Pakistan's Agricultural & Environmental Governance

You do not need technical data to recognize that Pakistan’s environmental stress is intensifying, you can see it, breathe it, and feel it in declining soil quality. Each winter, cities like Lahore are engulfed in smog, driven in part by widespread crop residue burning across Punjab. At the same time, agricultural land is steadily losing its vitality, becoming less productive and more dependent on chemical inputs. These are not isolated issues; they are symptoms of a deeper institutional disconnect.

Pakistan is not short of institutions. The Ministry of Climate Change, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, National Agricultural Research Centre, Environmental Protection Departments, and the Pakistan Climate Change Authority all operate with mandates that intersect climate, agriculture, and environmental protection. However, these entities largely function in silos, limiting their effectiveness at the farm level. The issue is not capacity, it is coordination.

A practical solution lies not in creating entirely new structures, but in reorganizing existing resources into integrated, district-level units: Agricultural Resource Conservation Departments (ARCDs). These units would serve as operational hubs, translating policy into practice and connecting scientific knowledge directly with farmers.

The urgency of such reform becomes clear when examining the key challenges. First, seasonal smog linked to crop burning has evolved into a recurring public health crisis, yet current regulatory bodies lack localized engagement with farmers. Second, soil degradation, driven by excessive chemical use and poor land management, has reduced fertility, increasing production costs and environmental damage. Third, climate change impacts such as floods and heatwaves are intensifying, while opportunities like carbon sequestration remain underutilized due to weak extension services.

Equally critical is the communication gap. Farmers, particularly smallholders, are disconnected from formal knowledge systems. Information flows through informal networks rather than institutional channels, reducing the adoption of sustainable practices. Finally, economic constraints dominate decision-making. Farmers often rely on harmful practices like residue burning because they are cost-effective in the short term, even if they generate long-term losses.

An integrated district-level approach would align environmental goals with economic incentives, ensuring that sustainability is not an abstract concept but a practical, profitable choice. Without such coordination, Pakistan risks continuing a cycle where policies exist on paper, but impacts remain invisible on the ground.

Bringing Solutions to the Farmer’s Doorstep

The strength of this proposal lies in its administrative realism. It does not call for new infrastructure or an expanded bureaucracy; instead, it restructures existing institutional capacity into a coherent, district-level delivery mechanism. By integrating operational wings of the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, National Agricultural Research Centre, and the Pakistan Climate Change Authority, Agricultural Resource Conservation Departments (ARCDs) would function as localized, multi-service platforms. For farmers, this translates into a “one stop shop” where advisory services, technical support, and regulatory guidance are accessible within their own district.

This institutional redesign directly addresses persistent inefficiencies in service delivery. Currently, farmers must navigate fragmented systems, travel long distances to access soil diagnostics, extension advice, or compliance information. ARCDs would consolidate these services, reduce transaction costs and improve uptake of sustainable practices.

In addressing crop residue burning, ARCDs would combine enforcement with viable alternatives. In coordination with Environmental Protection Departments, regulatory compliance would be strengthened but paired with practical solutions such as converting stubble into compost, mulch, or biochar. Access to machinery for in-situ residue management, facilitated through rental schemes or cooperatives, would further reduce reliance on burning. This dual approach aligns environmental objectives with farmer incentives, producing cleaner air and improved soil structure.

Soil health management would be significantly enhanced by decentralizing laboratory services currently concentrated within NARC. District-level soil testing would enable precise input use, reducing excessive fertilizer application and associated costs. In parallel, ARCDs would promote conservation agriculture techniques, including zero tillage, crop rotation, and cover cropping, thereby restoring soil fertility and resilience.

A critical innovation lies in integrating climate mitigation with farm economics. Through collaboration with the Pakistan Climate Change Authority, ARCDs could operationalize carbon sequestration initiatives. Farmers adopting practices such as agroforestry or reduced tillage would not only improve land productivity but could also access financial incentives through carbon markets or public subsidy schemes.

Equally important is the communication strategy. ARCDs would prioritize localized engagement, conducting training in regional languages, establishing demonstration plots, and upgrading the capacity of existing extension personnel. This ensures that knowledge transfer is practical, visible, and context specific.

Finally, ARCDs would serve as institutional bridges, linking federal policy frameworks with ground realities. By incorporating farmer representation into district advisory structures, they would enable feedback loops that refine policy design and implementation. In effect, ARCDs transform fragmented governance into an integrated, responsive system anchored at the farm level.

