The Asian Development Bank (ADB), in collaboration with the Government of Japan, has established the Water Security, Efficiency, and Resilience Initiative Fund (WISER Fund). The goal of this fund is to strengthen water security across Asia and the Pacific. Japan's initial contribution to this fund amounts to US$10 million.
The fund launch ceremony took place in Tokyo on July 21, 2026. Funds from the WISER Fund will be directed towards supporting developing member countries of the ADB. These resources will help improve water supply systems, mitigate risks associated with droughts, floods, and other water-related crises, as well as implement digital and innovative solutions for water resource management.
ADB President Masato Kanda emphasized that effective water resource management is critical for achieving sustainable development, as water issues can negatively impact agriculture, business, and people's quality of life. Japan's Minister of Finance, Satsuki Katayama, stated that investments in the water sector are a key condition for regional sustainable development. She specified that Japan will contribute $10 million to the new fund and share its expertise in reducing water losses, managing water supply and sewerage systems, developing sanitation infrastructure, and emergency response.
The ADB noted that Asia and the Pacific remain one of the world's most vulnerable regions to water risks. Over 40% of all global floods occur in Asia. Furthermore, approximately 220 million people in the region lack access to basic water supply services, while about 520 million people lack access to basic sanitation services.
According to an ADB analytical report on water development in Asia, since 2013, 2.7 billion people in the region have been able to move out of extreme water insecurity. However, the bank warns that these achievements could be undermined by environmental degradation, rising water risks, and insufficient funding for infrastructure projects. The new fund will build upon Japan's experience in disaster risk management, building resilient infrastructure, utilizing digital technologies, and professional training. WISER Fund financing will support project preparation, policy development, technical training, knowledge sharing, and strengthening water governance.
Previously, between 2021 and 2025, the ADB channeled $12.7 billion into the water sector, which helped improve the living conditions of approximately 63 million people. As part of its Water Forward initiative, the ADB plans to provide safe water, sanitation, irrigation, and other water services to 100 million people between 2026 and 2030. The ADB itself, founded in 1966, has 69 members, including 50 from Asia and the Pacific, and finances projects in sustainable development, infrastructure, and environmental protection in partnership with its member countries.
Electric vehicle manufacturer Ather Energy announced on Tuesday that it has successfully raised ₹1300 crore through a Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP). This placement was launched on July 15 as part of a larger capital infusion plan amounting to ₹2500 crore.
The offering received a positive response from both foreign and domestic institutional investors. Leading Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) participating included ADIA, White Oak, and William Blair. Domestic Institutional Investors (DIIs) involved were HDFC Mutual Fund, Axis Mutual Fund, and Edelweiss Mutual Fund, the company reported.
Ather Energy completed the closure of the ₹1300 crore QIP by issuing 1.08 crore shares at a price of ₹1202 per share. This outcome indicates high investor confidence in the company. The company specified that the raised capital will be directed towards supporting Ather's growth initiatives, including production expansion and new product development, as well as strengthening institutional investor trust in the company's long-term development strategy.
The QIP deal, which closed on Monday, was oversubscribed eight times, and the transaction occurred at a premium to the trading price. This phenomenon demonstrates immense faith from shareholders and investors in the company. Co-founder and CEO of Ather Energy, Tarun Mehta, noted this in an X post on Tuesday. Mehta added that he, along with many existing company partners, including co-founder Swapnil, is also investing in a larger funding round at this stage of Ather's development.
US President Donald Trump has proposed a phased plan to introduce tariffs on imported generic drugs, which could reach 200% by 2028, aiming to stimulate American production. This move is significant for the Indian pharmaceutical industry and bilateral trade.
Under the proposal, generic medicines imported into the US will be subject to zero tariffs for two years, starting August 1st. After this, the zero-tariff period will be extended for another year, after which the rate will increase to 100%, eventually reaching 200% in August 2029. This phased structure is intended to give pharmaceutical companies time to relocate manufacturing capacity to the US before punitive duties take effect.
Trump stated in a post on Truth Social that this measure aims at 'bringing generic drug manufacturing back to America,' penalizing companies that fail to build factories and equipment within the specified period.
This announcement is part of Trump's broader strategy to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the US and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. According to Trump, the policy's goal is to protect US citizens, while policies regarding patented, branded, and innovative drugs will remain unchanged.
