Real Estate Insights

The proposed privatisation of FESCO, GEPCO and IESCO has reached a stage where the central question is no longer simply how the government will sell stakes in these companies or at what price. The more important question is: what kind of business, regulatory framework and electricity market will private investors actually inherit?
Interest from nearly a dozen domestic and foreign investors, including four overseas entities, is encouraging. It suggests that Pakistan’s electricity distribution business still has commercial appeal if the operating environment can be made sufficiently predictable.
But the conditions being sought by potential investors reveal another reality. They are not merely pricing normal commercial risk into their bids; they are also pricing Pakistan’s policy and contractual credibility risk.
Investors are seeking protection against the reopening of agreements, stronger regulatory safeguards, timely tariff adjustments, longer term tariff certainty and protection from arbitrary policy changes.
Given Pakistan’s history, these demands are hardly surprising.
Repeated renegotiation of agreements in the power and infrastructure sectors, sudden policy shifts and regulatory uncertainty have made investors cautious. Past renegotiations with independent power producers have also sent a clear message to outside investors: a legally binding agreement today may not necessarily remain untouched tomorrow.
The government must therefore distinguish between demands that provide legitimate commercial protection and those that merely transfer private sector risks to electricity consumers or the national exchequer.
A demand for transparent and predictable regulation, for instance, is entirely reasonable. If a private operator is expected to invest billions of rupees in a distribution network over many years, it needs to know how tariffs will be determined, how investment plans will be approved and whether political changes could suddenly disrupt previously approved business decisions.
The government could also consider political-risk guarantees backed by multilateral institutions. Such guarantees would not only protect investors; they could also impose greater discipline on the state by making it more difficult to casually alter policies or contractual commitments.
There must, however, be clear red lines.
If returns for privatised DISCOs are linked to the US dollar, exchange-rate risk would ultimately be transferred to Pakistani consumers or the government. For a country whose external account remains structurally vulnerable, this could create another long-term financial burden.
The same caution applies to demands for complete exemption from existing obligations to purchase expensive electricity.
A private DISCO should eventually have the ability to procure cheaper electricity and benefit from a more competitive power market. But privatisation cannot mean that profitable parts of the business are transferred to private operators while the state and consumers remain responsible for costly generation contracts and capacity payments.
Before privatisation, another question must therefore be answered clearly: what exactly is the buyer acquiring?
Which liabilities will move with the company? Who will be responsible for employee pensions? How will outstanding receivables be treated? What portion of accumulated circular debt will remain on the company’s books, and what portion will stay with the government?
If these issues are not settled before the sale, today’s privatisation could easily become tomorrow’s dispute.
This is particularly important because the financial burden of state-owned enterprises is already substantial. According to the State Bank of Pakistan, total liabilities of public-sector enterprises have reached around Rs3.11 trillion.
Privatisation, therefore, cannot be treated simply as the transfer of an inefficient public-sector company into private hands. For a new owner to operate commercially, the balance sheet must first be made reasonably workable.
Perhaps the most critical issue is the tariff framework.
Investors reportedly prefer a predictable tariff-control period of seven to ten years rather than five. In principle, this deserves serious consideration because investments in electricity distribution networks take years to recover.
But longer tariff certainty cannot become an unconditional guarantee of returns.
Any long term framework should be tied to measurable improvements in distribution losses, recoveries, service quality, complaint resolution, reliability of supply and actual investment in the network.
An operator that improves performance should be rewarded. But consumers should not be required to indefinitely compensate a private operator that fails to meet agreed standards.
Pakistan may also eventually need to reconsider its existing uniform national tariff structure. A system that treats efficient and inefficient distribution companies almost alike weakens incentives for improvement.
Any transition, however, will have to be carefully designed. Consumers should not suddenly face higher tariffs simply because they happen to live in a particular distribution area.
The more sustainable solution is to separate commercial performance from social policy.
If the government wants to subsidise poorer households or particular regions, those subsidies should be provided transparently through the national budget rather than hidden inside the balance sheets of distribution companies.
Private investors cannot reasonably be expected to operate as instruments of an unclear fiscal or social policy.
Ultimately, the objective of privatising FESCO, GEPCO and IESCO should not simply be to sell three distribution companies.
The stakes are much larger for Pakistan.
If the government can complete these transactions with clearly defined liabilities, predictable tariffs, strong regulation, consumer safeguards and contracts that are not reopened whenever the political climate changes, the impact will extend well beyond the electricity sector.
It could send a far more important message to international investors: Pakistan is not only capable of signing long-term commercial agreements; it is also capable of honouring them.

Pakistan’s solar transformation is entering a new phase, and its impact is increasingly moving beyond the electricity sector into housing, commercial property and urban development.
For the real estate industry, the important question is no longer simply whether a house, office or commercial building has solar panels. The next question is whether a property can generate, store and intelligently manage enough of its own electricity to reduce dependence on an increasingly expensive and changing grid.
The scale of the shift is visible in net metering data.
Electricity purchased by the grid from net metered consumers reached around 270 GWh in June 2026, compared with barely 20 GWh in June 2023. In just three years, the volume has increased more than thirteen fold.
The trend was even more pronounced in April 2026, when net-metered electricity purchases approached 390 GWh, compared with about 310 GWh in April 2025 and around 100 GWh in 2024.
These numbers matter for the property market because rooftop solar has become a significant part of household and commercial investment decisions. Houses, offices, factories, shopping facilities and other buildings are increasingly being assessed not only on location and construction quality but also on their ability to control future energy costs.
