ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s biosecurity framework is facing growing criticism after the enactment of the National Agri Trade and Food Safety Authority Act, 2025 (NAFSA), which merged the Department of Plant Protection (DPP) and the Animal Quarantine Department (AQD) into a single authority. Farmers, legal experts, and agricultural specialists say the restructuring could weaken the country’s ability to detect and prevent the entry of invasive pests, plant diseases, and animal-related biological threats.
The controversy centers on what critics describe as the removal of technical specialization from institutions historically responsible for protecting Pakistan’s crops, biosecurity, biodiversity and livestock from pests and animal diseases. According to existing international biosecurity practices, plant quarantine and pest surveillance are normally handled by trained entomologists and plant pathologists, while animal quarantine functions require veterinary professionals such as DVM and animal husbandry experts. Critics argue that the new authority no longer reflects that expertise in its governing structure.
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), particularly its Article VII framework on national plant protection organizations (NPPOs), emphasizes the need for appointing technically qualified officers to detect and control insect pests, plant pathogens, weeds, and contamination risks in NPPOs. Agricultural experts say Pakistan’s previous regulatory system at least formally recognized these requirements. Under the new arrangement, however, the NAFSA Board reportedly includes food-safety-oriented professionals but lacks direct representation from the core disciplines of entomology and plant pathology.
“This is not just an administrative change; it is a biosecurity risk,” said one senior agriculture observer, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Food safety is important, but it is not the same as protecting fields, orchards, forests, and ecosystems from invasive pests.”
Legal questions over provincial competence
The legislation is also facing scrutiny on constitutional grounds. Lawyers and policy analysts point out that food regulation, agriculture, and related enforcement functions after the 18th Constitutional Amendment involve significant provincial powers. Critics argue that a federal law overlapping with provincial food safety authorities may require broader consultation and legislative alignment with the provinces.
“A law that touches provincial subjects cannot be imposed in isolation,” said a constitutional lawyer. “Any such restructuring should have been carefully vetted for compatibility with the post-18th Amendment framework.”
Officials and stakeholders have also questioned whether the creation of NAFSA may duplicate the functions of existing provincial food safety bodies rather than strengthen them. Critics warn that overlapping jurisdiction could create confusion, delay enforcement, and reduce accountability in a sector where rapid response is essential.
Concerns over appointments and technical qualifications
The debate has intensified over the qualifications of some officials linked to the reform process. Critics allege that the drafting and implementation of the law were influenced by bureaucrats rather than domain specialists, and they point to disputes surrounding postings and appointments in the former DPP setup.
Questions have been raised about the role of Mr. Waseem Ajmal Chaudhry, former Secretary, MNFSR, Dr. Syed Bilal Haider, former Joint Secretary, MNFSR, and Mr. Tahir Abbas, additional collector customs and former Director General on deputation in DPP and, with critics claiming that technical qualifications were ignored in key appointments and that court rulings had already exposed weaknesses in the system. Another name circulating in the debate is Mr. Yasin Murtaz Chaudhry, said to be a customs officer posted in a regulatory role, which opponents argue further illustrates the growing dominance of non-technical bureaucracy in technical institutions.
Observers say this trend is alarming because biosecurity decisions require specialized scientific judgment, not only administrative experience. Invasive pests, quarantine violations, and plant disease outbreaks can devastate harvests, threaten exports, and damage ecosystems if not handled by trained professionals.
International practice favors specialization
Agricultural governance models in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and members of the European Union typically maintain strong technical separation between food safety, plant protection, and animal health. In these systems, food standards are often managed by one set of regulators, while plant quarantine and animal quarantine remain under scientifically specialized agencies.
“In advanced biosecurity systems, the person making quarantine decisions is not simply a generalist,” said an agronomist familiar with international standards. “They are trained in detecting pests, identifying diseases, and understanding the pathways through which invasive organisms enter a country.”
By contrast, critics argue that NAFSA appears to be structured more like a food regulatory body than a national plant and animal biosecurity authority. They warn that this could leave Pakistan more vulnerable to threats such as cotton, floriculture and horticultural crop viruses, bacteria, wheat rust, potato nematodes and viruses, invasive weeds, livestock diseases, and contamination risks in imported agricultural goods.
Farmers fear economic losses
Farmer groups say the issue is not merely administrative but directly tied to livelihoods. Pakistan’s agriculture sector supports millions of people, and any lapse in quarantine or inspection can lead to crop losses, export restrictions, and market disruption.
“If a pest enters the country and spreads, the farmer pays the price first,” said one representative of an agricultural association. “This is why technical expertise must remain at the center of quarantine and plant health policy.”
The alarm comes at a time when Pakistan is already struggling with inflation, trade pressure, and food insecurity. Analysts say a weak biosecurity regime could deepen those problems by increasing dependence on imports and reducing domestic productivity.
Call for reconsideration
Critics are now calling on parliament, provincial governments, and the judiciary to review the legal and technical structure of NAFSA before irreversible damage is done. They argue that the authority should be restructured to ensure representation from entomology, plant pathology, veterinary science, and animal husbandry, alongside food safety professionals.
“The question is simple,” said one expert. “Can a non-technical bureaucracy safeguard biodiversity, protect agriculture, and stop invasive species better than the scientists trained for that exact purpose?”
For now, the debate over NAFSA has become more than a bureaucratic dispute. It has turned into a larger test of whether Pakistan’s policymaking will prioritize scientific specialization, constitutional balance, and national biosecurity—or continue down a path critics say could expose the country’s farms, forests, and food systems to greater danger.