Trump has repeatedly argued that the US pays significantly more for medications than many other countries and has sought to address accessibility issues by reforming the pharmaceutical sector. This issue has gained political importance ahead of the 2026 US midterm elections. Previously, in April 2025, his administration initiated an investigation under national oversight of pharmaceutical imports according to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. In April of this year, Trump signed an executive order tightening tariffs to 100% on imported branded pharmaceutical products, provided manufacturers agree to government price agreements or commit to producing in the US.
The immediate impact on Indian pharmaceutical exports is likely to be limited due to the proposed two-year tariff-free period. This transition period allows Indian manufacturers to review their supply chains, export strategies, and potential investments in US production. However, the projected increase to 100% and ultimately 200% tariffs could eventually affect Indian exporters who do not establish a local manufacturing base.
India is one of the largest suppliers of generic drugs to the US. Pharmaceuticals account for one of India's top three exports to the United States, amounting to $10.5 billion in 2024-25, according to government data. Indian generics constitute nearly 40% of volume prescriptions in the US market, making the sector particularly vulnerable to sharp tariff increases.
India is also a leading supplier of finished generic dosage forms to the American market. Analyses based on data from the US Food and Drug Administration and trade data estimate that Indian manufacturers provide about 40-50% of total generic prescriptions in the United States. Thus, the proposed tariffs could significantly affect India's pharmaceutical exports if companies do not localize production.
According to Bloomberg, it remains unclear what portion of Trump's proposed tariff burden Indian pharmaceutical companies will ultimately face. Drug tariffs could negatively impact over 40% of India's exports to the US. Previous threats by Trump also jeopardized several commonly prescribed drugs from India, including contraceptives and medications for hypertension and depression. Regarding birth control pills, Bloomberg reported that approximately 65% of prescriptions filled in the US in 2024 were produced by two Indian manufacturers—Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and Lupin.
The pharmaceutical sector is also facing broader trade uncertainty. Jamieson Green, a representative of the US Chamber of Commerce, indicated that the Trump administration may soon introduce new trade measures against about 60 economies, including India, on allegations related to forced labor imports. Washington has proposed an additional 12.5% tariff on imports from India as part of this investigation, although a final decision has not been announced.
Beyond pharmaceuticals, Trump's tariff measures have put pressure on several export-oriented sectors in India. Labor-intensive industries such as textiles and apparel, precious metals and jewelry, leather and footwear, chemicals, engineering goods, and auto components remain most vulnerable due to their reliance on the US market.
According to a Times of India report, although exporters noted increased demand from American buyers in recent weeks, uncertainty regarding potential US tariff measures has delayed the signing of firm orders. Buyers have postponed purchases pending greater clarity on Washington's trade policy. It is reported that sectors including chemicals, textiles, carpets, and leather have attracted greater interest from US buyers, though this has not yet resulted in significant contracts.
Government data showed that India's exports to the US decreased by 1.21% year-on-year to $8.17 billion in June, while imports rose by 33.86% to $5.5 billion.
India and the US have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement for several months as both countries seek to deepen trade and investment ties. These negotiations have gained more significance amid expectations of new US tariff announcements at the end of this month.
The government recently informed Parliament that it is closely monitoring all developments and continuing engagement with the US administration. India's Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal, held high-level meetings with US Chamber of Commerce representative Jamieson Greer regarding a comprehensive trade agreement. Although Goyal dismissed reports that India was waiting for better terms, he emphasized that India and the US are actively negotiating, and New Delhi will not concede on its core interests in any trade pact.
In February, Trump announced a temporary trade agreement with India that eased tariff tensions by lowering US rates on Indian goods from an effective 50% to 18%. The agreement also suspended a proposed additional 25% tariff related to India's purchases of Russian oil and reduced mutual tariff rates from 25% to 18%. In return, India agreed to lower or eliminate tariffs on a range of American industrial, agricultural, and consumer goods, with both sides committing to continue negotiations on a broader bilateral trade agreement.
Later, the mutual tariffs ceased to apply following a US Supreme Court ruling on February 20th, which invalidated them. Nevertheless, a 10% tariff remains in place on certain goods from all countries under Section 122 of the US Trade Act of 1974.