Pakistan is believed to have imported more than 55,000MW worth of solar panels cumulatively, while officially net metered installations represent only a fraction of that capacity.
That gap suggests that much of the solar market exists outside conventional net metering. Panels are being used for direct self consumption, commercial and industrial installations, hybrid systems and, increasingly, solar systems connected with battery storage.
This distinction is particularly important for real estate developers.
Under the earlier model, rooftop solar was often treated as an additional feature installed after construction. In the emerging market, energy infrastructure could become part of the original design of residential and commercial projects.
Developers may increasingly have to consider roof orientation, available solar area, electrical load planning, battery spaces, ventilation and safety requirements, backup systems and smart energy management while designing new buildings.
The change in regulation could accelerate this transition.
With net billing replacing the previous net metering arrangement for new connections, exporting surplus electricity to the grid is expected to become less financially attractive than under the earlier system.
That changes the economics of rooftop solar.
Instead of designing systems mainly to export excess daytime electricity, homeowners and businesses will have a stronger incentive to use more of their solar generation themselves.
Battery storage becomes central to that model.
Lithium battery imports reached a record USD88 million in July, signalling that storage is rapidly moving from a niche product towards a more important part of Pakistan’s energy market.
Only two years ago, spending on lithium battery imports was extremely small compared with solar panel imports. The gap has now narrowed sharply.
For property owners, batteries solve one of solar power’s biggest limitations: timing.
A conventional rooftop system generates most of its electricity during daylight hours. A battery equipped property can store part of that electricity and use it in the evening or during periods when grid electricity is expensive or unavailable.
For residential real estate, this could gradually change what buyers consider a well equipped home.
Solar panels alone may no longer represent the premium energy feature they once did. Buyers may increasingly compare properties on the basis of installed solar capacity, battery backup, expected grid dependence, electrical efficiency and the ability to operate essential loads during outages.
The same shift could be even more important in commercial real estate.
Electricity is a major operating expense for offices, retail buildings, warehouses and other commercial properties. Buildings capable of producing and storing part of their own electricity could potentially offer occupiers greater predictability over energy costs.
For landlords and developers, energy performance may therefore become increasingly relevant to tenant demand and long-term building competitiveness.
Housing societies and large residential developments also need to consider the broader consequences.
If thousands of households within a development independently install solar panels and batteries, the electricity demand profile of that community can change substantially. Daytime grid demand can fall while evening consumption may also begin to decline as households discharge stored solar electricity.
That means electrical infrastructure planned around traditional consumption patterns may no longer reflect how future communities actually use power.
Developers planning new housing schemes therefore have an opportunity to think beyond individual rooftop systems.
Future projects could incorporate solar ready roofs, battery ready electrical infrastructure, energy-efficient street lighting, smart meters, community level storage and better management of common-area electricity consumption from the planning stage.
The transition also has implications for property valuation.
Location, plot size, construction quality and neighbourhood infrastructure will remain fundamental factors in real estate value. But in a country where electricity costs have become a major household and business concern, the operating cost of a property could increasingly influence purchasing and rental decisions.
A building that requires significantly less grid electricity may offer an economic advantage over a similar property with high recurring energy expenses.
This does not mean Pakistan’s solar boom is ending because net-metering rules are changing.
The opposite may happen.
Solar adoption could increasingly shift from a model based on selling surplus electricity to the grid towards one centred on self-consumption and storage.
For the power sector, that creates a planning challenge.
For real estate, however, it signals the emergence of a different type of property: one that is not merely connected to utility infrastructure but actively generates, stores and manages energy.
Pakistan’s first solar wave changed rooftops.
The battery wave could begin changing the design, economics and marketability of the buildings beneath them.
For developers, housing societies and property investors, that is no longer just an energy sector trend. It is becoming a real estate planning issue.

The financial calculation behind buying or building a home in Pakistan is no longer limited to land prices, construction costs, location and available amenities. Persistently high electricity tariffs have turned the monthly cost of running a home into an important financial consideration. As a result, rooftop solar systems are gradually becoming part of residential property economics and the wider investment made in a home, particularly in major cities.
Amid rising electricity tariffs and growing pressure on household budgets, a 10 kilowatt solar system is emerging as a financially viable option for families that can afford the initial cost. According to industry estimates, a 10kW system in Pakistan can generate around 1,200 to 1,500 units of electricity per month, depending on location, weather conditions and the availability of sunlight.
This level of generation is particularly significant for larger homes where air conditioners, water pumps, refrigerators and other electrical appliances result in relatively high electricity consumption. Using solar electricity generated at home reduces the need to purchase expensive power from the national grid and can therefore significantly lower monthly electricity bills.
Current estimates suggest that some consumers paying electricity costs of between Rs45 and Rs60 per unit may save around Rs50,000 to Rs90,000 per month by consuming the electricity they generate themselves. Surplus electricity supplied to the national grid can provide an additional financial benefit, although the price paid for such electricity is determined under rules set by the government and the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, and may change in the future.
For example, if a household consumes around 1,200 units of electricity per month and its 10kW solar system generates approximately 1,400 units, some surplus electricity may be supplied to the grid after meeting daytime household requirements. Estimates suggest that such a household could receive a combined monthly financial benefit of around Rs55,000 to Rs60,000 through direct savings on electricity consumption and compensation for surplus power.
The central question, however, is not simply the price of a solar system, but how long it takes for the investment to recover its cost. The current initial cost of a standard 10kW solar system is estimated at around Rs1.5 million to Rs2.2 million, depending on the quality of panels, inverter, other equipment and installation standards. At prevailing electricity tariffs, the investment could potentially recover its cost through savings on electricity bills within approximately two and a half to four years.
