T H E Pakistan Economic Survey 2024-25 has failed to address our most pressing existential challenge: climate change. Despite this nation`s inclusion among the world`s most climate-vulnerable and least-prepared countries, and one that is facing threats that could reduce GDP by 20 per cent by 2050, the Survey treats climate change as a peripheral concern rather than the central organising principle of economic policy.

I have argued previously on these pages that the Survey can be a `Barometer of change` and integrate climate considerations across all 17 chapters instead of having a stand-alone chapter on the climate. This transformation would represent a paradigm shift towards climate-informed economic governance.

Climate-blind economic analysis: The current framework isolates climate change in Chapter 17 as a separate section detached from primary economic analysis, rendering the Survey`s conclusions unreliable for long-term planning. The Survey exemplifies the dangerous disconnect between economic analysis and climate reality.

While documenting a GDP growth of 2.68pc and fiscal improvements, it ignores that the 2022 floods costing $30 billion exceeded our entire annual development budget by five to six times, yet climate considerations remain marginal.

Its treatment of agriculture illustrates this climate blindness, reporting major declines of cotton, wheat and maize as statistical anomalies rather than manifestations of climate vulnerability. This analytical failure prevents policymakers from understanding the fact that traditional econometrics become meaningless when climatic stability assumptions no longer hold.

Climate integration deficiencies: The Survey excludes climate analyses across all chapters, reducing its utility for evidence-based policymaking. The current structure does not treat climate change as an economic multiplier affecting all sectors.

The `Growth and Investment` chapter lacks climate-adjusted GDP calculations that account for climate-triggered damage and resilience investment needs. Traditional growth metrics fail to distinguish between growth that builds long-term resilience versus growth that creates climate liabilities. Investment analyses exclude climate risk assessment for major infrastructure projects, with climate-proofing costs absent from evaluation criteria. Incorporating climate-resilient investment frameworks would provide moreaccurate assessments.

`Agriculture` excludes the integration of climate variables including temperature, precipitation and glacial melt trends on irrigation water availability. The Indus basin irrigation system is facing rapid disruption from hydrological changes that receive inadequate monitoring.

Crop yield analyses do not incorporate climate projections for assessing food security implications. Future surveys should address these gaps.

`Manufacturing and mining` lacks industrial climate risk assessment covering supply chain vulnerabilities and adaptation costs for industrial infrastructure. Export competitiveness analyses exclude looming carbon border mechanisms, and green technology adoption needs. The industrial productivity analysis does not incorporate climate-related disruptions, including yearly heatwaves. Including these components would improve industrial policy relevance.

`Fiscal development` excludes climate budget analyses despite the government implementing a climate budget tagging system across 5,000 federal cost centres, mentioned only superficially in the climate chapter. It lacks green taxonomy frameworks and provides no evaluation of climate-informed taxation effectiveness in promoting adaptation investments. Disaster risk financing mechanisms are inadequately analysed.

Public debt sustainability narrative excludes climate stress scenarios, limiting fiscal policy effectiveness.

The chapter on `Energy` lacks restructuring around renewable energy development and grid modernisation analyses and overlooks hydro energy security considerations under changing climate scenarios. Carbon footprint assessment and reduction strategies to meet NDC commitments receive inadequate analysis.

Comprehensive energy-climate analyses can enhance policy relevance.

`Trade and payments` lacks analysis of export vulnerability to climate policies and excludes identification of climate-resilient value chain development opportunities. Green trade and sustainable export possibilities are not evaluated for enhancing our competitive position in carbonconstrained global markets.

`Population, Labour Force and Employment` excludes women`s vulnerability to climate impacts and green economy opportunities, climate-induced migration patterns and labour market impact analyses. The gender dimensionsof climate change and economic participation are not assessed. Youth employment in climate sectors receives no serious analysis. Addressing employment-climate linkages can enhance labour policy effectiveness.

`Health and nutrition` lacks a climate health impact assessment and excludes an analysis of disease surveillance and climate-health early warning systems effectiveness. Nutrition security under climate stress receives inadequate evaluation. Healthcare system resilience and emergency preparedness capabilities remain unassessed. Health-climate integration could improve public health policy formulation.

`Social protection` lacks a climate vulnerability assessment for existing programmes while excluding an analysis of programme effectiveness in building household resilience to climate shocks. Targeting mechanisms are not evaluated for reaching climate-vulnerable populations.

Programme design modifications to address climate-induced poverty have invited no analysis.

Climate-social protection integration can enhance programme effectiveness.

The exclusion of climate considerations across the Survey reflects institutional capacity gaps.

Climate integration can eliminate the artificial separation between environmental and economic analyses while providing a comprehensive assessment of climate-economy interactions.

Climate integration requires standardised risk assessment methodologies and impact quantification protocols across government departments.

Enhanced climate integration: The Survey is released too late to inform the debate on the annual finance bill. Its persistent data reliability issues, particularly provisional agricultural estimates published before harvest completion, exemplify the need for real-time climate monitoring capabilities. Ideally, the Survey should be released on a quarterly basis. Enhanced data collection infrastructure integrating climate monitoring with economic analyses can transform the Survey from a retrospective document into a dynamic policy tool. Such a transformation will represent an essential evolution for a nation facing existential climate threats, positioning Pakistan`s flagship publication as a foundation for evidence-based climate governance. • The wnter is a climate change and sustainable development expert