The Financialization of Farmland in Pakistan: A Ticking Time Bomb or Pathway to Modernization?

Introduction

In June 2021, viral images showed hundreds of felled mango trees in Multan – chopped down overnight to clear land for a private housing scheme. Farmers who once tended these orchards could suddenly sell an acre of farmland for over Rs. 20 million, a sum unimaginable from cropping alone. Such land price spikes reflect a new reality in Pakistan’s countryside: agricultural land is now a hot commodity for investors. Elegantly branded “farmhouse” colonies sprout on city outskirts, catering to wealthy urbanites seeking luxury estates. Around Lahore, vast swathes of green fields have vanished under concrete – over 200 square kilometers of farmland and green space around Lahore have been swallowed by urban sprawl since the 1980s. In Lahore District alone, 70% of once-agricultural land has been converted into housing societies. These striking numbers illustrate the scale of what many call the financialization of farmland in Pakistan – a trend that some hail as a pathway to rural development and others decry as a ticking time bomb for small farmers and food security.

Financialization of farmland refers to treating agricultural land as a financial asset – a vehicle for investment, speculation, and wealth storage – rather than primarily as a productive resource for growing crops. In practice, this means farmland is increasingly bought and sold by wealthy individuals, developers, agribusiness firms, and funds purely for its exchange value and future price gains. Globally, large institutional investors and billionaires have poured money into farmland as a stable, inflation-proof asset. In Pakistan, the phenomenon is taking on its own shape: urban elites and overseas diaspora are acquiring plots in the countryside as a hedge against inflation and currency decline, property developers are amassing village land to expand their real estate empires, and even the government is soliciting foreign investors to bank on Pakistan’s “underutilized” acres. Farmland has become a store of value and status symbol, with returns so robust that between 1999 and 2020 real estate (including land) was the third-best performing asset class in Pakistan – behind only stocks and gold.

This dramatic infusion of capital might, on the surface, appear beneficial. Proponents argue that investor interest in farmland can bring much-needed modernization: infusion of capital for irrigation and machinery, consolidation of uneconomic small plots into efficient large farms, and introduction of high-value crops for export. Indeed, Pakistan’s government itself has embraced aspects of farmland financialization in the name of modernization – inviting Gulf nations to invest $6 billion in “corporate farming” to mechanize agriculture. They tout promises of modern technology, new jobs, and higher productivity to justify turning farms into financial assets.

Yet, as the opening anecdotes forewarn, there is a darker side to this trend. Treating farmland like gold or stock brings risks of speculative bubbles, displacement of smallholders, and erosion of the nation’s capacity to feed itself. When land’s price is driven not by its crop yields but by investor hype, a bubble burst could devastate rural economies. Thousands of small farmers are already being pressured to sell or evicted – as seen in Lahore’s Ravi Riverfront project where nearly 100,000 acres of prime farmland are being seized for a new city, threatening to uproot almost a million farming residents. Food security experts warn that converting fertile fields to housing or non-food cash crops is “a matter of food availability for coming generations”. The central tension is clear: Can Pakistan harness fresh capital and investment in agriculture without undermining its small farmers and long-term food security? Is this land rush a pathway to rural prosperity – or a ticking time bomb of inequity and food insecurity?

This policy commentary unpacks the emerging shadows and blind spots in Pakistan’s farmland financialization. We begin by mapping the new actors and mechanisms driving the rush for land, from billionaire developers to absentee landlords. Next, we analyze the drivers – macroeconomic pressures, lax policies, and global forces – that have turned land into a financial plaything. We then critically examine the purported benefits of big-money farmland investment, versus the very real risks and dangers it poses to smallholders, food security, social equity, and the environment. Crucially, we identify the policy blind spots – gaps in data, outdated laws, and perverse incentives – that have enabled this troubling trend to accelerate unchecked. Finally, the article offers a way forward with policy recommendations to defuse the time bomb: from strengthening land-use regulations and closing tax loopholes to empowering small farmers and initiating a national dialogue on land governance.

Pakistan stands at a crossroads. The choices policymakers make now will determine whether farmland financialization becomes a catalyst for modernization that uplifts rural communities – or a time bomb that entrenches inequality, undermines food sovereignty, and ignites social conflict. The following sections navigate this nuanced landscape, shining light on an issue that has lurked in policy blind spots for too long and charting a course to avert future risks.

Emerging Shadows

Financialization is reshaping who owns Pakistan’s land and how it is used, often in subtle but powerful ways. A new cast of actors – many with no traditional ties to farming – have entered the agrarian stage, casting long shadows over the rural landscape. These include wealthy urban investors, real estate developers, absentee landlords expanding their holdings, overseas Pakistanis (the diaspora) buying land as an investment, agribusiness corporations, and even investment funds sensing an opportunity. Their land acquisitions are concentrated in key geographic hotspots: peri-urban zones ringing major cities, the fertile belts of Punjab and Sindh, and along new infrastructure corridors where land values are expected to skyrocket.

One epicenter is the peri-urban fringe of cities like Lahore, Islamabad-Rawalpindi, Karachi, Multan, and Faisalabad. Here, agricultural fields are being snapped up en masse by developers and turned into housing estates, “farmhouse” colonies, and commercial projects. Drive beyond any city’s edge and you’ll see billboards advertising idyllic farm living and gated communities on what was recently cropland. Lahore’s outskirts, for example, are now an “endless expanse” of housing projects with names like ABC Gardens and XYZ Villas, often built with flagrant violations of land use laws. In Multan – a city world-famous for its mangoes – developers have reportedly acquired 12,000 acres of mango orchards to pave way for new residential societies. An eyewitness from a village near Multan notes “exponential growth” of housing schemes: “People are either selling their farmland to property developers or developing their own housing societies,” and an acre of land that yielded mangoes or wheat can now fetch over Rs. 20 million from developers. Facing such windfalls, many farmers feel it is futile to continue farming; as one farmer admitted, “Agriculture is not that profitable now,” compared to selling land and starting a business.

Alongside city sprawl, infrastructure corridors and new mega-projects have become magnets for speculative land acquisition. When a new highway, industrial zone or urban mega-project is announced, land buyers rush in. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and other infrastructure initiatives have triggered local land booms, as seen around new motorways and proposed special economic zones. A dramatic case is the Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project near Lahore. Touted as a “new Dubai,” this 100,000-acre planned city led to rampant land grabs – with reports of land mafias coercing villagers to sell and the government invoking emergency laws to acquire farmland at low rates. Of the 41,000 hectares targeted for Ravi City, 85% is prime agricultural land supporting nearly a million people – now at risk of eviction in the name of a futuristic enclave for elites. Such projects create a frenzy of speculative buying in surrounding areas too, as investors bet on future land price jumps.

The mechanisms employed by these new land investors often exploit legal loopholes and weak governance. Absentee ownership and landlordism are on the rise – many buyers have no intention to farm the land themselves. Instead, they hold it for capital gain or convert it to non-farm uses. In Punjab and Sindh, big landlords have long held vast estates; now even some of them pivot to treating land as “dormant” capital to be flipped when the price is right. A recent analysis noted that many feudal landowners hold land “almost exclusively with the intention of selling it off in the future for massive monetary gain”, rather than investing in its agricultural productivity. These absentee owners may leave land idle (fallow beyond normal periods) or lease it short-term to tenants without long-term commitments, knowing the real payday is when a developer or government project comes knocking. In turn, tenancy and smallholder security grows precarious – a tenant may be cultivating fields that could be sold off from under their feet at any moment.