It is this payback period that makes solar energy particularly relevant from a real estate perspective. Not every costly improvement made to a house necessarily recovers its full value when the property is sold. A functioning solar system, however, can reduce monthly electricity expenses over many years, improving both the practical utility and overall financial appeal of a home.
If two otherwise similar homes are compared, the property with substantially lower monthly electricity expenses may prove more attractive to a buyer. Tenants may also prefer a house where monthly power bills are relatively lower. This does not mean, however, that every rupee spent on solar equipment will automatically translate into an equivalent increase in the property's sale price. The age of the panels and inverter, equipment quality, warranties, maintenance, battery condition and future government policy will all influence the system's actual value.
Pakistan's rapid expansion of solar energy has also created new challenges for the national electricity system. According to analysts, solar capacity connected through net metering had reached approximately 7,000 megawatts by June 2026, representing an almost 37 fold increase over six years. Estimates have also placed the combined generation capacity of net metering and solar systems operating independently of the national grid at around 20,000 megawatts.
During daylight hours, when large numbers of households and businesses use their own solar electricity, demand from the national grid can fall sharply. After sunset, however, that demand rises again. This pattern of reduced daytime demand followed by a rapid increase in the evening creates technical and financial challenges for electricity generation and transmission. The government's move to revise net metering conditions and shift towards net billing is also being viewed in this context.
NEPRA introduced new regulations for consumers who generate and use solar electricity in 2026, making it increasingly important to calculate the financial benefits of residential solar systems with greater caution. It would be risky for a homebuyer or investor to estimate returns over the next 20 years solely on the basis of today's rate for surplus electricity supplied to the grid, as official purchase rates, billing methods and other regulations may change in the future.
These changes have also increased the importance of batteries in residential solar installations. Pakistani consumers are increasingly moving away from relatively small batteries towards larger storage systems in the 14 to 16 kilowatt hour range. Falling battery prices, growing consumer confidence and the desire to use self generated electricity rather than export it to the grid are among the main factors driving this trend.
In simple terms, a battery energy storage system uses a large battery to store surplus electricity generated by solar panels during the day so that it can be used later in the evening or at night. This can further reduce a household's dependence on electricity drawn from the national grid. The government is also encouraging energy storage as a way to better manage the difference between daytime and nighttime electricity demand caused by the rapid growth of solar power.
If the financial benefit of supplying surplus solar electricity to the national grid declines further in the future, storing electricity in batteries for personal use could become increasingly important. In that scenario, adequate battery capacity alongside solar panels could become an important financial and practical feature of residential properties.
This transformation also carries an important message for real estate developers, builders, investors and homebuyers. New residential projects could benefit from incorporating adequate rooftop space, suitable orientation for solar panels, appropriate electrical wiring, secure locations for inverters and provision for larger batteries at the initial planning and construction stage.
Similarly, when buying a house that already has a solar system installed, simply counting the number of panels on the roof will not be enough. Buyers may increasingly need to examine the system's generation capacity, the age of its panels and inverter, remaining warranty coverage, actual electricity production over previous months and the standard of maintenance.
Pakistan's rapid solar expansion has not resulted solely from government policy or growing interest in environmentally friendly energy. Between fiscal years 2021 and 2025, the rupee depreciated by around 75 percent, electricity tariffs increased by nearly 140 percent and imported solar panel prices fell by approximately 60 percent. Together, these developments fundamentally changed the financial calculation for residential solar. Expensive grid electricity combined with relatively cheaper solar panels has made household solar systems more financially practical for families that can provide the initial investment.
Some estimates suggest that a quality solar system with a potential life of 20 to 25 years could generate total savings of between Rs15 million and Rs25 million. These figures, however, are long term projections. Actual savings will depend on future electricity tariffs, system performance, equipment replacement and maintenance costs, battery life and government policy.
The most important lesson for the real estate sector is that the financial value of a home may increasingly be judged by more than its price per marla or square foot. Homebuyers are also likely to consider how much the property will cost to operate every month. A house that generates a substantial share of its own electricity, reduces energy expenses during the summer and has the capacity to store power for future use may have greater practical appeal than a conventional home.
Even so, solar energy should be viewed less as an investment promising guaranteed returns and more as an asset capable of reducing the long term operating cost of a home. Electricity prices, net billing regulations, battery technology and solar equipment costs will continue to evolve. For homeowners and buyers, the more sensible decision will therefore be one based on actual electricity consumption, available rooftop space, the quality of the solar system, investment capacity and the possibility of future changes in energy policy.

August 5 is observed in Pakistan as Youm e Istehsal Kashmir. The occasion is usually discussed in the context of constitutional change, political rights and the wider Kashmir dispute. However, one of the most significant consequences of the decisions taken on August 5, 2019 relates directly to land, housing and ownership of immovable property.
For this reason, the removal of Article 35A cannot be viewed solely as a constitutional event. It also marked a structural change in the real estate and land ownership framework of Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir.
Article 35A was introduced through the Constitution Application to Jammu and Kashmir Order of May 14, 1954. The provision did not itself set out every restriction governing property transactions. Instead, it empowered and constitutionally protected the Jammu and Kashmir legislature’s authority to define permanent residents and grant them special rights relating to government employment, settlement, scholarships and the acquisition of immovable property. Local laws imposing restrictions on other Indian citizens in these areas were protected from being struck down for violating fundamental rights.
This arrangement meant that land in Kashmir was not treated merely as a commodity available to the highest bidder. Property ownership was linked with residence, local identity, economic control and demographic protection. People who were not recognised as permanent residents could not ordinarily enter the property market and establish permanent settlement in the same manner available in most other parts of India.
