An investigation into the DPP over rice exports brought trade operations to a halt last week. This is what went down
KARACHI: Early last week, agricultural trade in Pakistan came to a grinding halt. Overnight, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) arrested nine inspectors of the Department of Plant Protection, which is a department of the Ministry for National Food Security and Research.
The raid, by some accounts, was given the final green light by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif himself. With nine of their inspectors in custody, the remaining DPP inspectors stationed at Pakistan’s ports became reluctant to inspect and clear shipments leaving and entering Pakistan, afraid they could get caught up in the situation.
So what was going on? Behind the scenes, a government committee had been investigating issues in consignments of Basmati Rice going from Pakistan to the European Union this year. Many of these consignments had been stopped at the ports because they had certain contaminants in them.
This is a bigger deal than it sounds. Over the past few years, Pakistan has become the dominant exporter of Basmati to the EU precisely because Pakistani consignments have been cleaner and contaminant free compared to rice shipped out from India. This year’s export, at a time when India is already reopening its export of rice, may be detrimental to Pakistan’s foothold in the EU’s Basmati market.
Understanding the DPP
Let us get this part out of the way. The DPP has a very simple job. They are supposed to keep certain contaminants out of Pakistan, and not allow other contamination in the shipments of agricultural products that Pakistan exports.
You see, agricultural trade the world over is party to many protocols and biosafety rules. There are certain foreign bodies and organisms that are harmless in a particular region through centuries of evolution, but are particularly brand new in other regions. If these organisms are transported, they could wreak havoc on the natural habitat of other global regions. In addition to this, agricultural products are also strictly tested for genetic modification, pesticides, toxicity, heavy metal poisoning and all sorts of other contaminants.
It is the job of the DPP to monitor this and meet strict conditions. In this regard, Pakistan’s export have been pretty clean, and have met very strict European standards.
Overall, the European market has proven a rich area for Pakistani rice, and the Indian exporters have failed to capture it in the same way. In 2019/20 Pakistan’s exports to the EU grew to over 250,000 metric tonnes while those from India fell to under 120,000 metric tonnes. During the last two decades, Basmati rice imports into Europe increased significantly, were valued at $ 551.8 million in 2020, and are projected to reach $ 866.5 million in 2031. In 2021 imports of rice from Pakistan valued at 329 million euros in comparison to 166 million euros from India according to the European Commission.
This success of the Pakistani rice over rice from India was mainly due to pesticide residues in Indian Basmati and in particular to a decision by the EU commission to decrease the maximum residue level (MRL) for the fungicide tricyclazole from 1 to 0.01 mg/kg starting January 1st, 2018. Instantly the imports from India decreased significantly and Pakistani imports took over. The trend has continued in the past couple of years. In fact, even in 2024, the EU flagged 400 different Indian products.
The contamination problem
Naturally, it was worrying when a number of rice shipments to the EU were stopped by the European port authorities. What was the reason for these interceptions? The prime minister formed a fact finding committee to get to the bottom of this sudden change.
The primary task of the committee is to investigate the reasons behind the non-compliance with food safety standards that have led to rice interceptions in EU countries. The main force being investigated by this committee was the DPP, which has failed to enforce these standards, which has negatively impacted Pakistan’s external trade. The stated aim was to identify responsible officers within the DPP who issued inaccurate phytosanitary certificates and investigate claims that DPP employees created monopolies by selectively licensing fumigation services for personal gain. The inquiry committee, led by retired bureaucrat Shahid Ali Khan, was formed to investigate the interceptions. However, critics note that the committee lacked experts in sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. While food safety does not fall under the DPP’s mandate—which primarily handles biosecurity—the committee alleged that 46 of the 72 interceptions were linked to phytosanitary certificates issued by DPP officers without proper documentation.
The raids go down:
What followed was a dramatic turn of events.