Another mechanism is the proliferation of so-called “farmhouse” schemes. Under the guise of agricultural use, developers in Islamabad’s Zone IV and other areas carve up large tracts into 4 to 10 kanal “farmhouse” plots – ostensibly for gentleman farming, but in reality for luxury residential use. Because these retain an agricultural zoning on paper, they exploit loopholes to bypass strict urban planning rules. For example, the Gulberg Greens project near Islamabad spans 40,000 kanals (about 5,000 acres) of what used to be farmland, now converted into sprawling private estates under an agro-farm scheme. Dozens of such projects have emerged around major cities, allowing affluent buyers to own a country estate – and developers to market a rural idyll – while permanently removing that land from any food production. These schemes often get favorable tax treatment as “agricultural land” and slip past zoning restrictions, illustrating how regulatory grey areas are leveraged for profit.

Tracking the true scale of farmland financialization is difficult due to a data deficit. Land transaction records in Pakistan are notoriously opaque. Sales of agricultural land are recorded in provincial revenue registries, but there is little public data on how much farmland is changing hands, who is buying (local vs foreign, individual vs corporate), and for what intended purpose. There is no official definition or monitoring of “financialized” land. As a result, much of what we know comes from piecemeal evidence – scattered case studies, media reports, and anecdotal accounts. This data deficit is itself a policy blind spot: without clear data, farmland speculation remains an “invisible” issue in official statistics, even as villagers can see and feel its effects on the ground. The need for better tracking is clear. No comprehensive land use survey has been conducted in decades, and while efforts to digitize land records have begun, they have yet to yield the kind of actionable intelligence needed to govern these emerging trends. In short, Pakistan’s agrarian landscape is being rapidly transformed in the shadows, with policymakers and the public often reacting to problems only after they explode into crisis.

The trends outlined in this section – new non-farming actors buying up land, peri-urban farmland converted to estates, speculative spikes around infrastructure, absentee ownership and tenancy insecurity, and poor data – form the emerging shadows of farmland financialization. They raise urgent questions: What is driving this land rush, and why now? Who gains and who loses in this process? The next section dissects the underlying drivers that have set the stage for treating farmland as a financial asset, from economic instability to policy loopholes and global market forces.

Emerging Shadows: How financialization is reshaping Pakistan's farmland ownership and use

Pakistan's farmland is being transformed by new non-farming actors operating in the shadows of weak governance.

Drivers of Financialization

Multiple forces – economic, policy-induced, and global – are converging to financialize Pakistan’s farmland. At the macroeconomic level, unstable financial conditions and inflation have made land an attractive shelter for wealth. Over the past few years, Pakistan has seen double-digit inflation and a steep depreciation of the rupee. In such an environment, tangible assets like land become a preferred hedge. Farmers and non-farm investors alike observe that land prices generally keep up with or exceed inflation, whereas bank savings and even stock investments can lose value in real terms. During 2022–2023, as the rupee plunged and inflation crossed 20%, moneyed individuals rushed to park funds in property – including agricultural plots – viewing it as “safe as land.” Land’s appeal as an inflation hedge is deeply rooted in local experience; real estate booms have repeatedly coincided with times of economic uncertainty. Moreover, Pakistan’s capital markets offer few reliable investment outlets – the stock market is volatile and prone to crashes, and there are limited sophisticated instruments for the average investor. This market volatility pushes investors toward land, which is perceived as a stable, if illiquid, asset. The result is excess capital chasing farmland, especially by those with better access to finance (such as urban elites or large landowners with credit lines), outbidding those who might actually farm it.

A stark capital access disparity reinforces this trend. Wealthy investors can leverage bank loans or other financing to acquire land, or simply have surplus cash from other businesses, whereas small farmers typically cannot borrow easily against their land or afford to buy additional acreage. When a smallholder faces a bad harvest or medical emergency, they might have to sell land; the buyer is often a cash-rich investor. Over time, this dynamic concentrates land in the hands of those treating it as a financial asset. In rural Punjab and Sindh, large landlords – the top 5% – already control about 64% of all farmland. Now, layering urban capital on top of this has led to even more consolidation: wealthy outsiders buying from marginal farmers who are pressured to sell. This macroeconomic context of high inflation, currency instability, and unequal access to capital is a powerful driver turning land into a financial instrument.

Equally important are policy and legal enablers – or more bluntly, policy failures – that have greased the wheels of farmland financialization. One major factor is weak land use planning and zoning enforcement. While regulations exist on paper to protect agricultural land (for instance, many districts have zoning laws that restrict non-agricultural use of prime farmland), in practice these are poorly enforced or easily circumvented. Local authorities, often swayed by influential developers or local power-brokers, have routinely allowed rezoning or simply turned a blind eye to illegal conversions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan only recently took notice, expressing shock at the “flagrant violations” of law in how agricultural land was converted for a housing scheme in Rawalpindi decades ago. The case led the Court to frame new questions about conditions for using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. That such fundamental questions are being asked only now underscores how ad hoc and permissive land governance has been. Essentially, Pakistan’s land use governance is outdated – still running on mid-20th-century frameworks in a 21st-century land rush. Real estate interests exploit this, obtaining quick approvals for housing colonies on farmland or simply proceeding illegally until courts intervene.

Compounding this is the issue of land records and titling. Pakistan’s land administration system has historically been antiquated, with paper-based records (the patwari system) that are fragmented and sometimes corrupt. While Punjab and other provinces have made progress in digitizing records in recent years, land ownership verification remains cumbersome. This opaqueness allows influential actors to grab land through forged records or coercion, knowing that poor farmers lack the legal acumen to defend their titles. It also means large acquisitions by companies or foreign entities can occur under the radar. For example, when provincial governments surveyed “available” land to lease to foreign investors in 2009, much of it was communal or government land that local farmers were using, but because records listed it as state property, it could be allocated away without those farmers’ consent. Weak record transparency enables quiet transfers that consolidate land ownership in fewer hands.

Another critical policy driver is Pakistan’s favorable tax treatment of agricultural land and real estate. Agricultural income in Pakistan is effectively tax-exempt at the federal level (provincial agri taxes exist on paper but collect very little). This creates a tax arbitrage: wealthy individuals can channel investments into farmland and claim any profits as “agricultural income” to avoid income tax. Similarly, capital gains from selling land often go under-taxed due to outdated property valuation tables used for tax calculation. The official “DC rate” of land is set far below market value, allowing sellers to pay minimal capital gains or stamp duties on officially recorded prices that may be only a fraction of the true price. Speculators benefit immensely from this loophole – they can buy land, hold it as it appreciates, sell after a few years, and declare only a token gain for taxation. One policy analysis suggests imposing progressive land value taxes or higher capital gains tax on short-term flips to disincentivize speculative holding. As of now, however, the tax structure practically rewards keeping land idle as an investment. There is also no significant holding cost to owning land – property taxes on rural land are negligible. A large absentee landlord can own thousands of acres and pay very little annually to keep it, which encourages “land banking” (holding for future sale) rather than productive use. In short, the tax regime and oversight gaps amount to a de facto subsidy for land speculation.

