Where did one million acres of cotton go?

Recently, the Federal Committee on Agriculture (FCA) held a meeting to review the performance of crops during Kharif 2025–26 and assess the area cultivated and production achieved against the targets set for Kharif 2026–27. The figures presented at the meeting reveal an important situation. Sugarcane, rice and maize exceeded their respective area targets for Kharif 2026–27, whereas cotton acreage fell approximately one million acres short of its target.

At first glance, this appears to be a difference in the area allocated to various crops. However, behind this disparity lies an important economic question concerning farmers’ profitability, risk, prices and access to markets.

According to FCA figures, the area target for sugarcane was 1.147 million hectares, while the estimated area reached 1.359 million hectares, exceeding the target by 18.5 percent. The target for rice was 3.039 million hectares, whereas the area under cultivation reached 3.903 million hectares, representing an increase of 28.4 percent. Similarly, the maize target was 1.514 million hectares, while approximately 1.832 million hectares were cultivated, exceeding the target by 21 percent.

The combined area cultivated beyond the targets for these three crops amounts to approximately 1.394 million hectares. In contrast, the cotton target was 2.160 million hectares, equivalent to approximately 5.337 million acres, while the estimated area under cultivation stood at 1.759 million hectares, or approximately 4.347 million acres. Consequently, cotton acreage fell short of its target by around 401,000 hectares, or 991,000 acres. The cotton production target was 9.643 million bales, while the estimate stood at 6.714 million bales, approximately 30.4 percent below the target.

An important clarification is necessary here. These figures do not mean that every acre withdrawn from cotton was necessarily shifted to sugarcane, rice or maize. Changes in the area under different crops are influenced by multiple factors. Nevertheless, comparing the targeted and actual areas of various crops raises an important question: why do farmers prefer one crop over another?

The answer cannot be found solely in seed, weather or agricultural technology. For farmers, crop selection is fundamentally an economic decision. They assess the expected income per acre, production costs, prospects for selling their produce, the reliability of payments and the level of risk involved. When a crop offers relatively better income prospects and more dependable access to markets, farmers may be inclined to cultivate it. Conversely, when cotton cultivation involves high costs, pest pressure, climatic stress, price fluctuations and uncertainty over marketing, the availability of better seed alone may not be sufficient to bring farmers back to cotton.

To understand the economic significance of the additional area under sugarcane, rice and maize, an indicative assessment of the gross value of their production can also be undertaken. Based on the available acreage and assumed yields and prices, illustrative calculations suggest that the gross value of sugarcane production from approximately 524,000 additional acres could be around Rs1.65 trillion. For rice, the corresponding value from approximately 2.133 million additional acres is estimated at Rs169 billion, while maize production from approximately 786,000 additional acres could be valued at around Rs129 billion. On this basis, the combined gross value of these three crops is estimated at approximately Rs1.95 trillion.

These figures are illustrative estimates, not definitive national accounts. Their purpose is not to establish farmers’ net income, actual economic profit or the precise value of land shifted from cotton to other crops. Rather, they provide a broader perspective on the economic significance of farmers’ cropping decisions. The gross value of crop production should not be confused with farmers’ net profit, as expenses on seed, fertiliser, pesticides, water, labour, machinery and other inputs have not been deducted.

In the case of cotton, however, the issue extends beyond the value of the crop harvested in the field. Cotton is also an industrial raw material that supports an extensive value chain encompassing ginning, spinning, textiles, apparel and exports. Consequently, declining cotton acreage affects not only agricultural output but also industry, employment, raw material availability and export potential.

If an average yield of approximately 1.54 bales per acre is used as a benchmark, one million acres could potentially produce around 1.54 million bales. Using the historical indicative benchmark that one million cotton bales can support approximately USD 1 billion in downstream industrial value addition, 1.54 million bales could be associated with potential industrial value addition of around USD 1.5 billion. This is an indicative estimate of potential industrial value, not an actual economic loss or a guarantee of additional exports. The actual value would depend on cotton quality, utilisation, production efficiency, the nature of finished products and their performance in international markets.

This issue is particularly important for Pakistan because declining domestic cotton production increases pressure on the textile industry’s raw material requirements. Imported cotton can partly bridge this supply gap, but it requires foreign exchange. Thus, the decline in cotton acreage is not merely a problem affecting a single crop; it also has implications for the relationship between the country’s agricultural and industrial economies.

The revival of cotton requires quality seed, better research, effective agricultural extension services, modern production practices and technologies capable of addressing climatic stress. However, placing farmers’ economic interests at the centre of these efforts is equally essential. If the expected returns from cotton are lower than those from competing crops, price risks are higher and marketing arrangements remain uncertain, even successful research may fail to produce the desired change at the farm level.

The proposed Central Cotton Board could provide a mechanism for improving coordination among research, policymaking, industry and farmers. However, establishing a new board or administrative structure will not, by itself, increase cotton acreage. This requires a cotton policy that gives priority to farmers’ per-acre income, production costs, price risks, access to quality seed, crop protection and market access. At the same time, the performance of research and agricultural extension systems must be assessed against measurable outcomes.

The real need is to view cotton revival not merely in terms of acreage or production targets, but as an integrated economic system in which farmers, research, seed, industry and markets are interconnected. If farmers can achieve better yields alongside acceptable profitability and a relatively predictable market, the prospects of restoring their interest in cotton cultivation will improve.

The question of one million acres is not simply about where the land went. The real question is why the land turned away from cotton. Unless this question is answered in the language of farm-level economics, namely profitability, risk, cost and price, efforts to restore cotton acreage will remain limited.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026