Many Kashmiris therefore viewed Article 35A as a legal wall protecting their land, culture and long term economic interests.
On August 5, 2019, the Indian government issued a presidential order and secured parliamentary approval for measures that fundamentally changed Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional status. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 subsequently divided the former state into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, with the reorganisation taking effect on October 31, 2019. On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional measures taken in 2019, leaving the new arrangement in force within India’s domestic legal system.
The property implications became clearer during 2020. New domicile rules made additional categories of people eligible for domicile status, including those who had lived in Jammu and Kashmir for fifteen years or had studied there for seven years and appeared in a class ten or class twelve examination at a local educational institution. This replaced the earlier system centred on permanent resident certificates with a broader domicile framework.
Further changes followed in October 2020 when several local land laws were amended and others were repealed. The removal of permanent resident requirements from laws including the Jammu and Kashmir Development Act enabled Indian citizens from outside the region to purchase land that was not classified as agricultural. Officials maintained that agricultural land would remain protected, although the legal framework also permits changes in land use for specified development, commercial, educational, health and other purposes subject to approval and planning requirements.
The Indian government presents these reforms as a means of establishing uniform laws, attracting investment, developing industry, improving infrastructure and creating employment. Official statements have argued that the earlier constitutional arrangement restricted development and prevented Jammu and Kashmir from fully benefiting from national laws and investment programmes. The government has also highlighted industrial policies and major investment proposals as evidence of economic opportunity following the changes.
Pakistan, several Kashmiri political parties and local critics offer a sharply different interpretation. They argue that removing protections associated with land and permanent residency could weaken the economic position of Kashmiris and expose the region to demographic and property market pressures. Pakistan maintains that the revised domicile and land ownership regime is intended to alter Kashmir’s demographic and political character. Local opponents have also raised concerns about speculative purchasing, rising land values and the ability of small property owners to compete with larger investors.
From a real estate perspective, the central question is not simply how many investment projects or commercial developments are announced. The more important issue is who receives the value created by that development.
Higher land prices may benefit existing owners in the short term. However, where local incomes, home ownership and access to affordable housing do not rise at the same pace, property growth can also produce displacement, unaffordable housing and wider economic inequality. Capital entering a fragile market can create employment and infrastructure, but without strong safeguards it can also concentrate land ownership in the hands of more powerful investors.
Kashmir’s property market cannot therefore be treated as an ordinary investment market. Every property transfer, land use conversion, industrial estate, tourism project and allocation of public land may affect local livelihoods, agriculture, the environment and the region’s future demographic composition.
Transparent information is essential. Detailed data should be available on property buyers, their residency status, changes in land classification, agricultural land conversions, market prices and the proportion of land remaining under local ownership. Such information would allow development claims and demographic concerns to be assessed through evidence rather than competing political narratives.
Youm e Istehsal Kashmir is also a reminder that land is more than a physical asset recorded in a revenue document. It represents home, inheritance, livelihood, identity and a community’s connection with its future.
The removal of Article 35A changed the legal entrance to Kashmir’s property market. It also made one question more urgent than ever: who will decide how Kashmir’s land is developed, and who will ultimately receive the greatest share of the value created from it?

The controversy surrounding recent conservation work at Mohra Moradu and Sirkap raises a question that goes far beyond two archaeological locations: should ancient remains be altered in an effort to protect them, or should conservation focus on preserving the original material that has survived through centuries?
This is not simply a disagreement between a provincial department and an international organisation. It concerns Pakistan’s approach to heritage management, urban planning, land use and the treatment of cultural assets that cannot be replaced once their original character is lost.
Taxila was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1980. It is not a single monument but a serial property consisting of 18 archaeological components. Sirkap provides important evidence of the evolution of urban settlements in the region, while Mohra Moradu represents the Buddhist monastic culture that once flourished across the Taxila valley. UNESCO describes Taxila as one of the most important archaeological sites in Asia.
The current dispute emerged after reports that surviving ancient masonry had been replaced with new construction in some places and that the height of original walls had been increased. According to reports citing officials and UNESCO discussions, the organisation asked Pakistan to reverse interventions considered harmful to the authenticity and integrity of the sites and to submit detailed records of the work. The reports also warned that a failure to take corrective action could place Taxila on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Punjab Archaeology Department rejects the description of the work as reconstruction. It maintains that the interventions were intended to stabilise vulnerable remains, prevent further deterioration and protect the sites from environmental damage. The department also says that national and international experts were given a detailed technical presentation during a recent joint visit. Its position deserves to be heard and assessed fairly.
However, good intentions alone cannot determine whether work at an archaeological site is acceptable. Every intervention must be justified through scientific evidence, appropriate materials, detailed documentation and professional accountability.
UNESCO’s operational guidance states that reconstruction of archaeological remains or historic buildings is justified only in exceptional circumstances. It must be based on complete and detailed documentation and must not rely on conjecture. Authenticity is not limited to visual appearance; it is also expressed through original form, design, materials, construction techniques, location and historical setting.
The purpose of archaeological conservation is therefore not to make ruins appear taller, more complete or more visually attractive. An incomplete wall may itself be an authentic historical record. Adding new masonry may improve the site’s appearance, but it becomes problematic when the intervention hides the original limits of the structure, replaces ancient material or makes it difficult for visitors and researchers to distinguish evidence from modern addition.
