middle class, and wealthiest of society often make the argument of needing to save valuable foreign exchange by cutting down food imports.

However, when we consider the data, it indicates the exact opposite. The middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthiest are the ones who consume the most amount of imports in the form of fuel, mainly through personal vehicles and as energy. About 27% of our imports in January was fuel. Fuel is the largest component of our import basket as a single commodity.

What we have imported as food is less than 11% of our total imports. Non-food consumer goods are just 8% of our total imports. Most pharmaceutical products and medicines for patients fall under the non-food consumer goods category, which are primarily consumed by the most vulnerable people in society.

Imported food items are also consumed by the most vulnerable sections of society. Food items such as canned fish, maize, green gram, lentils, black gram, sprats, b-onions, potatoes, and wheat flour are critical food items for the poorest of the poor.

Firstly, these can be stored without a refrigerator, which saves their energy cost. Secondly, they are easily available and affordable compared to many other items of food they consume. Therefore, the request of politicians and academics to cut back on these food items, which comprise less than 11% of our total imports, is nearly impossible to fulfil, and reducing these imports further is tantamount to asking the poor to live in hunger and their children to suffer from malnutrition.

Thirty-seven percent of our import basket comprises intermediate goods, besides food. These are goods required for exports and to produce many things without interrupting the supply chain. For instance while our main export is apparels, our main import is also apparels. Therefore, asking to reduce apparel sector imports amounts to reducing our valuable exports.

In reality, while there persists a belief that imports have to be reduced, it is not the solution it is touted to be. If we have to cut down on food imports, it will lead to increased malnutrition, hunger levels, or food costs for Sri Lankans.

Ways of reducing imports

If we want to bring down our imports, cutting down on fuel is one way to consider. A World Bank study revealed that 70% of the fuel is consumed by the wealthiest 30% of society. Therefore, it only makes sense to maintain fuel prices at market price.

As indicated in the graphs, there is a correlation between high fuel prices and fuel imports. Our fuel imports have decreased when prices are high as people use it sparingly. Compared to January 2023, our fuel imports had declined by about $ 100 million per month by January this year. With the expansion of the economy, this number is expected to slowly grow. Prices can bring imports down without import bans or tariffs.

Another way to reduce fuel imports is by improving public transport. Most of our fuel is wasted in traffic jams as a result of our poor public transportation infrastructure. If we invest in public transport, not only will it reduce fuel imports, but it will also uplift many Sri Lankans and provide significant relief in terms of their purchasing power. Many middle class Sri Lankans pay a 200% tariff to buy a second-hand vehicle at an interest rate of above 12% because they have no other choice but to commute.

Saving foreign exchange

Sri Lanka has been offered many grants, including for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project, which we turned down on numerous occasions, leading to geopolitical tensions. When people spend less money on commuting and waste less time in traffic congestion, it will not only improve productivity but also their purchasing power, creating many jobs and generating income.

It is an inalienable truth that we need more food imports with different varieties of protein sources for the benefit of the impoverished. Foreign exchange has to be earned through exports, tourism, and remittances.

Saving foreign exchange is a function of the monetary policy or the supply of the Sri Lankan Rupee to the financial system rather than a function of imports and exports. When the rupee becomes expensive, the US Dollar demand decreases automatically because people buy the latter using rupees that they could have used in an alternative manner.

Asking the public to cut down on food imports, which are mainly consumed by the poor, at the expense of allowing the use of more fuel-driven vehicles cannot be justified and borders on cruelty.

Who pays God’s electricity bill?

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dhananath Fernando

Over the years, I have volunteered at a humanitarian organisation named CandleAid Lanka to help the poor. The organisation has a programme called ‘Gift a Meal,’ where we provide meals to selected vulnerable households. When these people receive meals or dry rations, they thank the organisation profusely. I have noticed that most families also thank whichever god they believe in, because poor people think it is their god who is giving them a meal through CandleAid. 

I shared this observation later during a dinner table conversation with CandleAid’s Founder, Captain Elmo Jayawardena, who, as usual, cracked a joke regarding my observation. He said: “God takes very good care of people who support CandleAid, because God is rational. God ultimately gets the credit for all the hard work we do, so he must be thinking that he will lose the people’s support on two fronts if he harms such people. Firstly, he will lose the credit he gets through CandleAid’s work, and secondly, people will lose trust in God, because if something happens to people who donate to these charities, others will wonder why generous people are not being taken care of by God. So any rational God would simply do everything to protect us.”