Large-scale infrastructure and development initiatives have had unintended speculative effects as well. Whenever the government announces a new highway, metro line, or special economic zone, land prices in those areas often surge in anticipation. Insiders with early knowledge – sometimes officials or connected businessmen – acquire land cheaply before the announcement and then profit handsomely. This phenomenon has been observed along the routes of new motorways and around planned CPEC industrial zones. It not only redistributes wealth to insiders but also conditions people to view land as a get-rich-quick scheme. The expectation of infrastructure-led appreciation fuels more people to buy and hold land purely for speculative gain, creating self-fulfilling cycles. For example, the mere rumor of a new airport or ring road can send nearby agricultural plot prices doubling, even if the project is years away. Such speculative fervor can detach land values from agricultural fundamentals, laying the groundwork for bubbles.

Finally, Pakistan’s experience is tied to global influences and trends. The 2008 global food crisis and subsequent “global land rush” set the stage for seeing farmland as a strategic asset. Food-importing countries (notably in the Gulf) and international agribusinesses started securing land abroad for food production. Pakistan, with its irrigated plains, became a target in that period. In 2009, the government rolled out an Agricultural Investment Policy offering foreign investors generous incentives – tax holidays, duty-free import of farm machinery, and long leases on land. The rationale was that Pakistan lacked capital to modernize farming, and Gulf countries or multinationals could provide it. While political backlash stalled some of these deals, the door was opened. Today, under a new push, Pakistan is seeking investments from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and others to cultivate millions of acres via corporate farming. This aligns with a global trend of viewing farmland as part of international investment portfolios – a trend that academic observers dub the financialization of land. As one commentary noted, “food-insecure governments and private investors, hungering for profits, are snatching up vast areas of farmland abroad…fertile land is becoming increasingly privatized and concentrated”, and if left unchecked, this could “spell the end of small-scale farming”. Pakistani elites are not immune to this global narrative – many see land as the new oil or gold, an asset class to trade in a global market for food and commodities.

Another global factor is the idea of corporate farming as a panacea. International development institutions and agri-business models have often promoted large-scale, mechanized farming as more efficient. This has influenced local policymakers to favor agribusiness ventures and ease corporate entry into agriculture. For instance, provincial governments in Pakistan have experimented with corporate farming zones (like a special scheme in Cholistan desert). The promise of “economies of scale” and “modern farming techniques” provides a pro-investor narrative that downplays the social costs. Global capital, including diaspora investors, also flows more readily into sectors seen as modern – hence an agritech company or a corporate farm venture can attract funding, whereas lending to small farmers remains scant. In essence, global market logic and narratives valorize the commodification of land and seep into domestic policy thinking.

In summary, Pakistan’s farmland financialization is propelled by a potent mix of macroeconomic stress (inflation and unstable markets driving investors to land), policy gaps (weak zoning, poor land records, tax loopholes), and global currents (foreign investment drives and the view of land as an asset for food security and profit). These drivers set the stage for the profound changes in land ownership and use we are witnessing. The next section will consider arguments from those who claim this influx of capital and new ownership patterns could bring benefits – essentially asking, can the financialization of farmland be a pathway to modernization for Pakistan’s agriculture?

Pakistan's farmland market has attracted diverse new actors beyond traditional farmers, each with distinct motivations and geographic preferences. Urban elites seek inflation hedges through peri-urban "investment farmhouses," while real estate developers target land conversion opportunities along infrastructure corridors. Corporate entities, including those linked to the Green Pakistan Initiative, focus on large-scale commercial farming in fertile belts, as investment funds pool capital for agricultural commodities. Meanwhile, the Pakistani diaspora channels remittances into farmland as both secure investment and emotional connection to ancestral lands.

Potential Benefits Claimed

Advocates of bringing big capital into farmland often paint an optimistic picture of modernization and growth. They argue that Pakistan’s traditional agriculture – dominated by smallholders with low productivity – can be transformed through the injection of money, technology, and economies of scale that financially driven investors purportedly bring. It is important to scrutinize these claimed benefits, as they form the rationale behind many pro-investment policies.

One commonly cited benefit is the introduction of modern technology and farming techniques. Wealthy investors or agribusiness firms have the capital to invest in advanced irrigation (like drip systems), high-yield seed varieties, fertilizers, and mechanization such as tractors and combine harvesters. For example, the government’s push for Gulf-funded corporate farming explicitly aims to “mechanize” millions of acres and bring in state-of-the-art machinery. Proponents argue that small farmers cannot afford these improvements, but larger consolidated farms or corporate ventures can, thus boosting per-acre yields. Along with technology, better infrastructure and storage are expected – investors might build silos, cold chains, or farm-to-market roads that benefit the sector. In theory, this could address some chronic issues like post-harvest losses and low productivity in Pakistan (which significantly trails global averages for major crops).

A related argument is that larger-scale operations enable economies of scale. When land is consolidated into bigger holdings under professional management, the cost per unit of output can drop. Tasks like land preparation, planting, and harvesting can be done more efficiently in bulk. Larger farms might also implement crop rotation and precision agriculture that are harder on fragmented small plots. The end result claimed is a more efficient agricultural sector that can produce more with less. Pakistan’s government officials have echoed this, noting that lack of capital and fragmentation keep yields low, and that corporate investment can overcome these hurdles. For instance, an Investment Ministry official in 2009 justified inviting foreign agribusiness by saying “low productivity due to lack of capital” makes outside investment necessary and that it would bring “technology transfer to poor farmers”. If done properly, supporters say, smallholders could learn from modern farms or even be employed by them, thus disseminating knowledge.

Another touted benefit is improved market access and commercialization of agriculture. Financial investors are often well-connected to markets – domestic urban markets and export channels. They may introduce new cash crops or high-value crops (such as fruits for export, organic products, or crops for agro-industry) and have the means to process or export them. For example, if a food company leases land to grow a certain variety of potatoes for chips, it connects local agriculture to a larger value chain. Similarly, diaspora or foreign investors might grow for export to their home markets, potentially earning Pakistan much-needed foreign exchange. In the SIFC (Special Investment Facilitation Council) model, 40% of crops from corporate farms are intended for export (mainly to Gulf countries), while 60% would contribute to domestic food security. The promised benefit here is that Pakistan’s agriculture would become more commercially oriented and globally integrated, moving away from subsistence patterns. Additionally, formal investment could mean more value addition (like food processing units) being set up in rural areas, boosting agro-based industry.

Proponents also claim socio-economic benefits such as job creation and rural development. Large agribusiness projects, they argue, will create formal employment opportunities for rural laborers – as farm workers, technicians, drivers, factory workers in food processing, etc. Whereas small farms rely on unpaid family labor and offer insecure seasonal jobs, a corporate farm might offer steady wages, training, and even benefits to its employees. The influx of capital can stimulate the rural economy: new businesses can arise to service big farms (repair workshops, input suppliers), and workers with wages have more spending power. This is often presented as part of rural diversification – moving rural areas beyond pure farming to a mix of agriculture and agro-services. For example, if an investor starts a dairy farm with hundreds of cows, it could lead to jobs from herders to vets to milk plant staff, and supporting services like feed supply. Government narratives around foreign investment deals highlighted the potential for “thousands of jobs” and development of rural infrastructure as a positive outcome.