At the same time, the genuine conservation challenges facing Taxila should not be underestimated. Its exposed remains are vulnerable to extreme weather, vegetation, earthquakes, industrial expansion, quarrying and illegal excavation. Technical intervention may therefore be necessary in some places. The central question is not whether intervention should ever occur, but how much should be done, which materials should be used, whether the work is reversible and whether every decision is properly recorded.
The most credible response from the authorities would be complete transparency. Conservation plans, heritage impact assessments, before and after photographs, technical drawings, laboratory testing of materials, compatibility studies and archaeological research records should be placed before independent specialists and, where appropriate, made publicly accessible. UNESCO reportedly requested this specific documentation in relation to the work at Mohra Moradu and Sirkap.
An independent review panel should include archaeologists, conservation architects, structural engineers, geologists, material scientists, urban planners and heritage law specialists. Its task should be to distinguish essential stabilisation from excessive intervention, identify any additions that threaten the original fabric and recommend which measures can safely be reversed.
The present dispute also exposes a wider institutional weakness. Decisions concerning nationally and internationally significant heritage properties should not depend solely on the discretion of an individual department or project team. Work should begin only after a formal heritage impact assessment, multidisciplinary approval, full photographic recording and consultation with relevant international bodies.
Taxila has faced similar risks before. An attempt to construct a stadium within Bhir Mound in 1998 threatened another component of the World Heritage property. A subsequent UNESCO mission described the decision as a serious mistake and called for impact assessments, defined buffer zones, coordination with planning agencies and an overall management strategy for Taxila.
Nearly three decades later, the reappearance of comparable concerns suggests that the issue is institutional rather than isolated. Pakistan needs enforceable conservation procedures that require independent scrutiny before work begins, rather than investigation and corrective action after potentially irreversible interventions have already been completed.
Taxila’s value does not depend on whether its ruins look new, complete or impressive to visitors. Its importance lies in the credibility of the stones, foundations, streets and surviving walls as genuine evidence of the civilisations that shaped the region.
The government should therefore avoid treating the matter as a contest of institutional authority or national prestige. It should approach it as a responsibility to future generations. Where irreplaceable cultural heritage is at risk, transparency, scientific conservation, minimum intervention and compliance with recognised international standards must take priority over visual improvement, tourism promotion or short term development targets.

Pakistan’s real estate market is showing renewed activity, with rising demand reported in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. Market observers estimate that residential property prices have increased by 10% to 15% in some locations, although the trend does not appear to be uniform across every city, project or property category.
The recent movement is being driven by a combination of lower transaction taxes, geopolitical uncertainty in the Middle East, investment by overseas Pakistanis, limited housing supply and the gradual expansion of subsidised housing finance.
One of the most immediate factors is the reduction in withholding taxes on property transactions. Under the Finance Act 2025–26, the withholding tax on property purchases by tax filers was reduced from 2.5% to 1.25%, while the tax on property sales was cut from 5.5% to 2.75%.
These reductions have lowered the cost of completing property transactions for both buyers and sellers. Some investors who had postponed purchases because of high taxes and transaction expenses may now be returning to the market.
Limited supply is another important reason behind higher prices. In Karachi, the number of completed housing units in established and well serviced areas remains restricted compared with demand. Buyers are increasingly choosing completed homes and apartments instead of newly launched projects that may take several years to deliver.
Ready properties offer immediate possession, established infrastructure and fewer construction related risks. This explains why demand may rise sharply in selected localities even when the broader property market remains mixed.
A similar pattern is visible in Lahore and Islamabad, where investors are showing greater interest in developed housing schemes and completed high rise residential projects. Properties with existing roads, electricity, water, security and nearby commercial facilities are attracting more buyers than undeveloped plots or projects facing uncertain completion schedules.
This indicates that the current recovery is selective. Demand is not necessarily increasing across every category of land, housing scheme or apartment development. Projects with clear ownership, regulatory approvals, completed infrastructure and immediate usability are in a stronger position.
Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have also influenced investment decisions. Some overseas Pakistanis are diversifying their assets by moving part of their capital into Pakistan’s property market. For them, domestic real estate may provide a long term asset, rental income or a future home in their country of origin.
The Prime Minister Apna Ghar housing finance programme is supporting another segment of the market: first time and middle income homebuyers. Banks have reportedly approved PKR 204 billion in housing finance under the programme, while around PKR 27 billion has been disbursed.
The difference between approved and disbursed financing is significant. It suggests that documentation requirements, property verification, bank conditions, processing delays and the shortage of affordable homes may still be limiting the programme’s practical reach.
The reported 10% to 15% increase in residential prices should also be interpreted carefully. Such estimates may reflect activity in particular neighbourhoods or completed projects rather than an equal rise across entire cities. A limited number of high value transactions can create the appearance of a wider price increase.
A sustainable recovery would require stronger evidence from registered property transactions, housing finance disbursements, construction activity, rental trends and the launch of new residential projects.
Pakistan’s property market cannot achieve long term stability through investor demand alone. Faster project approvals, transparent land records, improved access to construction finance, stronger buyer protection and a larger supply of affordable homes will also be necessary.
If demand continues to rise without a corresponding increase in supply, property prices may move further beyond the reach of first time buyers. This could benefit existing owners and short term investors while making the housing shortage more difficult for ordinary families.
However, if increased demand is matched by new construction, the current trend could support employment and growth in cement, steel, glass, tiles, paint, transportation, banking and other related industries.
The real test of the present market recovery is therefore not simply how much property prices rise. Its success will depend on whether new investment produces more homes, better urban infrastructure and affordable housing opportunities for a wider section of the population.

The Senate subcommittee’s review of forest management in Gilgit Baltistan is not limited to timber cutting or the pending cases of licensed contractors. It highlights a wider policy challenge involving land use, natural resource protection, local economic activity, public safety and the future of construction and urban development in the mountain region.