Captain Jayawardena of course did not mean any particular god or religion, but was simply sharing a light moment at a private dinner. 

Lower power tariffs for religious institutions 

There was a time when the high powers of the Ceylon Electricity Board requested the blessings of a rain god for uninterrupted power supply during the Yahapalana regime. Now, religious institutions have requested a lower tariff rate compared to the normal rate.

Let’s face the truth. Even if we provide low tariffs for religious institutions or ask them to pay high tariffs, it is the common people who will pay. If we provide a tariff concession, common people and businesses have to pay it as taxpayers. Someone has to bear the cost of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. If we cross-subsidise religious institutions, it is ultimately the taxpayers who have to pay. If we ask religious institutions to pay higher tariff rates, these same common people have to pay, as devotees of the god they believe in. 

However, there is a significant difference in behaviour and impact of usage, although the end payer is the same. 

If taxpayers are asked to pay the subsidy for religious institutions, religious institutions have no motivation to reduce their usage, because the buying price is far less than the market price. Therefore, there is no motivation to save electricity. 

At the same time, the difference in treatment of one set of customers will create market distortions. It will also set a bad example and many other customer categories will make the same request. 

Moreover, even those who don’t use electricity at the religious institution have to indirectly pay for it through taxes, instead of spending the money on something productive. This will incentivise the religious institutions to continue using electricity without moving to sustainable energy sources. Even if the particular line ministry pays the electricity bill, it is ultimately the taxpayer who has to foot the bill. 

If the higher electricity tariff is borne by the religious institutions, even then the same taxpayers have to pay the bill, as devotees of the institution. But in this case, devotees who use electricity at the institution will be the ones to bear the cost, so they have a motivation to reduce their consumption. This will also incentivise them to look for alternative energy sources. 

Market reform for better options

Considering the political dynamics surrounding the tariff hike, it appears that once again electricity tariffs are becoming a political weapon as usual. Most likely this will block some electricity sector reforms. 

If there was a market system, there could have been a concessionary rate for religious institutions. For instance, if we had a few companies that undertook electricity generation and distribution, one of these companies may have offered an option for religious institutions to receive electricity at a concessionary rate as charity. 

For example, supermarket chains run various charity projects geared towards sustainability through their outlets. Telco service providers offer different services to donate money on a range of issues at a corporate level. 

Therefore, I believe that religious institutions should request for market reforms rather than tariff concessions, because it is more likely that they will receive a better offer from a market system than from politicians. 

Energy sector reforms should not only be about simple tariff hikes. When we approach an election, these same politicians will simply use the electricity tariff as a political tool, resulting in a bigger mess. The same will happen for fuel as well. 

In Sri Lanka, the culture of entitlement across all sectors is a genuine issue. This culture is not only present in requesting tariff concessions for religious institutions but also in requesting tariff protections for selected industries. On both occasions, the burden is simply passed on to the common man. When the same thing happens repeatedly, there is only one thing left for the common man to say: “God save us.” 

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

The economics behind the fuel crisis

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dhananath Fernando

I recently overheard a conversation while taking public transport. The bus I was commuting in was moving at a snail’s pace across Dehiwala as people had blocked the road to show their displeasure over fuel shortages. The fuel queue was long, spanning over a few kilometres, consisting of mostly three-wheelers. The conversation started when a lady seated at the back lost her patience as some three-wheeler drivers tried to block the road. 

“Three-wheelers are a curse on our country,” she said. “Look how long the queue is and how undisciplined these tuk drivers are. They consume a lot of fuel and they just sit and waste their time browsing the internet on their phones while they are in the queue. All these drivers are a part of our labour force and they are part of the problem behind this fuel crisis. We should ban three-wheelers and develop public transport. The Sri Lanka Transport Board should field as many buses as possible. Why can’t they employ more trains at this time?” She had initiated the conversation with a gentleman seated next to her, who was also highlighting some solutions. 

