THE recent statement by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, referring to the Department of Plant Protection (DPP) as the “department of destruction,” has sparked serious concern across agricultural, export and policy circles.
Such a remark, especially when coming from the highest office, risks undermining not just the department in question but the broader credibility of Pakistan’s agricultural export systems at a time when the country is struggling to maintain its competitiveness in the global market.
DPP (recently disbanded through an Ordinance) serves as Pakistan’s designated National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), mandated under international conventions such as the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and operating within the framework of the WTO-SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) agreement.
Its primary role is to oversee phytosanitary controls, prevent the spread of pests and diseases and issue phytosanitary certificates that are prerequisites for the safe export of agricultural commodities.
In other words, DPP is the gatekeeper for plant health compliance in international trade.
The phytosanitary certification work it carries out annually facilitates exports worth over USD 10 billion, including major crops like rice, maize, oil seeds, vegetables, mangoes and citrus — crops that are not only critical to Pakistan’s economy in the shape of earning precious foreign exchange but also essential for rural livelihoods.
To blame DPP for issues that fall beyond its jurisdiction is to fundamentally misunderstand the structure and responsibilities of Pakistan’s agricultural governance.
Issues such as excessive pesticide residues, mycotoxins (like aflatoxins) and GMO contamination — which are at the core of EU rice rejection concerns — are not within the direct mandate of the DPP.
These are complex, multilayered challenges stemming from unregulated agrochemical usage, poor post-harvest management, weak market surveillance, lack of traceability and systemic fragmentation in regulatory oversight.
Addressing these requires cross-institutional coordination involving provincial agriculture departments, pesticide registration and evaluation bodies, food safety authorities, biotechnology regulators and export-oriented organizations.
Simplifying these problems into a one-department failure is neither fair nor constructive.
Ironically, DPP is performing its responsibilities with a significantly constrained budget and minimal staff.
For instance, the Central Plant Quarantine Laboratory (CPQL) in Karachi, a vital component of Pakistan’s compliance with international plant health standards, is operated with a budget of merely Rs.116 million — a fraction compared to the Rs.400 million reportedly allocated to a non-governmental semi-government lab in Karachi University.
Despite these resource limitations, DPP has continued to issue thousands of export certificates, facilitated uninterrupted safe trade flows and successfully responded to pest incursions and import challenges under intense global scrutiny.
It is a textbook example of “penny wise, pound foolish” policymaking when vital regulatory institutions like DPP are starved of investment and manpower, yet expected to deliver faultless performance at par with global benchmarks.
The recent history of Pakistan’s aviation sector provides a sobering parallel.
When the then Aviation Minister publicly questioned the credibility of PIA pilots and licensing processes, the international response was swift and severe: bans by the EU, UK and others, leading to the collapse of PIA’s international operations and reputational damage to the country’s aviation oversight systems.
The current remarks by the chief executive on DPP risk triggering a similar loss of confidence among international trading partners.
Agricultural exports are as reliant on trust in regulatory integrity as aviation is on safety compliance.
When that trust is shaken — whether due to pilot licenses or phytosanitary certification system— the economic repercussions can be severe, immediate and long-lasting.
It is essential, therefore, that public discourse on institutions like DPP be informed, measured and factually grounded.
Instead of blame, what is required is reform — reform that starts with strengthening the entire agricultural value chain from farm to port.
Pakistan’s rice rejection issues in the EU stem from structural flaws at the production and supply level, including the misuse of unrecommended agrochemicals, lack of standardization in drying and storage and virtually absence of GMO controls at the seed level.
These are not issues that DPP can resolve alone.
What is needed is a coordinated national task force comprising all relevant stakeholders — farmers, pesticide businesses, exporters, regulators, agricultural scientists including extension officials and ministries — underpinned by science-based policymaking, strengthening expert manpower, capacity building, investment in high tech laboratory infrastructure, farmers training and digital traceability systems.
DPP is a critical link in the chain, but it is not the entire chain.
It is doing a challenging job under severe resource constraints and political pressure including none technical leadership hired from other irrelevant departments.
Rather than becoming a scapegoat, it deserves institutional support and recognition for its pivotal role in maintaining agricultural trade flows.
If there are weaknesses, they must be addressed through collaborative improvement, not through public denouncement.
The international community, particularly major markets like the European Union, closely monitors how Pakistan governs its export systems.
Negative statements, especially those made in haste or without full context, can have consequences that go far beyond domestic political and governance discourse.
Leadership demands both responsibility and restraint.
Constructive criticism, when based on evidence, should lead to reform and progress, not institutional erosion.
The time has come to take a holistic, farm-to-port approach to Pakistan’s agricultural export strategy — one that supports, not undermines, the institutions tasked with ensuring our access to international markets, that have been market accessed after serious long scientific discussions/dialogues with relevant departments.
—The writer is former Adviser/Director General Department of Plant Protection. (tasneem91@yahoo.com)