Licensed forest contractors have raised concerns about long delays in legal timber harvesting, complicated government procedures, security risks and disputes that have remained unresolved for decades. These complaints cannot simply be ignored, as every lawful business requires an administrative system that is transparent, efficient and predictable.
When permits, contracts and legal disputes remain pending for years or even decades, confidence in both business and government institutions is weakened. In this context, the subcommittee’s decision to review pending cases, re examine forest working plans and remove unnecessary obstacles to lawful activity is a welcome step.
However, business facilitation must not come at the cost of weakening the protections needed to preserve one of Pakistan’s most limited and valuable natural resources. The forests of Gilgit Baltistan cannot be viewed only as a source of commercial timber. They help stabilise mountain land, reduce soil erosion, protect water catchment areas and regulate the flow of water from rain and melting snow.
These natural functions are also essential for protecting residential settlements, agricultural land, roads, bridges, hotels, tourism destinations and other construction projects across the region. Tree roots hold mountain soil together and provide support to vulnerable slopes. When forests are removed, the soil gradually loses stability, increasing the danger of landslides, falling rocks, flash floods and land subsidence.
These risks directly affect the real estate market. A house, shop, hotel or residential project cannot be considered safe merely because its structure is strong. Even an expensive building may face serious danger if it is located near an unstable slope, a blocked natural drainage channel or an area where forest cover is rapidly disappearing.
The expansion of tourism and construction activity in Gilgit Baltistan is increasing demand for land. Hotels, guest houses, resorts, residential buildings and commercial properties are being developed in different valleys and towns. In this environment, unplanned or excessive tree cutting can make land use risks even more serious.
When trees are removed from a valley or mountain slope, the consequences are not limited to the natural environment. The development potential, market value and long term safety of nearby land may also be affected. Forest policy, therefore, cannot be separated from real estate regulation and regional planning.
Many forests in Gilgit Baltistan are privately or collectively owned by local communities. Their ownership rights must be respected, and they should not be denied lawful economic benefits from forest resources. However, private ownership does not mean that forests and land can be used without regulation.
An individual or community may benefit from its property, but an activity that creates risks for an entire valley, settlement, river, road or neighbouring population cannot be treated as a purely private matter. The state has a responsibility to establish scientifically determined limits for forest use and ensure that legal harvesting does not exceed the environmental capacity of an area.
Every forest area should have a clear and updated working plan. Such a plan should record the number and condition of trees, identify how much timber may be harvested safely, specify areas where cutting must be completely prohibited and explain how new trees will be planted after harvesting.
These plans must not remain limited to paperwork. Environmental specialists, forest officials, local communities, district administrations, land use planners and construction experts should all be involved in their preparation.
Before tree cutting is approved, authorities should assess its possible effects on nearby settlements, roads, rivers, mountain slopes and proposed construction projects. Decisions about forests must be based on the wider safety and development needs of the entire area.
The complaints raised by contractors regarding security threats, administrative barriers and excessive delays require urgent attention. Clear deadlines should be introduced for the approval of contracts, permits and dispute resolution.
A digital record of applications, permissions, approved timber quantities and transportation could also improve transparency. Contractors, local communities and government departments should have access to consistent and verifiable information.
Local residents should also be consulted while contracts and forest management plans are prepared. Communities that have lived near forests for generations possess valuable knowledge about the area’s land, water channels, access routes and natural hazards.
Their involvement could improve decision making and strengthen local monitoring of illegal activities. It would also reduce the risk of policies being imposed without considering the needs and experience of the people most directly affected.
Administrative reform should make lawful business easier, but it must not become an excuse to increase tree cutting or weaken oversight. Faster decisions are necessary, but every approval must remain subject to environmental limits and land safety requirements.
The subcommittee was informed that people involved in illegal tree cutting may face penalties of up to three times the market value of the timber. Several vehicles allegedly used for timber smuggling also remain in government custody.
These measures appear strict, but the true effectiveness of any law depends on consistent and impartial enforcement. If action is taken only against a limited number of individuals while influential operators, facilitators or officials involved in possible collusion remain protected, penalties will fail to control illegal activity.
Illegal tree cutting is rarely limited to the person who physically removes the timber. It may involve organised networks responsible for transportation, storage, purchasing and sale. Effective enforcement must therefore target the entire chain rather than isolated offenders.
Closed circuit television cameras, digital vehicle tracking, identification marks on approved timber and online permits can strengthen monitoring. However, technology cannot replace institutional integrity, accountability and political commitment.
The future of Gilgit Baltistan’s forests is not only a matter for the forest department. It is directly connected with housing, tourism, highways, water resources, agriculture, power projects, disaster management and land values.
When forests are protected, mountain soil, water channels, residential settlements and buildings receive greater natural protection. Forest conservation should therefore be treated as an essential part of real estate planning and public infrastructure policy.
Future regulations should maintain a complete record of every tree approved for cutting, the legal authority under which it is removed and the responsibility for planting replacement trees.
Authorities should identify high risk zones where commercial harvesting is prohibited because of the danger of landslides, flooding, soil erosion or damage to water catchment areas.
Similarly, approval for new housing, hotels and tourism developments should depend on a proper assessment of whether the project affects forest land, natural drains, unstable slopes or water channels.
In mountain regions, building permission should be linked with environmental and forest clearances. This approach may prevent costly damage to lives, property and public infrastructure in the future.