Some also argue that financialization can lead to more innovation and modernization of farming culture. With new players in the sector, traditional practices might give way to entrepreneurial approaches. Concepts like farm branding, agritourism (e.g., turning historical farms into tourist sites or homestays), organic farming for upscale markets, or biofuel crops could get a boost when land is seen as an asset that must generate returns. The competitive pressure of investors expecting profits might spur innovation that a status quo of small subsistence farms would not. For instance, an investment fund might experiment with satellite monitoring of crops or new biotech seeds on its farmland to maximize returns, indirectly pushing the technological frontier in Pakistan’s farming.

It is crucial, however, to critically assess these purported benefits and ask “beneficial for whom?” and under what conditions. Many benefits will not materialize automatically or equitably. Without careful policy and regulation, large investors could simply extract profits without actually improving productivity or livelihoods broadly. For example, bringing in big machinery can raise yields, but if it displaces a lot of farm labor without other jobs, rural employment could suffer. Likewise, technology transfer to small farmers is not a given – it requires deliberate inclusion and training, which many corporate projects might not prioritize unless required.

Another caveat is that economies of scale in farming have limits and context matters. Pakistan’s best yields historically have often come from progressive medium farmers, not necessarily the largest estates. There is a risk that a focus on scale overlooks improving productivity on existing small farms via support and cooperative models. Moreover, some forms of capital-intensive farming can degrade the land (through excessive chemical use or monocropping), undermining long-term productivity – an externality often ignored when touting short-term gains.

The benefits of market access and exports similarly need scrutiny. Yes, investors can orient production to lucrative markets, but if that means shifting land away from staple foods to export crops, domestic food availability can suffer. Earning foreign exchange is beneficial at a macro level, yet Pakistan learned with cash crops like cotton and sugarcane that export-oriented agriculture can lead to boom-bust cycles and local shortages. The claim of job creation is also double-edged: will new jobs compensate for livelihoods lost? If one large farm displaces 100 small farms, it might employ fewer people in total, even if some get formal jobs. And those jobs might be lower-paying or more exploitative if labor protections are weak.

Crucially, without regulation, benefits may accrue mostly to the investors and not the public. Modern technology might raise output, but profits can be repatriated abroad or concentrated with corporate owners. Land value appreciation certainly benefits whoever owns the land at the time – which in a financialized scenario is likely an investor or developer, not the original tiller of the soil.

In essence, the claimed benefits of financializing farmland – modernization, capital influx, efficiency, jobs – could theoretically be real, but only if structured properly. They largely assume a best-case scenario of enlightened investors working in harmony with policy goals. To truly realize broad-based benefits, strong governance is needed to channel investments in productive ways and ensure inclusion of smallholders as partners, not victims. The next section turns to the other side of the equation: the risks and dangers that unfettered financialization of farmland is already posing in Pakistan. These illustrate why many are alarmed that the supposed pathway to modernization could in fact be a path to greater precarity and inequity if left unchecked.

Risks and Dangers

If the preceding benefits are the sunny side of farmland financialization, this section examines the storm clouds gathering on the horizon. Evidence from Pakistan’s experience so far (and analogous cases worldwide) reveals serious risks and dangers inherent in treating farmland as a financial asset. These range from the immediate plight of small farmers losing their land, to broader threats to food security, social stability, and the environment.

Impacts on smallholders and peasants. The most direct victims of the land rush are Pakistan’s small farmers, tenants, and landless rural workers. When wealthy investors target land, smallholders often end up dispossessed – through pressured sales, legal maneuvering, or outright evictions. For instance, in the Ravi Riverfront project, tens of thousands of farmers who had tilled that land for generations face displacement, with the government using eminent domain laws to acquire their farms for private developers. Many claim they are not even being paid market value for their land, effectively being forced out of their livelihoods at a pittance. Even outside such state-led projects, countless small farmers are “being cheated into selling their lands, often forcefully, to housing society developers,” as one investigative report noted. Local strongmen and “land mafias” have been known to threaten or cajole villagers to give up land cheaply, then flip it to developers or industrialists for huge profits. The power imbalance is stark – poor farmers lack the legal knowledge and political clout to resist, especially in the absence of strong legal aid or government protection.

Even when sales are nominally voluntary, the soaring land prices create a form of price inaccessibility. Young or landless farmers who might want to buy land to start farming cannot afford it when speculators have driven prices sky-high. A Reddit discussion tellingly titled “Selling 250 mil PKR worth of agricultural land” had one user warning that selling farmland is “the one mistake everyone regrets,” because once gone, land is impossible to buy back. Indeed, if a small farmer sells out for a quick windfall, they often cannot re-enter farming elsewhere because all land around is expensive. The proceeds may sustain them for a short while, but as one Pakistani saying goes, “once the money from selling land is spent, you are left with nothing.” Thus, financialization can eradicate smallholders as a class – either they become landless laborers or migrate to cities. Pakistan’s agrarian history already has a bitter lesson from past land concentration, where tenancy and landlessness led to rural poverty. Now, land concentration is happening in a new form, potentially undoing even the limited gains of land reforms and small farmer support over decades.

For tenant farmers, insecurity is acute. Many Pakistanis farm on land they do not own – sharecroppers in Sindh and Punjab, for example, who give a portion of harvest to landlords. When those landlords decide to sell to an investor or developer, tenants have no formal rights to stay. In one study of a Sindh region, 83% of farmers believed land-use change and abandonment was forcing tenant families to be displaced. We are already seeing instances of tenant evictions; human rights bodies have raised alarm about powerful interests evicting poor Christian tenant farmers in Punjab, with authorities turning a blind eye. With financialization, a landlord’s incentive to keep tenants (to earn crop share) diminishes if the land’s value for sale or non-farm use is higher. Tenants thus live under the constant threat of eviction, often without any compensation or alternative livelihood.

Threats to food security and sovereignty. Pakistan is already confronting food security challenges – it ranks 92nd of 116 on the Global Hunger Index, with periodic shortages of wheat and other staples. The financialization of farmland exacerbates these concerns on multiple fronts. First, when prime agricultural land is converted to non-agricultural uses (housing, roads, industry), it directly reduces the area available for food production. Punjab’s government admitted that 20-30% of fertile land in the province has been lost to housing schemes, and a staggering 70% of Lahore’s farmland is gone to gated societies. Sindh’s officials likewise warn that fast conversion of farmland near cities is “posing a serious threat to food security in the country.” As farmland shrinks, Pakistan will struggle to feed a population projected to reach 366 million by 2050. The Tribune editorial board put it bluntly: Pakistan must choose between “the greed of profit” through land commercialization and the imperative to “secure its food supply for future generations”.

