The country is losing its soil to waterlogging and salinity. How fast? It is a matter of debate, at least in Punjab. The issue was highlighted last week when the agriculture minister told the provincial assembly that the province has 2.86 million acres of saline and sodic soil — little less than 10pc of the total sown area.

However, some studies put the figure at double that digit. For example, a recent presentation by the Directorate of Land Reclamation, which works under the Irrigation Department, has claimed that 2.276 million hectares, or 5.6 million acres – around 20pc of total area sown in the province – are affected by salts. This reflects a dangerous situation.

Pakistan has alluvial soils, with salty parent material. Once soil starts receiving less water, all those sub-soil salts start gathering on the surface. That is what has prompted many scientists to claim that up to 60pc of land is affected to varying degrees and unless the land gets regularly leeched, it runs the risk of quickly loosing fertility. However, the province has no credible system to continuously monitor, study and document such soils.

It abandoned traditional system of documentation in the last two decades with two callous steps. In 1994, it banned reclamation water supplies, which were six times more than normal supplies because they were aimed at leeching the soil. There was an elaborate system of declaring a particular patch as affected. But once it was done, it could get 600pc more supplies for next three years, extendable by another 36 months if required. It was banned in the mid-90s and documentation of such soil suffered.

The second setback came in 2004 when Punjab introduced flat abiayna (water charges) rates. Before 2004, the revenue officials used to visit and officially document lands, which were not sown for any reason because they had to exempt them from water service charges. With blanket rate, the need for documentation was gone (or it was wrongly construed that way despite having an independent soil checking manual) as it had to be paid on the entire landholding. Both these steps have documentation out of system. That is why the figures now differ so wildly, and range from 2.8 million to 5.6 million acres.

To make the matters worse, Punjab is no more attempting reclamation. Its last project, which was designed for three – Jhang, Sargodha and Hafiz Abad – out of total 37 districts, ran out in June last year. With the help of the UNDP (with 33pc finances coming from the agency), it claims to have reclaimed some 80,000 acres in those areas in those three years. Since then, there has simply been no project and plan to deal with this menace.

With no provincial planning, it also made things difficult for individual farmers for three reasons: week regulatory regime, low quality production and withdrawal of subsidy. One of the most effective methods for dealing with salts is application of gypsum. Farmers normally apply gypsum before re-sowing after wheat harvesting. The time has arrived as the crop has already matured in parts of Sindh and fast maturing in Punjab. It is time to push farmers into applying gypsum and improve health of their soil.

Unfortunately, the regulatory regime for gypsum production and sale of single super phosphate (SSP) fertiliser is so weak that it has robbed the farmers of their confidence in its utility for the crop. To add another layer of difficulty for farmers, the government withdrew subsidies on it in 2008 and since its usage been on the decline.

The climatic affect is reducing water supplies. All those crops, which used to get five waterings, are now served with only three. The entire tail-range is always vulnerable to salt accumulation because even the minimum required water does not reach there. Over 45pc of provincial sub-soil water is brackish anyway.

These factors necessitate an integrated approach to deal with this loss of fertility of the soil. That integrated approach is missing, at least so far. Punjab is still to refine its policy. Out of its 52 licencees, no one knows how many of them producing agricultural gypsum – with 85pc of mineral and 30 mesh grinding. All of them also are producing industrial grade gypsum. This needs to be looked into.

The SSP fertiliser has its own set of controversies. Its active ingredient varies, and so does farmers’ confidence in it. Its pricing differs because of local or imported rock phosphate, with farmers taking it as money minting exercise. Without any subsidy, the farmers have simply jettisoned the mineral for their soil.