Pakistan already has limited forest cover, while climate change is making mountain regions more vulnerable to floods, extreme rainfall and unstable slopes. Under these conditions, the country cannot afford further regulatory neglect, illegal harvesting or poorly planned construction.
Facilitating lawful business, protecting community rights, resolving disputes on time and conserving forests are not conflicting goals. They can support one another when policy is based on scientific planning, transparent administration and equal enforcement of the law.
The guiding principle must remain clear: the economic benefit obtained from timber may be temporary, but the damage caused by forest loss to land, settlements and buildings can continue for generations.
Every decision regarding the forests of Gilgit Baltistan should therefore be made with long term environmental sustainability, land safety and the protection of human settlements as its highest priorities.

Pakistan’s electricity challenge is no longer limited to how much power the country can produce. The more pressing questions are when that electricity is available, which source produces it and how quickly generation can respond when demand rises.
Nearly 125 billion units of electricity were generated for the national grid during the financial year 2025-26, an increase of only 1.5 percent over the previous year. The overall number appears relatively stable, but the generation mix reveals a major change taking place inside the electricity system.
Hydropower generation reached a record level of nearly 40 billion units and contributed about 31 percent of total grid electricity. This large supply of low-cost power helped contain average generation costs, but it could not fully resolve the new challenge emerging during evening hours.
The challenge is timing, not only supply
Solar systems are spreading rapidly across homes, shops, offices, farms and industrial facilities. During daylight hours, many consumers produce a significant portion of the electricity they need through their own solar panels.
This does not necessarily mean that electricity consumption has disappeared. It means that part of the consumption has moved away from the national grid and behind the consumer’s electricity meter.
Government estimates indicate that rooftop solar installations across Pakistan have exceeded 20,000 megawatts. Behind-the-meter solar capacity has been estimated at around 12,000 to 14,000MW and could be even higher. This rapidly growing capacity has significantly reduced the electricity consumers draw from the grid during sunny hours.
The position changes after sunset. Homes continue using lights, fans and air conditioners, while shops and commercial activities remain operational. Solar generation, however, falls rapidly and eventually stops.
A large volume of demand then returns to the national grid within a relatively short period. This pattern of weak daytime grid demand followed by a steep evening increase is commonly described as the “duck curve”.
Why was more coal needed despite record hydropower?
An important question arises from the annual generation figures. If hydropower production was at a record level, why did Pakistan have to generate substantially more electricity from imported coal?
One major reason was the shortfall in electricity generated from imported liquefied natural gas, or RLNG.
RLNG-based generation ended the year around 19 percent below the planned reference level, leaving a shortfall of almost four billion units.
Modern RLNG plants can play an important role in meeting changes in grid demand because their output can generally be adjusted more easily than that of traditional baseload plants. However, limited fuel availability prevented the system from obtaining the planned level of RLNG generation.
Imported-coal generation was increased to fill the gap. It finished approximately 43 percent above the planned reference level, producing almost four billion additional units.
Coal plants are not simply switched on when the sun sets. Instead, they may have to remain operational for longer periods so that dependable thermal generation is available when evening and nighttime demand rises.
What the economic merit order shows
The Independent System and Market Operator, or ISMO, arranges available power plants according to their incremental generation cost. This ranking is known as the economic merit order.
In simple terms, the system first attempts to obtain electricity from plants with lower variable costs. As electricity demand rises, plants placed further down the list, with higher generation costs, may also have to be dispatched.
ISMO’s website lists economic merit orders for July 2026, including separate publications for July 5 and July 12. Its market data section also provides 2026 datasets comparing marginal prices with electricity demand, along with separate marginal-price information.
The marginal price can be understood as the cost associated with the final generating plant needed to meet demand during a particular period. When evening demand requires a higher-cost plant to enter the system, the marginal cost of electricity for that period may rise.
A costly plant is not always an off-merit plant
It would be misleading to assume that every expensive power plant is operated unnecessarily or in violation of the merit order.
The system operator may have to dispatch a particular plant to maintain voltage, manage a transmission limitation, replace an unavailable generator or protect the stability of the grid in a specific region.
ISMO therefore publishes system reports alongside the economic merit order, including information on plants operated for system security and under security-constrained dispatch. These reports are essential for distinguishing between a plant dispatched because of its cost ranking and one operated because of a technical or grid-security requirement.
Solar is lowering costs, but the grid needs flexibility
It would be wrong to describe solar power itself as the problem.
Solar is providing consumers with lower-cost daytime electricity, reducing their reliance on imported fuels and easing pressure on the grid during sunny hours.
The real difficulty is that Pakistan’s electricity system was largely designed for a period when consumer demand was more predictable and most electricity was supplied directly through the national grid.
Today, grid sales decline during the day, but sufficient generation capacity must still be kept available to serve consumers after sunset. The system must therefore maintain coal, gas, RLNG, hydropower and other plants even though consumers may purchase fewer grid units during daylight hours.
The question that matters to consumers
The increased use of imported coal despite record hydropower shows that producing cheap electricity is not enough. The electricity must also be available at the time consumers need it.
If abundant solar and hydropower are available during the day but cannot be stored for evening use, the system must return to conventional thermal plants after sunset.
Possible responses include battery storage, pumped hydropower, better forecasting of distributed solar production, cheaper daytime electricity for industry, incentives for consumers to shift demand and sufficient flexible generation to respond to the evening increase.
Why greater data transparency matters
Publishing total demand and marginal prices is an important start, but a complete public record should also show hourly gross demand, demand remaining after distributed solar, the fuel mix, the plant setting the marginal price and the reason for operating any plant outside the normal merit order.