A Cost-Effective Reform with High Returns

One of the most compelling aspects of the Agricultural Resource Conservation Department (ARCD) model is its fiscal practicality. Rather than demanding new funding from an already constrained public budget, the proposal focuses on reallocating and pooling existing resources from institutions such as the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, National Agricultural Research Centre, and provincial Environmental Protection Departments. This approach minimizes financial strain while maximizing institutional efficiency.

At the district level, the estimated annual budget remains modest. Personnel costs, based on re-assigned staff rather than new hiring, are projected at approximately PKR 9.3 million. Operational expenses including laboratory services, mobility (vehicles), farmer training programs, and demonstration plots account for around PKR 20.3 million. An additional PKR 2 million is allocated for farmer incentives, encouraging the adoption of environmentally sustainable practices, while a contingency reserve of about PKR 1.86 million ensures responsiveness to unforeseen challenges.

In total, the annual cost per district is estimated at roughly PKR 24 million (around USD 86,000). When scaled nationally across approximately 150 districts, this investment remains relatively small compared to the economic damage caused by recurring smog episodes, declining agricultural productivity, and climate-related disruptions. In cost-benefit terms, ARCDs represent a high-impact, low-cost institutional reform with substantial long-term returns.

The Urgent Implementation Agenda

Turning the ARCD concept into reality does not require sweeping institutional upheaval; it requires targeted administrative action and political will. The first step is legislative clarity. A concise legal instrument should formally re-designate relevant operational wings of the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, National Agricultural Research Centre, and the Pakistan Climate Change Authority into district-level Agricultural Resource Conservation Departments. This legal backing would eliminate ambiguity and provide a mandate for integrated service delivery.

Second, human capital must be updated, not replaced. Existing officers already possess strong technical foundations, but they require short, intensive training in modern sustainable agriculture practices such as conservation tillage, residue management, and climate-smart farming. A structured two-week refresher program can rapidly align field staff with current scientific knowledge and policy priorities.

Third, institutional coordination must be formalized. Clear operational protocols should define the roles and interactions between the Ministry of Climate Change, provincial Environmental Protection Departments, and ARCDs. Without this, overlapping mandates could recreate the very fragmentation the reform seeks to resolve. A standardized framework for data sharing, enforcement support, and joint programming is essential.

Equally critical is participatory design. Policy effectiveness depends on local relevance, which can only be achieved by engaging farmers directly. Village councils and farmer groups should be consulted to ensure that services reflect actual constraints, whether financial, technical, or logistical.

If implemented effectively, the medium-term outcomes are transformative. Air quality improvements could significantly reduce seasonal smog, while soil restoration practices would enhance productivity and reduce input costs. Farmers would shift from being perceived as contributors to environmental degradation to active agents of climate mitigation through practices like carbon storage. The rural economy would benefit from higher yields, lower costs, and emerging income streams. The pathway forward is clear: integrate existing capacity, decentralize delivery, and act with urgency.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s environmental and agricultural challenges are no longer isolated technical issues; they are symptoms of a governance system that struggles to translate knowledge into action. The country does not lack institutions, expertise, or even financial resources. What it lacks is integration. By reorganizing existing capacities into district-level Agricultural Resource Conservation Departments, Pakistan has an opportunity to bridge the persistent gap between policy design and field-level implementation.

The strength of the ARCD model lies in its practicality. It aligns environmental sustainability with economic incentives, ensuring that farmers are not burdened by reform but benefit from it. Cleaner air, healthier soils, reduced input costs, and new income opportunities through climate-smart practices are not distant goals, they are achievable outcomes within a relatively short timeframe. More importantly, this approach restores the central role of farmers as partners in national development rather than passive recipients of policy.

The cost of inaction is already visible in worsening smog, declining soil productivity, and increasing rural vulnerability. Continuing along the current fragmented path will only deepen these challenges. In contrast, a coordinated, district-focused system offers a scalable and cost-effective alternative. The choice is clear: maintain institutional silos or build functional bridges. The future of Pakistan’s agriculture, and its environmental health, depends on making the right decision now.

Please note that the views expressed in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of any organization.

The writer is affiliated with the Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan and can be reached at rafi.qamar@uos.edu.pk

Related Stories