Even land that remains in agriculture can shift away from food crops under profit-driven ownership. Investors often prefer cash crops or biofuel crops that fetch higher market prices or export value, rather than staples like wheat, pulses, or millets that are critical for local diets but may be less profitable. There have been instances of landlords leaving land idle (“land banking”) if crop returns are poor, waiting to sell when prices rise. Every acre left uncultivated or used for non-food production is a lost opportunity to grow food for Pakistanis. If large agribusiness farms focus on export-oriented horticulture or contracting to multinational food chains, local food availability can diminish. In a corporate farming scenario envisaged by SIFC, 40% of output is earmarked for export – which could help the balance of payments but means less produce in domestic markets, unless total output expands dramatically to offset it.

Ownership concentration also raises the risk of monopoly control over food production. If a few big entities control grain production, they might influence prices or distribution, undermining the food sovereignty of communities. During crises, relying on a few large producers (who might choose to export or hoard) is riskier than having many dispersed small producers who sell locally. Moreover, foreign or corporate ownership of land can mean decisions about crop use are made in boardrooms far from the fields, potentially prioritizing shareholders or foreign food needs over local needs. The scenario of Gulf countries farming Pakistan’s land to ship food home is a case in point – it could mean Pakistan’s water and land are producing grain that doesn’t feed Pakistanis, even as we import expensive wheat in a bad year.

Social and economic inequality. The land rush threatens to widen rural inequalities and provoke social unrest. Land in Pakistan is not just an economic resource; it is deeply tied to social status, power, and community structure. The further concentration of land ownership in a few hands – whether local elites, corporations, or foreigners – intensifies the classic divide between “haves and have-nots.” As one commentary noted, 5% of landowners already hold most of the farmland; financialization could empower this 5% (and new investor entrants) to grab even more, while small farmers (65% of farmers who currently share just 15% of land) are pushed out. The result is likely a rise in rural poverty and migration. Displaced farmers typically swell the ranks of the urban poor, often ending up in city slums or menial jobs. This rural depopulation can hollow out villages and disrupt rural communities’ social fabric. We have already seen protests and resistance: from the tenants’ movement in Punjab’s military farms fighting eviction, to the Ravi project farmers taking to the streets and courts. If land dispossession accelerates, Pakistan could face more agrarian unrest – something with a long history in South Asia (even contributing to insurgencies when grievances fester).

There are also gendered impacts. In Pakistani agriculture, women play a vital role (tending livestock, post-harvest processing, kitchen gardening), but they rarely hold land titles. As land becomes financialized, male landowners may sell off land and take the money – often without consulting the women of the household who depended on that land for subsistence activities. Land sales can thus strip women of economic security (e.g. loss of a kitchen garden or a goat-grazing patch means loss of food and income under their control). If families migrate after losing land, women may face additional hardships adjusting to urban life or informal work. Moreover, any formal jobs created by corporate farming might marginalize women if those jobs favor male labor. Without targeted measures, the benefits of land investments are unlikely to reach rural women, while the disruptions – loss of common resources, fuelwood, water access if land use changes – will certainly affect them.

Environmental degradation. Financialized farming can pose environmental risks in multiple ways. Large-scale commercial farming often emphasizes monoculture – planting a single crop over extensive areas to maximize efficiency. This can reduce biodiversity and make crops more vulnerable to pests (potentially leading to heavier pesticide use). Traditional diversified small farming systems that maintained a variety of crops and ecological balance may give way to monocultures of sugarcane, cotton, or export vegetables under corporate influence. Intensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides by profit-oriented farms can deplete soil health and pollute water bodies. Already, Pakistan struggles with soil fertility issues and groundwater depletion; these could worsen if new investors prioritize short-term yields over sustainability. For example, if a private fund leases land for 10 years, it might push the land to its limits (excessive water pumping, high chemical inputs) to maximize return, and leave behind degraded land once the lease is over – a form of resource extraction mentality.

Converting farmland to non-agricultural uses also has environmental costs. Replacing fields and orchards with concrete housing eliminates green cover, contributing to heat island effects and reducing natural rainwater absorption (which can worsen urban flooding). The felling of thousands of mango trees in Multan for a housing scheme was not only a food and livelihood loss, but also an environmental one – mature trees that sequestered carbon and moderated the local climate were lost. Pakistan has seen how unplanned urban sprawl exacerbates climate vulnerabilities: the 2022 floods’ damage was linked partly to habitat loss and poor land management. If 12,000 acres of orchards become a suburb, that’s 12,000 acres less absorbing carbon or managing groundwater recharge.

Another risk is that the “get-rich-quick” ethos of land speculation might undermine sustainable practices. For instance, investors might over-plow or not allow land to lie fallow adequately because they treat it like a factory rather than an ecosystem. If land is just a financial asset, the incentive is to maximize its monetary return, potentially at the cost of long-term viability. This could lead to overuse of water (a grave concern in Pakistan’s already water-stressed environment), or turning every inch into revenue-generating space (leaving no buffer zones for wildlife or drainage).

In sum, the unchecked financialization of farmland in Pakistan is fraught with dangers: small farmers losing land and livelihoods, greater hunger and reliance on food imports, heightened inequality and social conflict, and environmental degradation that could compromise the very productivity that investors seek. These risks underscore why many observers call this trend a potential time bomb. If it explodes – through a combination of rural discontent, food crisis, or ecological collapse – the repercussions would be felt for generations.

Why have policymakers not acted decisively to address these issues? A big part of the answer lies in the policy blind spots that have allowed financialization to progress with few checks. The next section will delve into those blind spots – the gaps and oversights in Pakistan’s policy framework that have inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) enabled the alarming trends discussed above.

Policy Blind Spots

Despite the clear risks emanating from the financialization of farmland, Pakistan’s policy and institutional framework has been slow to respond. This inertia is due to several blind spots and gaps – areas where existing policies are either lacking, outdated, or undermined by vested interests. Identifying these blind spots is the first step to formulating an effective response.