Her opinion would be mirrored by many Sri Lankans if they were asked about the reasons behind the fuel crisis and economic crisis. While we all understand that it is the foreign exchange or USD shortage which led to this fuel crisis, the productive use of our limited fuel stocks has been in discussion for many months. People are now worried that once the latest fuel shipment is exhausted, Sri Lanka will completely run out of fuel as we are scraping the bottom of the barrel of the Indian credit line. 

We all have to admit that fuel has become an extremely scarce resource given the shortage of USD. Another side to the problem is that fuel importation and distribution is mainly done by the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and Lanka IOC (LIOC). Both these companies do not generate USD revenue. 

If we allow anyone to import fuel, then the exporters who have US Dollars will import fuel mainly for their usage for export output. The garment and rubber industries will import fuel on their own with their own US Dollars to run their generators and plants and pay the tax. 

It is far more convenient, efficient, and productive for them to depend on their own supply chains than depend on the inefficient CPC. When there are industries that can afford fuel imports at their own cost, there will be more fuel for common people through CPC and LIOC with the little forex and credit lines they secure. 

Daniel Alponsus has explained this in his recent blog in detail (1), where he further suggested removing price controls on fuel and allowing an open market account for fuel imports so the informal forex will automatically move towards essentials such as fuel while remittances will start flowing.

Before we come to the conclusion that three-wheelers are the problem (as per the conversation I overheard on my journey), we have to first ask why there are so many three-wheelers on the roads. The simple fact of the matter is that they are very efficient – they are lightweight, their fuel economy is about 30 km/litre, and they can transport one to three passengers per trip. By comparison, the fuel efficiency of a personal vehicle – depending on the weight and engine displacement – would on average be approximately one-third of the fuel efficiency of a three-wheeler. 

Secondly, three-wheelers are the main form of last-mile transport. They provide flexibility in labour markets, contributing to their popularity. The final and most significant reason for the large number of three-wheelers is the lack of sufficient public transport – both in terms of quantity and quality. If there was an option for anyone to become a service provider of public transport, most three-wheeler drivers would have become public transport drivers. 

At present, just because you have a bus doesn’t mean that you can field it on the road due to the route permit system. In many cases, the selling price of a route permit is a few times higher than the value of the bus even after a massive excise duty, sometimes above 100%, being imposed on the vehicle. 

Our policies have therefore discouraged many entrepreneurs from entering the market for public transport. In addition, we have strict price controls on bus fares, which limit the ability of service providers to differentiate their services at different price levels. 

For example, a young executive may be willing to leave his vehicle at home and shift to public transport if there is a transport service that provides internet service and a breakfast package. The executive can work while commuting and he can save on his breakfast preparation time at home. However, with the current controlled prices and route permit system, such niches with higher quality of service (and higher prices) cannot be fulfilled. 

So the main reason for the higher number of three-wheelers and more fuel combinations is the absence of market forces in the public transportation sector. The fuel crisis has been exacerbated by bad public policy in relation to public transport. This has compelled us to use 60% of our fuel imports, which is the highest single commodity type import in our import basket. 

The only encouragement provided for public transport was the bus lane priority system – now even that has unfortunately been abandoned. If we want to incentivise the buses for their fuel, another option is to subsidise their fuel based on mileage. This means the bus operators would buy fuel at the same price as a normal customer at the pump but they will obtain a subsidy based on mileage to avoid any leakages (i.e. resale of fuel on the secondary market at a premium) and provide incentive for drivers and consumers. 

Poor data availability and the lack of information systems acts as a bottleneck for such initiatives. However, if private mobile based services like PickMe or Uber can track mileage and location, there cannot be a reason why the same mechanism cannot be implemented for public transport.  

In the midst of rising fuel prices, Germany reduced public transport fares to encourage more people to commute through public transport. This is so that the fuel consumption of using individual vehicles would be lower. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka did otherwise. Our policymakers did not understand the economics and optics of the problem. Until we understand the dynamics of the situation, we will all simply listen to and believe conversations about three-wheelers being the issue without really understanding the fundamental problem.  

