
Demise of an ‘indispensable' department
For decades, the Department of Plant Protection (DPP) was one of Pakistan's most quietly effective institutions. It didn't make headlines, but it made food security possible by fighting desert locust and crop / orchard pests.
From overseeing pesticide regulation to conducting aerial locust spraying, this department formed the frontline of Pakistan's battle against pest outbreaks including desert locust that could cripple agriculture and destabilize rural economies. That is, until May 2, 2025, when a presidential ordinance dissolved the DPP and replaced it with a new body—NAFSA, the National Agri-trade and Food Safety Authority.
The move, packaged as a leap toward modernization and international compliance, has instead raised serious questions about Pakistan's preparedness to deal with agricultural emergencies.
The dissolution of DPP marks the end of a chapter that began before Pakistan even founded.
The department's origins stretch back to colonial India, and after independence, it became a formal arm of the federal government. As Pakistan's designated National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), the DPP operated under international treaties and frameworks like the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC – 1951 revised 1997) and FAO's regional pest control systems including DLCC – desert locust control committee established in 1955 and FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in South-West Asia (SWAC) is the oldest of the three regional commissions within the global locust early warning and prevention system, which was established in 1964.
At the helm in the early days was Dr. Taskhir Ahmed, a British-trained entomologist whose innovations—especially in aerial spraying and pesticide formulation—earned international recognition and laid the groundwork for a modern plant protection regime. Under his guidance, Pakistan developed a pioneering aerial wing including many critical research portfolios / schemes which were later on transferred to what would become the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council.
Yet despite this proud legacy, the DPP began its slow decline decades ago. Since 1998, it has not had a permanent, qualified Plant Protection Adviser and Director General, originally the position was PPA&D having its own qualification, experience, and fitness.
Political appointments and bureaucratic interference replaced technical leadership caused in appointments from PAS, Pakistan Post and Pakistan Custom cadres too.
Resultantly, infrastructure decayed, and staff numbers dwindled, key functions like locust surveillance and aerial operations became neglected. By the time the locust crisis of 2019–2020 hit, the department was already struggling.
No benefit was accrued, even by a big grant offered by the World Bank of USD 200 million. Although post-crisis reforms were promised; these were never materialized. Instead, the final blow came this year with the creation of NAFSA—a body that, though well-intentioned, has started off 'dangerously incomplete'.
NAFSA was created to align Pakistan with modern plant and animal quarantine under Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement viz-a-viz food safety standards, including those set by the WTO and Codex Alimentarius. It replaced outdated legislation from the 1930s and 1970s, and included functions like animal and plant quarantine and pesticides registration too.
But two of DPP's most vital operational pillars—desert locust control and aerial pest management—were not absorbed into NAFSA's framework. This is not a technical omission; it is an existential gap.
Without a mandate or structure to monitor and respond to pest outbreaks, particularly desert locust, Pakistan has essentially disarmed itself in the face of an environmental as well as recurring threat that knows no borders.
The risks are significant. With no operational aerial wing and no active locust division, the country is exposed to future invasions it will be institutionally unequipped to handle. Expertise is being lost as specialists retire or are sidelined.
The country risks falling out of compliance with FAO and regional cooperations, jeopardizing its relationships with regional partners like India, Iran, and Oman—a cooperation that is essential for effective cross-border pests / desert locust surveillance.
More immediately, any future outbreak of trans-boundary pest could spiral into a national emergency, simply because no federal body will be legally or logistically ready to respond.
All of this, ironically, is unfolding in the name of modernization. But modernization without continuity is not progress—it is reinvention without memory.
The institutional knowledge built over generations through DPP's field operatives, scientists, and aerial teams being our assets cannot simply be replaced by legislation or an administrative reshuffle. What is needed now is not just a new name, but a coherent structure that blends regulatory reform with operational capacity.
The way forward must include the immediate establishment of a Plant Protection Operations Wing under the Ministry of National Food Security & Research. This unit should house the locust control and aerial functions, staffed with trained entomologists, pilots, GIS experts, and pest surveillance officers.
Legal support if needed is also critical: a Federal Plant Protection Emergency Act would enable rapid mobilization and coordination across provinces and borders.
Pakistan must also reaffirm its commitments to international bodies like FAO and reestablish formal cooperation with neighbouring countries on desert pest control. And in keeping with modernization goals, the aerial wing should be digitized—pivoting toward aircraft / drone-based surveillance and spraying technologies.
A dedicated Desert Locust Research and Operations Centre in Balochistan or southern Punjab could serve as the nerve centre for all of these activities, combining real-time data with legacy field intelligence.
