he Economic Survey 2025 revealed a decline of 13.49 percent in the crops sector. This includes a fall of 30.7 percent in cotton, 8.9 percent in wheat, 3.9 percent in sugarcane, 15.4 percent in maize and 1.4 percent in rice. The net growth in agriculture remained positive at 0.56 percent, thanks to 4.72 percent growth in livestock which is courtesy data collection (manufacturing) machinery. One wishes to have sustained growth in the livestock sector because that is default value addition and daily income for the farmer. Looking at the prices of milk, meat and eggs and the import of powder milk, these numbers make little sense. With livestock growth outpacing population growth, there should be some relief for the consumer in the market. The quality of dairy products for the common man also remains a challenge.

The dilemma of a cyclic growth pattern in agriculture is a familiar one. The governments have taken significant steps to improve agricultural productivity. This includes the federal government’s revamp of seed industry regulation through a newly established National Seed Development and Regulatory Authority and replacement of the Department of Plant Protection with a new entity, the National Agri-Trade and Food Safety Authority. The prime minister has initiated a capacity building programme for scientific manpower by sending one thousand young scientists to China. Expanding international cooperation and regional trade are positive signs. The SIFC has also launched numerous projects under the GPI which are likely to improve agricultural production and food security in the country.

Looking at federal budget figures, the proposed allocation for food security and agriculture are meager. Rs 4 billion has been allocated for 10 ongoing and five new schemes for agricultural improvement: Rs 500 million for olive cultivation; Rs 485.8 million for expanding irrigation systems in barani (rain-fed) areas; Rs 100 million for the National Oilseed Production Programme; Rs 200 million for a feasibility study on a proposed National Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Project; Rs 100 million to conduct a feasibility study for the establishment of a Model Agriculture Research Centre; Rs 45 million for a joint Pak-Korea project to produce certified seed for increasing yield and quality; Rs 360 million for a national programme to control livestock diseases; and Rs 300 million to set up three feed certification laboratories. These figures hardly reflect a serious attempt to bring about a change. Will these be sufficient to meet agricultural growth target of 4.5 percent against current year’s agriculture GDP growth of 0.56 percent?

Some positives include tax exemption on fertilisers and pesticides and Clean Financing Facility Programme through e-wallet system for small farmers for loans of up to Rs 100,000. The announcement to impose duty on imported cotton shall have a positive impact on the local cotton market. Exempting fertiliser and pesticides from GST is a positive step. The exemption could have been extended to the local cotton ginning to incentivise and improve the cotton marketing system. The government has also launched federal seed and biotechnology policies. One can recall similar policies being launched in the past with little or no impact, i.e. the Federal Water Policy, owing to lack of implementation. There is no relief in the import of farm machinery for much-needed farm mechanisation.

There are two bigger issues in agriculture: market failures and ineffective research. The federal budget seems irrelevant in addressing marketing and decline in research efficacies. Agriculture is a devolved subject. The operational and development budgets of provinces are more likely to reflect direct interventions. However, a policy direction at the federal level can influence the provincial initiatives. The root cause of negative growth can be traced back to the abrupt withdrawal of wheat procurement in the 2024 season. That led to a decline in the farmer’s investment in the following Kharif season, which cascaded into the next Rabi season.

One is not asking for the reversal of procurement policy but initiatives to catalyse the market growth and transparency. Electronic Warehouse Receipts are being discussed. This is a time-tested model that has certain prerequisites: investments in the storage infrastructure and alignment with the banking system. Also important is the fact that in a given small holders agro-economy, it is not going to be a directly accessible option for the ordinary farmer. Successful examples include organising farmers into marketing cooperatives. We have a historic but dormant system of cooperatives. This is an ideal time to integrate potential EWR with the revival of cooperatives. Again, a potential priority for the provincial governments. Marketing laws and consumer protection are provincial subjects too. The federal budget could have set the direction for improving the legal framework.

Another important incentiviseable option to improve markets is to consider food processing industries as SMEs. I am tempted to cite an example from the finance minister’s hometown, Kamalia. The town is known for its historic weaving industry and poultry. Lately, Kamalia has become a major producer of okra (bhindi toori). Fresh okra produce has been selling around Rs 1.00/ kg. The world over, okra is only sold as a frozen commodity at an average price of Rs 500/ kg with the prevention of post-harvest losses as an additional benefit.

Coming to research, the federal government has PARC, HEC and Ministry of Science and Technology with mandates to coordinate, finance and commercialise research. The federal budget is mute on the subject. The system is fraught with a huge horizontal growth in numerous silos. Budgetary allocation and oversight are needed to coordinate and integrate the system. This is a fit case for right-sizing by devolution and mergers under the 18th Amendment. The role of regulators in higher education is also under question. There are more than 40 institutions awarding degrees in agriculture and about 300 offering degrees in food and nutrition with hardly any oversight. As a result, human resource in the relevant subjects is substandard.

Water and climate are the direct determinants of agricultural productivity. The budget has treated these two areas as business as usual. There is an emphasis on water storage but little or no change in water application losses. I have been advocating conversion of flood irrigation of wheat and rice into bed/ furrow irrigation which can save up to 30MAF of water, twice as much as Mangla and Tarbela put together.

Rural development and agriculture are two sides of the same coin. The improvement in roads has made access to the markets better. The rural livelihood is declining fast leading to hopelessness, shutdowns and migration. School dropouts and out of school children rates remain high in rural areas. Malnutrition (stunting, wasting and anaemia) is largely prevalent in rural areas. School education and health facilities in rural areas deserve special attention to provide an educated and healthy workforce to the farming sector.

A strategic shift and prescription in the thought process is needed to guide budgetary allocation for the food and agriculture sector. The short-term measures should promote the investment capacity of the famer and access to a fair market. In the medium term, farm mechanisation should be a priority. In the long term, an effective research and technology application ought to be our target. The BISP budget for addressing poverty-related limitations could be partly diverted to improve rural livelihood by investing in agricultural productivity.

The writer is a former vice chancellor of the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.