By Dr Tasneem Ahmad, Former Director General, Department of Plant Protection (DPP), Karachi
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The creation of the National AgriTrade and Food Safety Authority (NAFSA) was hailed as a long-awaited reform to bring coherence and coordination to Pakistan’s fragmented agricultural trade and food safety systems, as the latter one was not existing ab initio. Yet as the final draft of the NAFSA Ordinance emerges, serious concerns have surfaced over its technical validity, institutional design, scientific base and compliance with the WTO-SPS Agreement and its three “sister” organizations the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH/OIE), and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC).
Instead of strengthening Pakistan’s position in international trade, the current structure of NAFSA risks doing the opposite undermining scientific credibility, inviting export rejections, and alienating international partners who rely on recognized SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) frameworks.
One of the most striking contradictions in the NAFSA Ordinance is the change in qualification requirements for technical and leadership positions. Traditionally, such posts were reserved for experts in entomology, plant pathology, plant protection, veterinary sciences, and animal husbandry all disciplines that directly underpin SPS measures. However, the new draft astonishingly replaces these with agronomy a discipline concerned primarily with crop production and soil management.
Agronomy, though important for field productivity, has little to do with pest risk analysis, food microbiology, or veterinary epidemiology the very foundations of SPS compliance. By sidelining specialized scientists, NAFSA compromises its ability to carry out diagnostic, quarantine, and risk assessment functions. Export certificates issued by officers lacking internationally recognized qualifications may no longer be accepted by importing countries, endangering the very trade the authority is meant to facilitate. None the less the organization is being made a hub of the bureaucracy taken from provincial and federal government.
Globally, SPS functions are carried out through highly specialized authorities. The IPPC requires technically competent National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs); the OIE mandates veterinary-qualified officials for animal health certification; and the Codex Alimentarius depends on food scientists and toxicologists for food safety regulation. By contrast, NAFSA’s agronomy-based staffing and structure are incompatible with these international systems. If implemented as is, Pakistan’s SPS measures may lose recognition a potential trade disaster that could invite rejections or even bans on exports of plants, plant parts, fruits, vegetables, livestock products, and processed foods.
Equally troubling is the unnecessary inclusion of pesticide registration in the NAFSA Ordinance. This function is already comprehensively governed under the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance (APO) 1971. NAFSA’s inclusion of pesticide registration is a clear case of institutional overlap and technical confusion. It risks creating confusion, duplication, bureaucratic turf wars, and regulatory delays while diverting attention from NAFSA’s core purpose: ensuring SPS compliance, export facilitation, and food safety assurance. If not corrected, conflicting pesticide regulators, may lead to both domestic and international credibility issues.
The WTO-SPS Agreement clearly requires that all measures be based on scientific principles and supported by qualified authorities. NAFSA’s current design violates this foundation. The consequences would be far-reaching: importing countries may reject Pakistan’s phytosanitary and/or veterinary certificates; Pakistan would lack scientific defense in case of trade challenges over pests, diseases, or residues; international bodies such as FAO, IPPC, and WOAH may hesitate to fund or collaborate with a technically diluted system; and weak diagnostic systems and poor laboratory capacity could increase risks of contamination and pests/diseases outbreaks. In short, Pakistan’s agri-trade governance may collapse under its own institutional contradictions.
To realign NAFSA with global norms and ensure scientific integrity, three reforms are urgently needed. First, restore technical qualifications by reinstating entomology, pathology, veterinary sciences, animal husbandry, food science, and microbiology as core eligibility fields. Second, remove pesticide registration from NAFSA’s functions, keeping it under the existing or some other organization as per the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971.
Third, reorganize NAFSA into three divisions aligned with the WTO-SPS structure: Phytosanitary / Plant Health and Quarantine (IPPC-aligned), Animal Health and Sanitary Measures (OIE-aligned), and Food Safety and Consumer Protection (Codex-aligned). Such restructuring would restore credibility, attract donors support, and ensure Pakistan’s measures are globally recognized as science-based and technically competent.
Several countries have already perfected the model Pakistan seeks to build. Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) manages biosecurity, food safety, and trade facilitation under a single scientific framework staffed by highly trained technical officers. New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) serves as an integrated authority with transparent SPS risk analysis, widely respected for its science-based trade negotiations.
The European Union’s DG SANTE oversees plant health, animal health, and food safety through an independent scientific body, ensuring decisions remain evidence-driven and WTO-consistent. Pakistan can draw on these models to reform its laws and institutions here NAFSA, ensuring that science, not bureaucratic and political compromise, guides agri-trade and food safety governance.
Although, NAFSA was conceived to bring strength and coherence to Pakistan’s agri-trade systems, but without aligning its structure with the scientific and institutional foundations of the SPS Agreement, it risks becoming another bureaucratic body without credibility or capacity. Reforms are essentially needed and are possible but they require the government to listen to scientific experts, restore technical integrity, and learn from international best models / practices. Only then NAFSA can evolve from a legislative/ordinance adventure into a globally respected authority that genuinely protects Pakistan’s agri-trade and food safety.
(tasneem91@yahoo.com)