Sources reveal that prior to the raid on the DPP office, FIA Karachi also raided the official residence of the DPP Director General, Dr. Muhammad Tariq Khan. Allegedly conducted without a search warrant or registered case, the raid involved FIA personnel, including two female sub-inspectors, and occurred late Thursday night. The team, led by Malik Junaid Hassan, Inspector of the FIA Corporate Crime Circle, reportedly harassed Dr. Khan’s family while conducting a search of the premises.
The FIA’s actions came from a directive issued by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif during a high-level meeting on Thursday evening. The directive followed a report by the Economic Minister at Pakistan’s Embassy in Brussels, Omar Hameed, highlighting 72 interceptions of Pakistani rice shipments at EU ports. The Prime Minister ordered arrests of those responsible for issuing phytosanitary certificates without proper verification of food safety risks.
The FIA’s case centers on procedural lapses by DPP officers. According to the FIR registered by the FIA’s Anti-Corruption Circle in Karachi (FIR 40/2024), officials bypassed required procedures, such as field inspections, lab tests, and compliance verification, when issuing phytosanitary certificates. The accused officials include Fakhar-u-Zaman, Muhammad Waleed Mukhtar, Shahzad Salman, and Shehzad Salman who were previously implicated in FIA FIR 4/2024 dated 23-02-2024 along with Dr. Muhammad Qasim Khan Kakar, Director Admin in DPP (who is on deputation from Balochistan Agriculture Research Institute, Quetta) related to clearance of highly infested food consignment.
Critics within the Ministry of National Food Security and Research (MNFSR) point out that food safety inspections and certifications are not part of the DPP’s mandate. Instead, these responsibilities fall under the Ministry of National Health Services Regulations and Coordination. Furthermore, Pakistan lacks federal legislation governing food safety, as the subject has been devolved to provinces following the 18th Constitutional Amendment.
Whose job is it exactly?
This is where things get a little dicey. Who is supposed to be checking all of these things? The DPP has claimed the committee completely ignored their explanations and gave them no prior warning before the arrests. Of course this makes sense. Why would you warn someone they are about to be arrested?
The DPP is claiming their mandate is limited to phytosanitary measures and does not cover food safety inspections, compliance procedures, or certifications, which fall under the jurisdiction of provincial food safety authorities and the Federal Health Ministry. Responsibilities for managing Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) at the farm level rest with provincial agriculture departments, while exporters are accountable for controlling aflatoxin levels during storage, processing, packaging, and transportation.
Now, this is true but the job to give the final phytosanitary certificate does rest with the DPP. It is classic blame shifting that goes on in government departments. When no questions are being asked, you want to take as much control as possible, but when time comes to take responsibility, everybody says the issue is beyond their jurisdiction.
Since its inception in 1947, the DPP has faced chronic neglect. As Pakistan’s designated National Plant Protection Organization under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the DPP plays a critical role in regulating agricultural trade. Yet, successive governments have routinely appointed non-technical officials to key positions, ignoring the need for expertise in entomology, plant pathology, and regulatory experience.
Temporary and politically influenced appointments have hindered the department’s capacity to enforce proper biosecurity protocols, jeopardizing Pakistan’s export potential. While the committee found no evidence of bribery, the arrests of DPP officials appear to reflect political pressures rather than substantive wrongdoing.
The controversy underscores the urgent need for structural reforms in the DPP and broader export compliance frameworks. Addressing systemic weaknesses, including chronic understaffing, lack of accountability, and political interference, is essential to restoring confidence in Pakistan’s agricultural export procedures.
The impact to Pakistan’s rice market
Pakistan is already in a very delicate position when it comes to rice production and exports. The arrests come at a disastrous time for Pakistan’s rice exports. In the financial year 2023-24, Pakistan saw a boom in its rice trade because India, otherwise the world’s largest producer and exporter of rice, had placed a ban on exporting its rice to control prices domestically. Pakistan had filled in some of this void because of the high quality of rice produced in the sub-continent.