References:

1. https://danielalphonsus.substack.com/p/solving-sri-lankas-fuel-crisis?s=w

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Timescale confusions in solutions for the crisis

Originally appeared on the Daily FT

By Prof. Rohan Samarajiva

A few days after the tsunami, I was called to an expert meeting at Temple Trees by the then Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa. I was seated next to Arisen Ahubudu, the famous giver of names. He stated that we had lost too much territory, including Madagascar, and that we could not afford to lose more. He proposed building a wall around the country, using the traditional techniques used in protecting tank bunds, the ralepanawa. I was stunned that such a nice and well-meaning person could come out with such arrant nonsense. He had confused geological time with human time. 

Timescale confusions of a smaller magnitude are evident among many proposing solutions to our current multi-faceted crisis. 

Solutions to power cuts

We all experience the problem. Some of us understand the cause: no dollars to pay for fuel for the generators that make up for the shortfall from lower production from the hydro generators and Norochcholai. Even if we had the dollars, such fuel is priced in dollars and subject to price fluctuations that we cannot control. It is common sense that we should shift to electricity produced by renewable sources such as solar and wind. 

The problem is that under current market and technology conditions, both the distribution network (low voltage) and the transmission network (high voltage) are limited in how much solar- and wind-generated electricity they can accept. We can, and should, increase the use of electricity from renewable sources, but we need to upgrade the transmission network to be able to do so. Solar panels yield electricity when the sun is out (not at night and not when clouds pass over the panels); the wind will produce electricity even in evenings when our use is highest, but it is still intermittent. Batteries are not cost-effective yet.

Given the need to balance supply and demand of electricity in real-time caused by lack of cost-effective storage technologies, we need a large and modernised system in order to absorb more energy from these intermittent sources. We need to invest in upgrading the national grid and possibly connect to the large Indian grid. Feasibility studies must be done, and investment mobilised. It will take several years for the desired outcomes to be achieved. Increasing solar- and wind-based energy is not a viable solution for our immediate problems, though it is a solution in the long term. Within the applicable timescale, what we need are dollars for coal and diesel.

Promotion of manufacturing

Twin deficits, exacerbated by recent economic mismanagement, caused the crisis. More exports would have addressed the current-account deficit and may have helped with the fiscal deficit if the right tax policy was in place. Roughly $ 11 billion was earned from the export of goods such as apparel, tea, and value-added rubber products before the pandemic. Around $ 7 billion was claimed from service exports such as tourism, software and business process outsourcing. 

It is true that the East Asian Tigers and China took their people out of poverty through the production of goods for export. One has to ask why Sri Lanka (and to a significant extent, the rest of South Asia) failed to ramp up the production of goods for export, relying more heavily on service exports. One could even argue that the apparel industry is a service industry. A tailor who makes a suit out of material given to him is undoubtably a provider of services. The Sri Lankan apparel industry, which is the largest importer as well as the largest exporter, is doing what a tailor does, at scale. If it is manufacturing, it is manufacturing lite.

Until the market opening in 1978, the answer to the question of why we had no industries was that our private sector was weak and lacked capital. Therefore, the State went into manufacturing: steel, plywood, tyres, sugar, paper, shoes, cooking implements, etc. were all produced by fully State-owned enterprises under protection. They produced shoddy goods at high prices for the local market and lost enormous amounts of money. The plywood factory resulted in the clear-cutting of half of Sinharaja. After the market was opened to imports, they went out of business.

Since 1978, we have relied on private investors, with or without foreign partners, to manufacture for export (and for domestic use). They have tended to invest in sectors that did not rely too heavily on cheap energy (because our electricity prices were high, especially for industrial users). Except in the case of a few sectors such as apparel and rubber-based products, our producers failed to secure access to markets. Restrictive laws and para tariffs hindered local producers from getting integrated into global production networks, with very few exceptions. 

So, the industrialisation prescription as a solution to the crisis will take time and effort to implement. We would have to ensure reliable and low-cost energy (and other infrastructure services such as waste disposal), eliminate para-tariffs, and create the conditions for market access. The latter is the most challenging. 

Investors such as Michelin ensured market access for the solid tyres produced in Sri Lanka. The apparel industry also benefited in the early stages from foreign investors who facilitated market access. Attracting such investors and entering into trade agreements are needed for market access. But both take time. 