Lack of clear definitions and data: One fundamental gap is that Pakistan currently lacks a clear definition (and acknowledgment) of the problem itself. Nowhere in Pakistan’s agricultural, land, or investment policies will you find the term “financialization of farmland.” There is no official classification that distinguishes productive agricultural land ownership from purely speculative or non-productive holding. As a result, data on how much land is being held as an investment vs actively farmed is almost non-existent. Government statistics track aggregate agricultural land area and maybe number of farms by size (from agricultural censuses), but they do not capture recent dynamic changes – for instance, how many acres have transitioned from smallholder use to investor ownership in the past decade, or how much farmland has been converted to housing. The absence of this data is a blind spot; it makes the issue invisible in national accounts. What isn’t measured isn’t managed. Policymakers are essentially flying blind – relying on occasional court cases or media reports to flag problems, rather than systematic monitoring. Without a defined term, even acknowledging “financialized farmland” as a category of land use change is difficult. This conceptual gap leads to poor tracking of land transactions. As mentioned, land registries are fragmented provincially and not geared toward analyzing trends like corporate or foreign ownership of land. For example, if an overseas Pakistani buys 50 acres outside Islamabad to hold for price appreciation, it’s recorded as just another sale in the registry; no one compiles such cases to see the big picture. A national land database that layers ownership data with land use is urgently needed but currently lacking.
Outdated land governance laws: Many laws governing land in Pakistan date back decades (some even to colonial times, like the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, amended but fundamentally old). These laws were not designed with modern speculative markets in mind. For instance, zoning regulations under the Islamabad Capital Territory Zoning Regulation (1992) did not foresee the explosion of “agro-farm” housing schemes; when amended in 2010, it legitimized farmhouses in certain zones but with weak oversight. The Punjab Land Use Rules and similar provincial laws exist, but enforcement is patchy, and penalties for illegal conversion are mild. There’s also a plethora of institutions – development authorities (like CDA, LDA), revenue departments, local governments – whose coordination is weak. An institutional fragmentation means no single body takes responsibility for protecting agricultural land. The Lahore Development Authority may approve housing colonies, while the Agriculture Department laments loss of farmland, and the two operate in silos. Land use planning is not integrated. Master plans for cities (where they exist) often get overridden by powerful interests. The Supreme Court’s recent intervention suggests that even basic questions (under what conditions can agri land be used for non-agri projects) were not clearly settled in policy. That’s a huge blind spot – essentially a gray area that developers exploited. Additionally, land reform has been off the policy table for decades (since the last aborted attempt in the 1970s). No caps on land ownership, no serious effort at consolidation or preventing fragmentation have been pursued recently, leaving a policy void where speculation thrives.
Ineffective enforcement and corruption: Even when policies exist (like declaring certain peri-urban areas as protected agricultural zones, or requiring approvals for converting land), enforcement is notoriously weak. Regulatory capture by land developers – often termed the “land mafia” – is a persistent problem. Powerful developers often have political patronage; in many cases, politicians themselves or their families are involved in real estate. This vested interest leads to blind eyes being turned. Illegal housing schemes mushroom (there are hundreds of illegal housing societies in Punjab and other provinces), indicating rules were flouted until after the fact. By the time action is attempted, the land is already converted and sold to thousands of people, making reversals politically difficult. The lack of accountability emboldens speculators – for decades it was a “free for all” with “very little regulation”. Only now, with some high-profile court cases, is a reckoning starting. But until systemic corruption and laxity are addressed, policies on paper will not translate to ground reality. Local revenue officers (patwaris) have been known to manipulate records for a bribe, helping land grabbers legitimize their take. Police and district officials often side with the influential in land disputes. This environment effectively encourages exploitation of every loophole and grey area in land use.
Taxation loopholes and incentives for speculation: As discussed in drivers, the tax policy is a major blind spot enabling financialization. Agricultural land is seen by policymakers mostly through the lens of farmer welfare (hence they avoid taxing it to not burden farmers), but they fail to differentiate between a poor farmer and a tycoon parking wealth in farmland. So the blanket exemption or low taxation becomes a loophole. Similarly, undervaluation of property for tax purposes is an open secret but politically sensitive to fix – raising valuations would increase tax revenue and deter speculation but would anger the real estate lobby. Efforts to reform this (like bringing property values closer to market for tax calculations) have been tentative. No significant capital gains tax on land speculation has been instituted beyond some measures on short-term resales (even those are often avoided by holding land slightly longer or using proxies). Another blind spot is the lack of a policy to tax unproductive land holdings. Some countries impose a tax or penalty on agricultural land that is kept uncultivated without good reason, to discourage holding land idle. Pakistan thus far has not done this, meaning a person can hold thousands of fallow acres cheaply. The absence of such policies is effectively a policy choice favoring speculators. Additionally, incentives meant for genuine farmers (subsidized loans, lower water rates) can be co-opted by big non-farm owners, since there’s poor targeting. All this points to a blind spot where the fiscal system has not caught up to differentiate investor behavior from farming needs.
Fragmented institutional responsibility and vested interests: Who “owns” the issue of farmland protection? At present, no single ministry or agency is championing this. The Ministry of National Food Security & Research focuses on yields and production, not land ownership dynamics. Provincial agriculture departments might be concerned but have little power over land developers or revenue officials. Land revenue departments see their job as facilitating transactions (and collecting fees), not regulating who should buy. Urban development authorities aim to expand cities (often seeing farmland as land banks for expansion). This fragmentation means no coordinated strategy. Meanwhile, many decision-makers themselves have skin in the game: a significant number of politicians are large landowners or involved in real estate. This vested interest creates a policy blindness by design – reforms that could reduce speculative gains (like taxing land or strengthening tenant rights) are politically blocked. There’s an implicit policy bias favoring landowners. For example, the failure to update the Land Reforms (due to a court judgment in 1970s and lack of political will) left Pakistan with one of the most unequal land distributions, which now serves as fertile ground for financialization. These power structures are a deep blind spot; policies that challenge them face resistance.
Absence of social and environmental safeguards: When encouraging investment in agriculture (e.g., inviting foreign investors or local corporate farming), the government has not put in robust safeguards for local communities or the environment. The 2009 foreign investment policy, for instance, was criticized as “arbitrary, anti-poor” and transferring resources away from local communities. It offered land on long leases without solid protections for existing users or requirements for environmental care. Even now, as the SIFC invites billions in Gulf money, there is little public discussion of how to ensure that smallholders are partners rather than displaced. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for large land conversions (like housing projects or new farms) are often perfunctory or bypassed. This lack of integration of social-environmental criteria is a blind spot – treating land deals as purely economic transactions ignores their multifaceted impact.
Lack of public awareness and debate: Finally, a softer blind spot is that until recently, the financialization of farmland has not been part of mainstream discourse. People see symptoms – high land prices, more housing societies – but the pattern as a whole is not widely debated. Media coverage tends to focus on specific scandals (a particular housing scheme scam, or a protest in one area). There’s a need for framing this as a national issue of food security and rural justice. That framing is only just emerging through civil society and some journalism. Without public pressure, policymakers are not forced out of their inertia or complicity. So the blind spot extends to the political agenda – issues like land reform or anti-speculation measures find little mention in manifestos or parliamentary debates nowadays.

These blind spots together mean Pakistan’s policy apparatus is not adequately responding to the rapid changes on the ground. However, recognizing them also illuminates where interventions are needed. In the next section, we turn to concrete policy recommendations to address these gaps and steer Pakistan away from the brink – defusing the time bomb and hopefully channeling investment in a way that truly modernizes and benefits all, rather than a few.

Policy Recommendations

Confronting the financialization of farmland in Pakistan requires a multifaceted policy response. The goal of the following recommendations is to protect Pakistan’s small farmers and food security while managing investment in a way that, if possible, harnesses positive aspects of modernization without the destructive side effects. These recommendations address the blind spots identified and propose a framework for sustainable land governance.

