China Pakistan Economic Corridor: Challenges and Opportunities

Pak-China relations have been exemplary in the contemporary international politics. Both States have been maintaining strong ties in terms of diplomatic and military cooperation. However, the close economic cooperation has added a new dimension in the Pak-China all weather partnership. Over the years, China and Pakistan strategic cooperation has evolved at unprecedented level. In the year 2013, the Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the construction of One Belt One Road (OBOR) that aims to connect China with West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia and Middle East. It is a bitter fact that, since 9/11 Pakistan has suffered in socio-political and especially in economic dimension. The regional security environment and rise of extremism and terrorism has resulted into the hampering economic development. Therefore, the CPEC project will prove to be game changer and when completed it will have deep impact on economic development of Pakistan in future. The CPEC provides an opportunity for Pakistan to stabilize its society and reshape its positive image at international level from fragile State to emerging economy in the South Asian region. The rise of China in economic sphere has been jealously seen by other developed countries while for Pakistan it has been a blessing factor. Thus, Pak- China strategic partnership entered into the new phase of economic cooperation that will certainly change the dynamics of the regional politics. This paper aims to discuss the multiple dimensions of CPEC its importance for Pakistan and China along with its internal and external challenges. Moreover, economic and security perspectives will be focused in detail. To fully understand the role of CPEC as driving force of economic prosperity, this paper discusses its potential as a game changer for both China and Pakistan. ___________

Precision Irrigation for Improving Water Use Efficiency Using Indigenized Sensor Based Irriagion Scheduling and Efficient Irriagion Techniques

