
Amid devastating floods crippling Pakistan's farmlands, the Pakistan Business Forum (PBF) has called for urgent execution of the long-delayed agriculture emergency plan. The forum criticised inaction, saying "agriculture emergency is still on papers," and questioned when implementation would begin.
Declaring the situation a national emergency, the PBF said the agriculture sector, already under economic pressure, has entered a dangerous downward spiral. This, it warned, threatens food security and the economic stability of rural communities still reeling from recent climate disasters.
In a letter to Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb, PBF President Khawaja Mehboobur Rehman urged the ministry to submit a summary to the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) for targeted relief.
Proposals include a guaranteed wheat support price for the 2025-26 season, waiver of electricity bills for flood-hit farmers from August to October, and interest-free agricultural loans of up to Rs2 million against pledged land to offset force majeure losses faced by farmers.
The forum also demanded a 30% subsidy on Urea and DAP fertilisers in flood zones and asked the government to engage the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) for fair sugarcane procurement rates in November.
To revive production of key crops, the PBF suggested a two-year GST exemption for domestic cotton and suspension of the normal tax regime on rice and mango exports from December 2025, extending relief announced in the Finance Bill 2024.
While acknowledging fiscal challenges, the PBF stressed that the crisis requires exceptional action. It recommended the finance ministry seek International Monetary Fund support for the measures, citing humanitarian needs and rural economic stability.
Rehman said the proposals are not compensatory but essential for reviving productivity and restoring farmer confidence. He reaffirmed the PBF's support for government efforts and urged swift action.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