Overall, the European market has proven a rich area for Pakistani rice, and the Indian exporters have failed to capture it in the same way. In 2019/20 Pakistan’s exports to the EU grew to over 250,000 metric tonnes while those from India fell to under 120,000 metric tonnes. During the last two decades, Basmati rice imports into Europe increased significantly, were valued at $ 551.8 million in 2020, and are projected to reach $ 866.5 million in 2031. In 2021 imports of rice from Pakistan valued at 329 million euros in comparison to 166 million euros from India according to the European Commission.
This was a small window of opportunity for the first time in decades where Pakistan could have become a large exporter of rice and given India a tough time.
Since the late 1990s, Basmati has become an international phenomenon. The demand for this unique variety of rice has increased in the European and American markets, and where there is demand there is supply. Supermarkets all over the European Union and the United States are stocked full with Basmati, and this special kind of rice comes only from India or Pakistan.
In the United States, it even inspired a copycat that tried passing itself off as basmati, until a lawsuit by the Indian government prompted it to change its name to Texmati, so called because it is grown in Texas. In the past 10 years, Pakistan has exported Basmati Rice in the range of 4.8 lakh metric tons at its lowest in 2016-17, to 8.65 lakh metric tons at its highest in 2019-20.
On average, Pakistan has exported around 6 lakh metric tons of Basmati Rice, mostly to Europe and the Middle East in the past decade. Production of Basmati is much higher than exports, but there is also a very strong domestic demand for Basmati. In the year 2023-24, early estimates suggest Pakistan has increased its Basmati exports by at least 24%, raising them to nearly 7.5 lakh metric tonnes. The export of non-basmati rice, on the other hand, has risen by nearly 32% to over 40 lakh metric tonnes.
The cause of this rise does not have to do with increased productivity, or more farmers turning towards rice. It is simply a result of India’s decision to clamp down on its own rice exports last year. Why do India’s actions have such a ripple effect? Because they are the largest rice producers and exporters in the world.
Of course, this was not always the case. Back in the 1960s, India was consistently one of the largest importers of rice in the world. Pakistan, in comparison, was a significant exporter all the way through to the late 1980s. This started to change in the 1990s, and in what has been a dramatic turn of events, in the past decade India has consistently beaten Pakistan and the rest of the world in both Basmati and non-Basmati exports. The secret to India’s success is a progressive and aggressive rice export policy that has made very effective use of marketing despite Pakistan’s superior quality and variety of Basmati. But perhaps more importantly, India has been aided by the sheer complacency on the part of Pakistani farmers, millers, exporters, and the government. What we could see in the next few years is the complete decimation of the competitive advantage Pakistan’s variety of Basmati has over India.
Implications
The raids and arrests have sparked concerns about their potential fallout on Pakistan’s international trade reputation. Industry insiders fear the EU could impose a blanket ban on Pakistani rice exports, similar to the ban on PIA flights following controversies over pilot credentials.
Notably, 26 of the 72 intercepted rice shipments had all required documentation, yet they were still flagged at EU ports. This indicates that issues extend beyond procedural lapses at the DPP. On the other hand, some shipments issued certificates without proper documentation were not intercepted, further complicating the narrative.
Experts argue that such interceptions are common in international trade, even for countries with robust food safety systems like India, China, and the USA. They question the FIA’s approach, emphasizing that the DPP’s role is limited to biosecurity measures and not food safety compliance. Section 8 of the Pakistan Plant Quarantine Act 1976 provides indemnity to DPP officers for actions performed in good faith.
Legal experts suggest that unless malafide intent or bribery is proven, disciplinary action—not criminal proceedings—should be pursued. Critics also highlight the lack of legal grounds for charges like forgery and fraud in the absence of complaints from rice exporters. The Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan (REAP) has denied any allegations of misconduct by DPP officers, further undermining the FIA’s case.
Courtesy Profit