Real time sensors based precision irrigation scheduling has potential to improve water productivity. Field experiments were carried out for two subsequent years (2017 and 2018) for producing maize and wheat crops at the Water Management Research Center (WMRC), Postgraduate Agricultural Research Station (PARS), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (UAF). Field irrigation systems included flood irrigation (canvas pipe), perforated pipe irrigation and drip irrigation under different planting geometries. The design, development and manufacturing of sensor-based irrigation systems using locally available material were performed to minimize the cost of equipment development and energy consumption for crop irrigation. A solar powered tube well of half cusec discharge was used for pumping water for irrigating the experimental fields. The fertigation unit was used with electricity operated submersible pump at the experimental site. Maize crop had seven treatments viz; T1-flood irrigation conventional ridge sowing (0.762 m row to row spacing), T2-flood irrigation furrow bed planting (0.457 m row to row spacing), T3perforated pipe irrigation with 0.254 m furrow width (0.432 m row to row spacing), T4- perforated pipe irrigation with 0.203 m furrow width (0.406 m row to row spacing), T5perforated pipe irrigation with 0.152 m furrow width (0.381 m row to row spacing), T6drip irrigation with 0.914 m lateral spacing (0.457 m row to row spacing) and T7-drip irrigation with 1.219 m lateral spacing (0.609 m row to row spacing). Similarly, wheat crop had also seven treatments viz; T1-flood irrigation flat sowing by rabi-drill, T2-flood irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.254 m furrow, T3-perforated pipe irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.254 m furrow, T4-perforated pipe irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.203 m furrow, T5-perforated pipe irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.152 m furrow, T6-drip irrigation flat with 0.914 m lateral spacing and T7-drip irrigation on beds with 0.914 m lateral spacing. The flood irrigation system (treatments T1 and T2) took more time to fill the field and resulted in significantly lowest water productivities of maize 9.2-9.72 (grain yield kg/ha/mm irrigation depth) and of wheat 9.6-10.30 (grain yield kg/ha/mm irrigation depth). The perforated irrigation system (treatments T3, T4 and T5) produced intermediate values of water productivities for maize 16.38-17.3 (grain yield kg/ha/mm irrigation depth) and for wheat 12.30-12.66. The drip irrigation system (treatments T6 and T7) resulted in significantly greatest water productivity values of 19.219.55 for maize crop and 14.20-14.30 for wheat crop. xlii Indigenized soil moisture sensors using copper, brass and steel materials of single probe (Type-I length: 152.4 mm, 304.8 mm), two probes (Type-II length: 152.4 mm, 304.8 mm) and Type-III length (152.4 mm, 304.8 mm) were developed, fabricated, calibrated and validated using Gravimetric Method and tested in field. The developed sensors sent soil moisture signals on cloud for data storage, reuse and sharing purpose using coding. Arduino Mega was coupled with laptop through USB cable and sensors responses shown on Arduino sketch 1.8.5 in serial monitor. Arduino Mega was coupled with Arduino Ethernet Shield for transformation of soil moisture data on cloud. The irrigation was applied based on soil moisture status. The system based on micro-controller was tested for irrigating Maize and Wheat crops. Raspberry Pi-3 (Model B) controlled hardware in distribution box (DB) made promising use of indigenized soil moisture sensors (Type-I, Type-II and Type-III) for calibration and irrigation water management. The Linear calibration for indigenized steel wired double probe soil moisture sensors (152.4 mm, 304.8 mm) was made. The costs incurred for developing Type-I, Type-II and Type-III soil moisture sensors were PKR 800, 1650 and 250, respectively. The WinSRFR model was used to determine water application efficiency as a function of each plot‟s irrigations with respect to experimental field length under sandy loam soil. For the crops grown during 1st year (2016-17), the model resulted in application efficiencies of maize as 44%, 41%, 63%, 67%, and 69% for treatments T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5, respectively. Similarly the model predicted application efficiencies of wheat as 55%, 64%, 61%, 66% and 75% under treatments T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5, respectively. These application efficiency improved in the 2nd year crops under the indigenized soil moisture sensors based precision irrigation scheduling. The drip irrigation treatments (T6 and T7) had significantly improved water application time saving values (65.26% and 61.38%), perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3, T4 and T5) had intermediate values of water application time saving (15.52%, 12.76% and 10.07%) as compared to T1-conventional ridge sowing (canvas pipe/flood irrigation). Similarly, drip irrigation treatments (T6, T7) had significantly better water application time saving values (66.12%, 62.33%), perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3, T4 and T5) had intermediate values of water application time saving (17.60%, 14.91% and 12.29%) as compared to T2-furrow bed planting (canvas pipe/flood irrigation). Application time saving was 58.88%, 60.18% and 61.37% using drip irrigation treatment (T6) as compared to perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3, T4 and T5). Similarly, water xliii application time saving under drip irrigation treatment (T7) was 54.28%, 55.73% and 57.05% as compared to perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3, T4 and T5). All the treatments under perforated and drip irrigation systems had better water application time saving values during 2nd year maize cropping than those under 1st year maize cropping. The drip irrigation treatments (T6, T7) for wheat sowing had significantly better water application time saving values (44.82%, 37.42%), perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3, T4 and T5) had intermediate values of water application time saving (27.73%, 23.33% and 17.72%) as compared to T1-flat sowing by rabi drill (canvas pipe/flood irrigation). Similarly, drip irrigation treatments (T6, T7) had significantly highest water application time saving values (40.81%, 32.87%), perforated treatments (T3, T4 and T5) had intermediate values of water application time saving (22.47%, 17.75% and 11.74%) as compared to T2-bed furrow planting (canvas pipe/flood irrigation). Application time saving was 23.65%, 28.03% and 32.94% using drip irrigation treatment (T6) as compared to perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3, T4 and T5). Similarly, water application time saving was 13.42%, 18.38% and 23.95% using drip irrigation treatment (T7) as compared to perforated treatments (T3, T4 and T5). All the treatments under perforated and drip irrigation systems had higher water application time saving values during 2nd year wheat cropping than those under 1st year of wheat cropping. Efficient water application in the experimental field for maize and wheat crops increased irrigation efficiency. For maize production, drip irrigation treatments (T6, T7) had significantly improved irrigation efficiency values (86.0%, 86.83%), perforated treatments (T3, T4 and T5) had intermediate values (80.83%, 81.0% and 81.05%) and flood irrigation treatments had significantly lowest values (50.95%, 52.15%). All the treatments had significantly greater irrigation efficiency values during 2nd year maize cropping than those under 1st year maize cropping because of applying soil moisture sensor based irrigations. The drip irrigation treatments (T6, T7) had significantly greatest irrigation efficiency values (87.95%, 88.1%), perforated treatments (T3, T4 and T5) had intermediated values of irrigation efficiency (80.5%, 80.75% and 81.45%) and flood irrigation treatments had significantly lowest irrigation efficiency values (73.25%, 74.4%). Most of the treatments had significantly higher irrigation efficiency values during 2nd year wheat cropping than xliv those under 1st year wheat cropping. Overall treatment mean irrigation efficiency was 80.82% during 1st year and 81.0% during 2nd year. Total cost of production of 1st year maize (2016) for the drip irrigation treatments T6 and T7 was found higher than the perforated pipe irrigation system and flood irrigation system with a margin of PKR 68451 and PKR 68292, respectively. The drip irrigation produced a benefit cost ratio of 3.28 for T6 and 3.20 for T7 treatments. The benefit cost ratio of perforated pipe treatments T3, T4 and T5 were 3.43, 3.41 and 3.26, respectively. Similarly, the benefit cost ratio for flood irrigation treatments T1 and T2 were 2.68 and 2.77, respectively. Total cost of production of 2nd year maize (2017) for the drip irrigation treatments T6 and T7 was found higher than the perforated pipe irrigation system and flood irrigation system with a margin of PKR 74443 and PKR 74281, respectively. The drip irrigation produced a benefit cost ratio of 3.14 for T6 and 3.06 for T7 treatments. The benefit cost ratio for perforated pipe irrigation was 3.33, 3.25 and 3.11 for T3, T4 and T5 treatments, respectively. Similarly, the benefit cost ratio for flood irrigation was 2.58 and 2.68 for T1 and T2, respectively. Total cost of production of 1st year wheat (2016-17) for the drip irrigation treatments T6 and T7 was found higher than the perforated pipe irrigation system and flood irrigation system with a margin of PKR 70726 and PKR 71214, respectively. The drip irrigation produced a benefit cost ratio of 2.81 for T6 and 2.77 for T7 treatments. The benefit cost ratio for perforated pipe was 2.94, 2.87 and 2.81 for T3, T4 and T5 treatments, respectively. Similarly the benefit cost ratio for flood irrigation was 2.51 and 2.61 for T1 and T2 treatments, respectively. Total cost of production of 2nd year wheat (2017-18) for the drip irrigation treatments T6 and T7 was higher than the perforated pipe irrigation system and flood irrigation system with a margin of PKR 64279 and PKR 64708, respectively. The drip irrigation produced a benefit cost ratio of 3.26 for T6 and 3.21 for T7 treatments. The benefit cost ratio for perforated pipe was 3.25, 3.18 and 3.12 for T3, T4 and for T5 treatments, respectively. Similarly, the benefit cost ratio for flood irrigation was 2.81 and 2.92 for T1 and T2 treatments, respectively. The benefit-cost analysis for drip and perforated pipe irrigation systems showed that the perforated pipe irrigation could be a feasible irrigation method for small scale farmers and drip irrigation system for large farmers. However, keeping in view the benefits of drip irrigation regarding high water use efficiency and yield, it is recommended that it should also be promoted for small farmers by providing proper training for profitable farming." xml:lang="en_US