Industrialisation may be a good solution, but it is not for the Government to decide on manufacturing priorities. Because China has established itself as the factory to the world, countries such as ours must identify and exploit niches. Those best positioned for this are those with intimate knowledge of the markets, with skin in the game, namely private investors. The State must create the conditions and leave the actual investment decisions to such players. All this will occur on a timescale different from what is relevant to emerging from the present crisis.

Constitutional reforms

It has become evident that the hyper-presidential system created by the 1978 Constitution has failed to yield the promised benefits and has caused serious damage after the enactment of the 20th Amendment, which removed all the checks that were placed on the President by the 19th Amendment. For example, the Minister of Finance has stated that specific officials were responsible for the tax cuts that triggered the present crisis and the delay in debt restructuring. In the current system, the sole authority for those appointments was the President who must therefore be held accountable for the current crisis.

To address the demands of the protestors, the President must go. He must resign or be impeached. The former can take place immediately would allow the country to return to normal (if such a condition exists after the devastation wreaked by the President and his appointees). The time taken to impeach will be too long. 

The next best solution is to reduce the powers of the President. This would require a Constitutional amendment. An amendment that is approved by Cabinet can be completed within around six weeks. If it is moved as a private member’s motion, it could take more than six months, outside the timeframe needed to calm the country and get the debt restructuring done. The announcement that the Government is proposing the restoration of the 19th Amendment suggests a solution within the required timescale. Of course, it would be necessary to scrutinise the proposed amendment and ensure the President’s powers are meaningfully reduced immediately.

In innumerable discussions I have participated in, I hear proposals for Constitutional reform that pay no heed to the time factor. Some talk of a Constitution authored by the people, modelled on what is going on in Chile. The process began with an amendment to the Constitution and a referendum in 2020. This was followed by an election for a Constituent Assembly in April 2021. Its deliberations are ongoing. How realistic is this kind of process for the kinds of issues that have brought our people to the streets?

In these days of limited attention (and paper supplies), it would be useful if greater weight is given to the appropriateness of the proposed solutions for the time needed to solve the problems that beset us.

Rohan Samarajiva is founding Chair of LIRNEasia, an ICT policy and regulation think tank active across emerging Asia and the Pacific. He was CEO from 2004 to 2012. He is also an advisor to the Advocata Institute.

How can affordable electricity be assured 24x7?

Originally appeared on the Daily FT

By Prof. Rohan Samarajiva

The best way to understand the value of something is to experience life without it. These days, the Government is giving us a crash course on the value of reliable electricity supply. An unpleasant lesson, but nonetheless a learning opportunity.

If we probe the causes of load shedding, the learning can be deeper. Load shedding can be eliminated but at a cost. When hydropower declines due to periodic drought, the difference can be made up with generators running on imported fuel, the dollar price of which is determined by world market conditions. We can have 24x7 electricity, but not at an affordable price.

The Government created the immediate conditions for unreliable electricity supply through mismanagement of the country’s external debt. Today’s problems are not caused by delays in building additional generating capacity; they are caused by the lack of dollars to provide fuel for the existing generating plants. But there were deeper weaknesses in the organically developed system that must be understood.

With benchmark crude oil prices going over $ 100 per barrel, we must rethink our dependence on imported fossil fuels.

Reducing dependence on fossil fuels

Examination of the composition of our imports (Figure 1) shows that refined petroleum and crude oil taken together is the largest or second largest category of what is imported. It follows then that reducing the import of petroleum products would be an action that would satisfy many: those concerned about global warming will be made happy; those who want self-sufficiency would also be pleased. 

Petroleum imports are not used solely for electricity generation. But the way to reduce the consumption of petroleum products for transportation also involves electricity generated by renewables: buses and trains that are powered by electricity; lorries, cars, three-wheelers, and two-wheelers that are powered by electricity. Promoting electric vehicles makes no sense unless electricity comes from renewable sources. 

The significant increase in expenditure for fossil fuels starting in 2011 (Figure 2) appears correlated with the massive increase in the vehicle stock after the end of the conflict, leading to a doubling by 2014. Luckily, the biggest increase was in two wheelers, which do not take up a lot of road space and consume less fuel. 