This would allow consumers and researchers to identify the hour in which demand rose most sharply, the higher-cost plant that entered the system and whether its operation was caused by fuel shortages, transmission restrictions, technical requirements or weak planning.
The central lesson from the financial year 2025-26 is clear. Pakistan is moving from a simple electricity-supply problem towards a challenge involving timing, flexibility and storage.
Even record hydropower generation cannot eliminate imported-fuel dependence unless low-cost daytime electricity can be shifted to the evening.
Slowing the solar transition is not the answer. Pakistan needs a grid capable of storing cheap daytime power, delivering it after sunset and using expensive imported fuels only when no lower-cost alternative is available.

Karachi’s inclusion in the latest list of the world’s least liveable cities should not surprise anyone. Karachi ranks at 170 out of 173 global cities; the cities which are least livable. For decades, the city has struggled with water shortages, damaged roads, inadequate public transport, poor sanitation, unplanned construction and weak municipal services.
The issue, however, extends far beyond international rankings or the daily inconvenience faced by residents. A city’s liveability has a direct impact on its real estate market, the actual value of its properties, rental demand, construction activity and long term investment potential.
People do not simply purchase a house, apartment or plot. They also purchase access to roads, water, sewerage, electricity, transport, schools, hospitals, security and employment. When these basic services remain unreliable, even expensive properties and modern housing projects become less secure and less sustainable investments.
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest Global Liveability Index places numbers against conditions Karachi’s residents experience every day. Traffic congestion, inadequate healthcare, deteriorating infrastructure, poor public services and continuing concerns about stability have all weakened the city’s overall quality of life.
From a real estate perspective, this raises several important questions. Does a high property price necessarily represent genuine value? Can a housing project be considered successful when residents must purchase water through private tankers? Is an apartment a safe investment when fire safety, parking, drainage and emergency access remain inadequate?
A widening gap has developed between property prices and the quality of urban life in Karachi. Homes, apartments and plots have become more expensive in many areas, but public infrastructure has not improved at the same pace. Buyers often pay a high price for property and then spend additional money on water, electricity backup, security, transport and private maintenance.
The latest delay affecting the K Four water supply project is a clear example of the wider problem. The project was launched to provide relief to a city facing a severe water shortage. Its first phase is now expected to be completed by the end of 2029 because of legal obstacles, weak coordination among institutions and implementation difficulties.
By the time the project is completed, Karachi’s population and water demand will have increased further. There is a real possibility that the planned capacity, considered adequate when the project was designed, may no longer be enough to meet the city’s needs.
Water shortages have a direct impact on property markets. They increase the cost of living, encourage tenants to search for alternative areas, make building maintenance more difficult and force developers to arrange expensive private infrastructure. In some neighbourhoods, property prices continue to rise on paper while the true cost of living in those properties also increases sharply.
Pakistan has developed a troubling pattern in the delivery of major infrastructure projects. A crisis is first recognised, a project is announced and work begins. The project then faces funding shortages, legal disputes, administrative disagreements and repeated reviews. By the time it is completed, the original problem has often become much larger.
Such delays are especially damaging for Karachi because it is not an ordinary city. It is Pakistan’s largest urban centre, its main port, financial capital and leading commercial hub. Failures involving Karachi’s roads, water, transport and municipal systems affect not only local residents but also industry, trade, employment and the wider national economy.
Traffic congestion raises the cost of moving people and goods. Water shortages increase operating costs for industries and housing projects. Damaged roads reduce access to commercial districts, while unreliable municipal services weaken the confidence of local and foreign investors.
These conditions affect both residential and commercial property. Areas with better roads, water, drainage and public transport generally attract stronger demand. Areas with poor infrastructure face uncertain property values, higher construction costs and greater investment risks.
A recent discussion before a parliamentary committee highlighted the continuing shortage of funding for important development projects. Lawmakers from Sindh again raised concerns about inadequate federal allocations, while officials acknowledged that financial constraints repeatedly disrupt ongoing schemes.
Whether the issue involves the K Four project, the M Six motorway or another major transport and infrastructure programme, repeated delays also create uncertainty in real estate planning. Developers, buyers and investors frequently make decisions on the assumption that promised roads, transport links or utilities will be completed on time. When deadlines are repeatedly revised, those property decisions are also affected.
Karachi’s institutional structure is another major part of the problem. Responsibility for land, construction, water, roads, sanitation, transport and building control is divided among several agencies. When authority is fragmented, accountability becomes weak.
This institutional division contributes to unplanned urban expansion, illegal construction, poor building control, weak master planning and the uncontrolled conversion of residential areas into commercial zones.
Karachi’s residents and businesses deserve better. In a city that supports a large share of Pakistan’s economy, clean water, functioning transport, safe buildings, sanitation and dependable municipal services should be treated as basic requirements rather than optional improvements.
The latest liveability ranking should not be viewed only as an international embarrassment. It is also a domestic question of accountability. Reports have been written, committees have been formed, projects have been announced and completion dates have been repeatedly revised. Yet the expected improvement in daily urban life has not followed.
Karachi does not need another diagnosis. It needs effective urban governance, a clear and enforceable master plan, consistent infrastructure investment and meaningful coordination between the institutions responsible for running the city.
Sustainable real estate growth will only be possible when improvements in property prices are matched by improvements in living standards. The true value of a city is not created only by high rise buildings, expensive plots and new developments. It is created by water, roads, transport, safety and effective urban management.
Until these basic issues are addressed, Karachi’s weak position in global liveability rankings will not be an unexpected outcome. It will remain the predictable result of decades of inadequate planning, administrative neglect and insufficient investment in essential urban infrastructure.