[ ]This article examines a recent dispute concerning an income protection policy, highlighting the risks associated with the ambiguity of insurance contracts and the importance of consumer vigilance when managing their insurance rights.
The latest annual report from the National Financial Ombudsman Scheme (NFO) presents an example of how protection can be nullified due to unclear contract wording. In this case, an insurer that had regularly paid benefits for over ten years subsequently claimed that these payments were made erroneously because of ambiguity in the policy text. This incident serves as a reminder that written terms are crucial in insurance agreements.
The dispute involved a client known only as Mr. G, who took out an income protection policy in February 2007. The policy guaranteed a monthly benefit of R45,000 if illness prevented him from working, and also provided for an annual increase of this benefit by 10%. The policy became effective in April 2007, and just a few months later, in July 2007, Mr. G fell ill and submitted a claim. The insurer approved the claim, and the first payment was made on July 22, 2008.
For the next 11 years, the insurer increased Mr. G's monthly benefit by 10% annually. However, in 2019, the insurer notified him of an incorrect application of the annual increases. It stated that the policy stipulated an increase linked to inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a maximum increase of 10%. According to the insurer, the fixed 10% increases arose from a systemic error and did not correspond to the intended policy terms. Mr. G referred this matter to the Ombudsman.
This dispute raised important questions regarding contract law and the interpretation of insurance policies. An independent legal opinion examined two legal principles that could support Mr. G's case: quasi-mutual assent, also known as the theory of reliance, and the rule of contra proferentem. The principle of quasi-mutual assent applies when one party's conduct leads another party to reasonably believe that a certain clause in the contract is part of the agreement. The rule of contra proferentem states that where there is ambiguous wording in a contract, it should be interpreted against the interests of the party that drafted it.
In Mr. G's situation, the legal opinion found that he had every reason to rely on the interpretation of the policy proposed by the insurer. The quote mentioned an annual increase of 10%, the policy documentation featured the number 10%, and the insurer consistently paid these increases for over ten years. Nevertheless, the policy wording appeared contradictory: one provision suggested a fixed annual increase of 10%, while another linked increases to the CPI.
The Ombudsman ruled in favor of Mr. G, determining that the insurer must continue to pay the fixed annual increases of 10%. The decision was based on both the theory of reliance and the ambiguity of the policy wording favoring the insured. The insurer appealed this ruling.
However, the Tribunal reached a different conclusion on appeal. While acknowledging that the policy wording was poorly drafted, it held that the contract could still be interpreted consistently. The Tribunal concluded that the policy distinguished between voluntary benefit increases prior to the claim, which were linked to higher premiums, and increases after the claim, which were solely intended to maintain the value of the benefit against inflation. It ruled that the insurer's payment of fixed 10% increases over 11 years was an administrative error, not evidence of a contractual obligation. The appeal was successful, limiting Mr. G's future annual increases to CPI figures capped at 10%.
Despite overturning the Ombudsman's decision, the Tribunal did not require Mr. G to return the higher benefits he had already received. Instead, future CPI-linked increases would be calculated based on the higher benefit amount already being paid, leaving him in a better position than if the error had been corrected initially.
Denis Gabriels, lead ombudsman for NFO's life insurance department, noted that this case highlighted the importance of consumers actively managing their insurance policies, rather than assuming that long-term payment practices accurately reflect contractual rights. Gabriels strongly urged consumers to take several practical steps before and after purchasing coverage:
Carefully read the policy wording, paying close attention to clauses regarding benefit increases, exclusions, and definitions. Ask questions about any contradictory wording, such as references to both fixed percentage increases and CPI-linked adjustments, before signing the policy. Obtain written confirmation of any promises regarding benefits or annual increases, instead of relying on verbal assurances or marketing materials. Seek advice from a broker, financial advisor, or lawyer if any aspect of the policy is unclear. Raise concerns with the insurer or NFO as soon as discrepancies arise, as disputes are generally easier to resolve before they become entrenched.
Gabriels emphasized that this dispute demonstrates that consumers cannot rely solely on past payment patterns as proof of their contractual rights. She added: 'Contracts can be complex; systems can fail, and the understanding of promises can change. What remains is the consumer's responsibility to stay informed, ask questions, and protect their own future. Income protection can still be a lifeline when work becomes impossible, but only if vigilance and clarity are woven into every stage of the journey.'