Establish clear definitions, data collection, and transparency: The government should start by defining and monitoring farmland financialization as a phenomenon. This means creating a category in land records for large-scale or non-traditional ownership of agricultural land (for example, any purchase above a certain size by a non-farming entity could be flagged). A nationwide survey should document recent land ownership changes – possibly via a “Land Observatory” that tracks who is buying land and for what use. Harnessing technology like GIS mapping can help identify where agricultural land is being converted or left idle. Public registries should be made transparent; for instance, provinces could publish data on total agricultural land sold each year, average prices, and how much is converted to other uses. Open data will enable researchers and civil society to sound alarms early. Essentially, shine a light on the land market: as one step, require that any corporation or foreign entity acquiring land above a certain threshold register the transaction with a central authority that reports it. Improving data is the foundation – as the adage goes, “what gets measured gets managed.”
Strengthen land use planning and enforcement: Pakistan needs to fortify its zoning laws and actually enforce them. This begins with delineating protected agricultural zones around major cities and in key fertile districts, where non-agricultural use is either prohibited or strictly limited. For example, Punjab could declare that in its top rice-, wheat-, and cotton-producing tehsils, conversion of prime farmland to housing or industry will not be permitted, except in exceptional cases approved by a high authority. Any necessary conversions should trigger a rigorous approval process (with input from agricultural departments and local communities) and require “land use change” permits. The Supreme Court’s framing of criteria should be translated into clear rules – such as proving that no alternative non-farmland is available for a project, or that the project serves a critical public need – before agri land is repurposed. Moreover, empower local governments to enforce master plans and penalize illegal housing schemes. One approach could be to revive and strengthen Agricultural Land Tribunals or empower environmental tribunals to hear cases of illegal conversion swiftly and issue injunctions. Developers who violate zoning (like cutting orchards without permission) must face hefty fines and demolition orders if necessary, to deter the current practice of “build first, legalize later.” An anti-encroachment drive should also target influential land grabbers, not just slum dwellers (often enforcement is biased towards the poor). In summary, update laws where needed (perhaps a new Farmland Protection Act at provincial levels) and invest in the capacity and integrity of enforcement agencies.
Reform tax policy to remove speculative incentives: Implement fiscal measures that make purely speculative holding of land less attractive. First, update property valuation tables to reflect market values and impose capital gains tax on short-term flips of agricultural land. If someone sells agricultural land that they have owned for less than, say, 5 years, treat it as a commercial transaction with significant capital gains tax, unless they can show it was sold for genuine personal/family reasons (perhaps via an exemption cap on small plots). Second, introduce a progressive landholdings tax or an “idle land tax.” Large landowners (over a certain acreage) should pay a higher annual land tax, especially if the land is not under cultivation. This would push absentee owners to either start farming productively or release the land to those who will. The PIDE research think-tank suggested progressive land taxation to disincentivize dormancy and speculation – this could be operationalized by provinces. Additionally, close the agri income tax loophole for non-farmers: one way is to say that agricultural income beyond a high threshold (indicating large operations) will be taxed unless the owner can prove actual farm expenditures and outputs (to protect genuine farmers but tax those using it as a cover). Another instrument is property development fees: if farmland is approved for housing, levy a significant fee that goes into a fund for agricultural development or compensating for lost acreage (this at least internalizes some cost). Finally, incentivize productive use: for instance, lower water tariffs or offer grants to owners who lease out land to cooperatives of small farmers or keep it in cultivation, to encourage keeping land in agriculture.
Secure and empower smallholders and tenants: To counter the adverse effects on small farmers, government must proactively bolster their rights and economic viability. One key step is strengthening land tenure security for tenant farmers. Laws should protect tenants from arbitrary eviction, perhaps by mandating longer-term lease contracts or first right of refusal if land is sold. In cases where government land is being leased to investors, local small farmers who are current occupants should get priority or at least be partners (e.g., equity or benefit-sharing in the new venture). Create legal aid cells or ombudsman offices specifically for agrarian disputes, so that a poor farmer facing a land grab can get quick legal support. On the ownership side, programs to redistribute or secure land titles for landless or small farmers (a kind of revival of land reform goals) should be considered – for example, distributing state lands or purchasing private excess land to allocate to landless families under proper titles. Financial empowerment is also crucial: expand concessional credit lines for small farmers so they are not forced to sell land due to temporary cash needs. Crop insurance and disaster support can prevent distress sales after a bad season. Supporting farmer cooperatives can give smallholders some advantages of scale without them having to sell out – cooperatives can allow pooled resources for machinery, bulk purchasing of inputs, and collective marketing of produce, improving profitability and resilience. Essentially, make farming viable enough that farmers don’t feel their only hope is to sell their land. As one policy analyst noted, Pakistan tends to chase technical fixes and ignore the “elephant in the room” – big landlords controlling land for speculative gain. By empowering smallholders, we address that elephant by strengthening the alternative: a vibrant small-farm economy.
Align infrastructure and housing policies with farmland protection: Urban planners and infrastructure ministries must coordinate with agricultural authorities when planning new projects. For housing, a clear policy shift should encourage vertical growth (apartment complexes) over horizontal sprawl. The Tribune editorial urged that instead of expanding housing societies horizontally over farms, Pakistan needs to expand vertically and use land efficiently. This might include incentives for developers to build multi-story affordable housing in existing urban areas (redevelopment and densification), and disincentives for converting peripheral greenfields. For infrastructure corridors, authorities can set up land banking on behalf of the public: anticipate which areas will be needed for roads or industrial zones and officially reserve them at fair prices, rather than letting private speculators capture all the value. Also, integrate green belts into city master plans that preserve strips of agricultural or forest land as permanent buffers. If a big project is likely to raise land values, consider taxation of the value gain (land value capture) to fund compensation or community development. The overarching idea is that development should be planned in a way that minimizes agricultural land loss and any unavoidable loss is compensated by improvements elsewhere (for instance, investing in turning some wasteland into arable land through irrigation schemes to offset what’s lost to development).
Channel investment in agriculture to productive, inclusive uses: Instead of simply discouraging all investment, Pakistan should guide it to where it helps rather than harms. For example, encourage joint ventures where investors partner with local farmer groups rather than displacing them. The government could facilitate contract farming models where a company invests in technology and buys crops but the land remains with local farmers – providing income without alienation of land. If foreign or corporate investors want large-scale farming, prioritize leases on “cultivable waste” or barren lands that are not currently food producing, as was initially promised. Such leases should come with conditions: investors must actually cultivate within a timeframe (use-it-or-lose-it clauses) and allocate a share of production for local markets or give employment preference to locals. Create criteria for “productive investment” – e.g., any corporate farming venture should bring a minimum yield improvement or set up value-add industry locally, otherwise it’s just land speculation. A National Land Use and Agriculture Council could vet large land deals to ensure they meet strategic needs (food security, employment, sustainability). Additionally, promote alternative investment channels so that domestic investors have places to put money other than land – for instance, introduce agriculture infrastructure bonds or diaspora bonds where money is used to build silos, dams, etc., giving a return without needing to buy land itself.
Revive land reform dialogue and establish a Land Commission: It may be time to re-open the conversation on land reforms in Pakistan in a new context. While past efforts stalled politically, the dangers of current trends might build a coalition in favor of action. A National Land Reform Commission – comprising policymakers, academics, farmers’ representatives (including Kisan board/Kissan Ittehad), and civil society – can be formed to review land distribution and recommend updates to laws. This commission could address modern issues like foreign ownership limits (many countries limit non-citizens from buying farmland – Pakistan could consider restrictions or oversight on such sales), consolidation programs that encourage voluntary land pooling for fragmented holdings, and how to implement an inheritance law that doesn’t lead to extreme fragmentation (a problem that often forces sales). The commission should also include voices of tenant farmers and women farmers to ensure those perspectives shape policy. It can serve as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue that the user prompt mentions – essentially bringing everyone to the table to negotiate the future of Pakistan’s land. This inclusive approach can build consensus that certain reforms (like protecting small farmers from eviction or taxing unused land) are in the national interest.
Environmental safeguards and sustainable practices: As policy is revamped, embed environmental criteria into agricultural land policies. Mandate that any large farming enterprise conducts soil and water impact assessments and follows sustainable practices (perhaps through an enforceable code of conduct or certification). Where farmland is converted to other use, require compensatory measures – e.g., the developer must fund the preservation of an equivalent area of farmland elsewhere or contribute to a food security fund. Promote schemes like payment for ecosystem services for farmers: if a farmer keeps land as an orchard or rangeland for environmental benefits rather than selling to a developer, perhaps they could get carbon credits or support under climate funds. Considering Pakistan’s vulnerability to climate change, maintaining green landscapes and local food systems is part of climate adaptation; thus, climate policy and land policy should be linked.