Generating electricity from renewables does require some imported elements such as low-cost, efficient turbines and photo-voltaic panels but the costs and dependence is nowhere near that which exists with imported oil and natural gas. In fact, it may be possible even to export electricity at certain times of the day or even for months on end. But this will require substantial investment in the transmission grid.

Preconditions for increasing use of renewables

An economics commentator whose work I follow had expressed puzzlement at “demand for electricity is higher than supply” being given as a reason for load shedding. Others had expressed outrage at some Facebook posts that I had shared, which stated that solar and wind could not provide a complete solution to our energy woes. These responses by well-meaning and intelligent commentators made me realise the need for a better understanding of how the electricity is generated, transmitted, and distributed.

For all practical purposes using currently affordable technology, electricity must be treated as something that cannot be stored (but see discussion of pumped storage below). That means that it must be generated at the same time as people consume electricity by activating lights or appliances. Peak consumption in Sri Lanka (in the evening hours starting from around 6:30 p.m.) is around 2 or 2.5 times that of lowest use which is around 1000 MW. 

That necessitates a cheap source of baseload electricity that can be drawn upon throughout the day. In addition, we must have other sources that can be mobilised as demand increases. One would think that the major hydroelectric plants that have been built on the main rivers which generate cheap electricity that is unaffected by world market prices and the value of the rupee could serve as the source of baseload power. But there are constraints, such as competing demands from agriculture. The weather affects hydropower, as we are experiencing now. 

Therefore, planners in the past argued for coal as the ideal baseload for Sri Lanka. If Norochcholai does not keep breaking down and operates optimally, it can give 900 MW continuously whether or not the rains come. But it does break down, and it appears there have been irregularities in coal purchases. Coal, even if procured on long-term contracts at the lowest possible price, still must be paid for in dollars.

There are those who argue that Sri Lanka has plenty of wind and sun, and we can solve all problems by shifting to wind and sun. But the simple fact is that these are intermittent sources. Solar does not produce electricity when the sun does not shine and produces less when clouds cover the sun. Wind can produce throughout the day and night, but there are times when the wind dies down. It requires complex system controls to blend these intermittent sources into a centralised system designed for large, stable and controllable generators. 

Countries have incorporated massive amounts of intermittent renewable sources. In 2019, 47% of Denmark’s electricity came from wind. But they have a very sophisticated grid that is capable of handling intermittent power sources, and they use interconnections with other national systems to help balance the system. So, for example, when excess power is generated by the Danish wind turbines, it is used to pump water back up into reservoirs in Norway and Sweden (a method of storing electricity in the form of water known as pumped storage), which can then be run through turbines again to produce more electricity when needed. Yet with all that, Danish consumers pay more for electricity than their neighbours.

Similarly, if Sri Lanka is to increase the use of intermittent power sources, we will have to upgrade the grid and the system control centre’s software. Given the difficulties of synchronising the frequencies to one big plant such as Victoria, it may even be necessary to gradually convert the grid to direct current. If the Sri Lankan grid is connected via a high voltage direct current cable to the Southern Indian grid, the much larger combined system can absorb a greater amount of wind and solar power. 

Interconnecting does not mean that a country gives up on generating its own electricity. It simply means that marginal amounts of electricity will flow in either direction when it is advantageous to two (or more) systems. The fact that the peaks are different in the two systems can also be used to reduce the high costs incurred at peak.

It may be necessary to directly link revenues derived from regulated prices to those who make the substantial investments needed for the grid. This will almost necessarily require a restructuring of the current ungainly, unresponsive, and money-losing CEB in a manner that allows the transmission unit to be run efficiently. 

All these options require careful study in terms of costs, benefits and energy security. The relations between Denmark and its neighbours are such that all the parties can be confident about the contracts being respected and any disputes that arise being settled in a fair manner. We must ensure that the interconnection agreements with India have all these safeguards. The precedent of India’s interconnections with Bhutan shows that mutual interdependence is achievable in South Asia. The experience in Europe where interconnection, including over long distances across water, is growing rapidly even after Brexit, will have to be studied. 

Rohan Samarajiva is founding Chair of LIRNEasia, an ICT policy and regulation think tank active across emerging Asia and the Pacific. He was CEO from 2004 to 2012. He is also an advisor to the Advocata Institute.