Implementing these recommendations will not be easy – it demands political will to confront powerful interests and to think long-term. But there are signs of hope: the judiciary’s increased attention, media highlighting the issue, and even some politicians calling real estate the “biggest mafia” that must be checked. By taking the steps above, Pakistan can work to transform farmland financialization from a destructive force into a managed transition that preserves what is essential (food, farmers, environment) while incorporating beneficial investment.

Ultimately, the message to policymakers is that business-as-usual is untenable. The time to act is now, before the time bomb ticks down to an explosion of rural misery or an irreversible food crisis. The final section concludes with a call to heed these warnings and take an integrated approach moving forward.

Conclusion

Pakistan’s farmland is more than just an asset on a speculator’s balance sheet – it is the living foundation of the country’s food supply, rural livelihoods, and ecological well-being. The current wave of financialization, if left unchecked, threatens to undermine all three. This commentary has explored how treating farmland as a financial commodity has led to new actors snapping up land, driven by macroeconomic pressures and policy loopholes, and how this trend – touted by some as modernization – in fact carries grave risks of smallholder dispossession, food insecurity, social conflict, and environmental harm. These outcomes are not inevitable; they are the result of policy blind spots that can and must be addressed.

Pakistan today stands at a pivotal juncture. The title question – “A ticking time bomb or pathway to modernization?” – suggests a choice. The lessons from our analysis are clear: continuing on the current path is tantamount to lighting the fuse on a time bomb. The warning signs are already visible in the villages emptied for housing schemes, in the skyrocketing price of wheat flour when farmland area declines, and in the anguish of farmers who see their ancestral fields sold off to the highest bidder. If we fail to act, the social and economic costs will erupt in coming years, possibly in the form of widespread rural impoverishment or reliance on expensive food imports that our economy can ill afford.

Yet, there is also a pathway to a more hopeful future – one where modernization is achieved by empowering farmers, not displacing them; where investment in agriculture is steered towards productivity and shared prosperity, not speculative profit for a few. To walk that path, Pakistan’s policymakers must shed old paradigms and embrace bold, comprehensive reforms. These include safeguarding agricultural land through stronger laws and enforcement, realigning incentives by taxing speculation and rewarding production, and most importantly, valuing the people on the land as the central stakeholders of any development strategy. As the Sindh environment minister cautioned, we cannot build our future on the destruction of fertile land – “it’s a matter of food availability for coming generations.”

The issues discussed are complex and interlinked, cutting across agriculture, finance, housing, and governance. This is why an integrated approach is critical. A siloed mindset – where one department promotes foreign investment in large farms while another laments small farmers’ woes – will not work. The reforms must be part of a unified vision of sustainable rural development. Encouragingly, the solutions are within reach: other countries have implemented farmland protection zones, community land trusts, or restrictions on non-agricultural purchases. Pakistan can adapt such ideas to its context. What is needed above all is the political foresight and courage to act before it’s too late.

In concluding, we return to the stark contrast at the heart of this commentary. Farmland financialization presents two divergent futures for Pakistan. Down one road, if current trends continue unabated, lies a future of large agrarian monopolies, ghost villages, greater hunger, and ecological decline – truly a ticking time bomb. Down the alternative road, if proactive policy correctives are applied, lies a future where agriculture is modernized through inclusive growth: smallholders co-exist with responsible larger enterprises, food security is preserved, and rural communities thrive alongside urban development. The fork in the road is upon us now.

Pakistan’s policymakers and society at large must not remain blind to the shadows lengthening over our farmlands. The time to defuse the bomb is now – through enlightened policies that place people and food security at the heart of land governance. In doing so, Pakistan can chart a course where modernization becomes a pathway to shared prosperity, not a byword for dispossession. The stakes could not be higher, and the need for action cannot be more urgent. As we navigate these choices, let us remember that land, once lost to speculation or mismanagement, is very hard to reclaim – but wise policy can ensure that our nation’s fertile plains remain a source of life and sustenance, for our generation and those to come.

References

Arslan, M. (2022, August 18). Housing projects killing farmland. Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Pakistan. Retrieved from https://afpak.boell.org/en/2022/08/18/housing-projects-killing-farmland
Niazi, A. (2024, March 31). Greedy land developers want Pakistan's agricultural land. Could the Supreme Court hold the answer? Profit by Pakistan Today. Retrieved from https://profit.pakistantoday.com.pk/2024/03/31/greedy-land-developers-want-pakistans-agricultural-land-could-the-supreme-court-hold-the-answer/
The Guardian. (2021, November 2). ‘We will be homeless’: Lahore farmers accuse ‘mafia’ of land grab for new city. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/nov/02/we-will-be-homeless-lahore-farmers-accuse-mafia-of-land-grab-for-new-city
Moosvi, A. (2023). No progress without land reform. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics. Retrieved from https://pide.org.pk/research/no-progress-without-land-reform/
Saeed, A. (2023, September 22). Pakistan seeks $6bn for corporate farming from Saudi Arabia, other Gulf nations by 2028. Farmlandgrab.org. Retrieved from https://www.farmlandgrab.org/post/31760-pakistan-seeks-6bn-for-corporate-farming-from-saudi-arabia-other-gulf-nations-by-2028
Tariq, F. (2019, March 15). Small farmers, peasants, landless workers and agriculture in Pakistan. International Viewpoint. Retrieved from https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article5989
Rajpar, H., Zhang, A., Razzaq, A., Mehmood, K., Pirzado, M. B., & Hu, W. (2019). Agricultural Land Abandonment and Farmers' Perceptions of Land Use Change in the Indus Plains of Pakistan: A Case Study of Sindh Province. Sustainability, 11(17), 4663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174663
Husain, I. (2009, May 9). Pakistan: The great land grab. Farmlandgrab.org. Retrieved from https://www.farmlandgrab.org/post/3001-pakistan-the-great-land-grab
The Express Tribune. (2024, August 11). Shrinking farmland [Editorial]. Retrieved from https://tribune.com.pk/story/2487078/shrinking-farmland
Manisa, V. (2023, July 20). Financializing farmland: The pros and cons. Farmfolio. Retrieved from https://farmfolio.net/blogs/financializing-farmland-the-pros-and-cons
Voiland, A. (2024, July 15). Urban expansion in Lahore. NASA Earth Observatory. Retrieved from https://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=153065
Qaisar, M. A. (2025, January 27). Pakistan's economic plague: Land mafia. Pakistan Today. Retrieved from https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2025/01/27/pakistans-economic-plague-land-mafia/