It is not too late to act. But time is short, and the pests like desert locust won't wait. Pakistan's agricultural resilience now hinges not on its willingness to modernize—but on its ability to do so without forgetting what once made its plant protection system work. Reform must be built upon the legacy, not by erasing it.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan, India start reducing troops after border clashes: Lt. General Sahir Shamshad
General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Pakistan's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff committee, speaks during an interview with Reuters on the sidelines of the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit, in Singapore, May 30, 2025, in this screengrab from a video. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article Pakistan and India are close to reducing the troop buildup along their border to levels before conflict erupted between the nuclear-armed neighbours this month, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Pakistan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Reuters on Friday, although he warned the crisis had increased the risk of escalation in the future. Both sides used fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery in four days of clashes, their worst fighting in decades, before a ceasefire was announced. The recent clashes between Pakistan and India arose following the Pahalgam attack on April 22 in Indian Illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) that killed 26 people, most of them tourists. New Delhi blamed the incident without evidence on Pakistani elements, a charge denied by Islamabad, which sought an independent probe into the incident. Breaking 🚨 Pakistan & India withdraw troops from the forward positions, confirmed by Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee. "We have almost come back to the pre-22nd April situation," Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza told Reuters. — Murtaza Ali Shah (@MurtazaViews) May 30, 2025 On May 7, India launched missiles at civilian sites, which it claims to describe as "terrorist infrastructure" across the border. This prompted a defensive response from Pakistan and a subsequent troop buildup by both countries along the frontier. General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Pakistan's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the two militaries had started the process of drawing down troop levels. "We have almost come back to the pre-April 22 situation... we are approaching that, or we must have approached that by now," said Mirza, the most senior Pakistani military official to speak publicly since the conflict. India's Ministry of Defence and the office of the Indian Chief of Defence Staff did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment on the remarks by Mirza. Mirza, who is in Singapore to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue forum, said while there was no move towards nuclear weapons during this conflict, it was a dangerous situation. "Nothing happened this time," he said. "But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time, because when the crisis is on, the responses are different." He also said the risk of escalation in the future had increased since the fighting this time was not limited to the IIOJK, the scenic region in the Himalayas that both nations rule in part but claim in full. Dangerous trend The two countries have fought three major wars, two of them over the disputed Kashmir region, and numerous armed skirmishes since both were born out of British colonial India in 1947. "This (conflict) lowers the threshold between two countries who are contiguous nuclear the future, it will not be restricted to the disputed territory. It would come down to (the) whole of India and (the) whole of Pakistan," Mirza said. "This is a very dangerous trend." Reuters has reported that the rapid escalation of hostilities ended in part because of behind-the-scenes diplomacy involving the US, India, and Pakistan, and the key role played by Washington in brokering peace. India continues to deny any third-party role in the ceasefire and said that any engagement between India and Pakistan has to be bilateral. But Mirza warned that international mediation might be difficult in the future because of a lack of crisis management mechanisms between the countries. "The time window for the international community to intervene would now be very less, and I would say that damage and destruction may take place even before that time window is exploited by the international community," he said. Pakistan was open to dialogue, he added, but beyond a crisis hotline between the directors general of military operations and some hotlines at the tactical level on the border, there was no other communication between the two countries. Mirza said there were no backchannel discussions or informal talks to ease tensions. He also said he had no plans to meet General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defence staff, who is also in Singapore for the Shangri-La forum. "These issues can only be resolved by dialogue and consultations, at the table. They cannot be resolved on the battlefield," Mirza said.


Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Pakistan, India close to completing border troop reduction, senior Pakistani general says
SINGAPORE: Pakistan and India are close to reducing the troop build up along their border to levels before conflict erupted between the nuclear-armed neighbours this month, a top Pakistani military official told Reuters on Friday, although he warned the crisis had increased the risk of escalation in the future. Both sides used fighter jets, missiles, drones and artillery in four days of clashes, their worst fighting in decades, before a ceasefire was announced. The spark for the latest fighting between the old enemies was an April 22 attack in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) that killed 26 people, most of them tourists. New Delhi blamed the incident on 'terrorists' backed by Pakistan, a charge denied by Islamabad. On May 7, India launched missiles at what it said were 'terrorist infrastructure' sites across the border, and as Pakistan responded with its own attacks, both countries built up additional forces along the frontier. General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC), said the two militaries had started the process of drawing down troop levels. 'We have almost come back to the pre-22nd April situation… we are approaching that, or we must have approached that by now,' said Mirza, the most senior Pakistani military official to speak publicly since the conflict. India's Ministry of Defence and the office of the Indian chief of defence staff did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment on the remarks by Mirza. Indian aircraft: Pakistan airspace to remain closed until June 24 Mirza, who is in Singapore to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue forum, said while there was no move towards nuclear weapons during this conflict, it was a dangerous situation. 'Nothing happened this time,' he said. 'But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time, because when the crisis is on, the responses are different.' He also said the risk of escalation in the future had increased since the fighting this time was not limited to the disputed territory of Kashmir, the scenic region in the Himalayas that both nations rule in part but claim in full. The two sides attacked military installations in their mainlands but neither has acknowledged any serious damage. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned Pakistan this month that New Delhi would target 'terrorist hideouts' across the border again if there were new attacks on India. 'Dangerous trend' The two countries have fought three major wars, two of them over Kashmir, and numerous armed skirmishes since both were born out of British colonial India in 1947. India blames Pakistan for an insurgency in its part of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir that began in 1989 and has killed tens of thousands. Pakistan says it provides only moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmiris seeking self-determination. 'This (conflict) lowers the threshold between two countries who are contiguous nuclear powers…in the future, it will not be restricted to the disputed territory. It would come down to (the) whole of India and (the) whole of Pakistan,' Mirza said. 'This is a very dangerous trend.' India's aggressive posture threatening regional peace, Masood Khan Reuters has reported that the rapid escalation of hostilities ended in part because of behind-the-scenes diplomacy involving the US, India and Pakistan, and the key role played by Washington in brokering peace. India has denied any third-party role in the ceasefire and said that any engagement between India and Pakistan has to be bilateral. But Mirza warned that international mediation might be difficult in the future because of a lack of crisis management mechanisms between the countries. 'The time window for the international community to intervene would now be very less, and I would say that damage and destruction may take place even before that time window is exploited by the international community,' he said. Pakistan was open to dialogue, he added, but beyond a crisis hotline between the directors general of military operations and some hotlines at the tactical level on the border, there was no other communication between the two countries. India's foreign ministry spokesperson said on Thursday, 'talks and terror don't go together' in response to a question on the possibility of dialogue with Pakistan. Surprisingly, Pakistan and India agree to ceasefire Mirza said there were no backchannel discussions or informal talks to ease tensions. He also said he had no plans to meet General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defence staff, who is also in Singapore for the Shangri-La forum. 'These issues can only be resolved by dialogue and consultations, on the table. They cannot be resolved on the battlefield,' Mirza said.


Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US court temporarily reinstates Trump's tariffs amid legal battle
A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Thursday, a day after a US trade court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court's ruling to consider the government's appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9. Wednesday's surprise ruling by the US Court of International Trade had threatened to kill or at least delay the imposition of Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs on imports from most US trading partners and additional tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China. The latter was related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US. The trade court's three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address threats during national emergencies. Senior Trump administration officials had said they were undeterred by the trade court's ruling, saying they expected either to prevail on appeal or employ other presidential powers to ensure the tariffs go into effect. Trump has used the threat of charging US importers costly tariffs for goods from almost every other country in the world as leverage in international trade talks, a strategy the trade court's ruling would upend. The trade court ruling had not interfered with any negotiations with top trading partners that are scheduled in the days ahead, Trump's administration said. Trump himself wrote in a statement shared on social media that he hoped the US Supreme Court would "reverse this horrible, country-threatening decision" of the trade court, while lambasting the judicial branch of government as anti-American. Donald J. Trump Truth Social 05.29.25 08:10 PM EST The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has… — Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 30, 2025 "The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs," Trump wrote on Thursday evening. "If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America." Many US trading partners offered careful responses. The British government said the trade court's ruling was a domestic matter for the US administration and noted it was "only the first stage of legal proceedings." Both Germany and the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, said they could not comment on the decision. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the trade court's finding was "consistent with Canada's longstanding position" that Trump's tariffs were unlawful. Financial markets, which have whipsawed in response to the twists and turns in Trump's chaotic trade war, reacted with cautious optimism to the trade court ruling, though gains in stocks on Thursday were largely limited by expectations that the court's ruling faced a potentially lengthy appeals process. Indeed, analysts said broad uncertainty remained regarding the future of Trump's tariffs, which have cost companies more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher costs, according to a Reuters analysis. Some sector-specific tariffs, such as on imports of steel, aluminum and automobiles, were imposed by Trump under separate authorities on national security grounds and were unaffected by the ruling. The Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit group representing five small businesses that sued over the tariffs, said the appeals court's temporary stay was a procedural step. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the center, said the appeals court would ultimately agree with the small businesses that faced irreparable harm of "the loss of critical suppliers and customers, forced and costly changes to established supply chains, and, most seriously, a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses." A separate federal court earlier on Thursday also found that Trump overstepped his authority in using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for what he called reciprocal tariffs of at least 10% on goods from most US trading partners and for the separate 25% levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to fentanyl. That ruling was much narrower, however, and the relief order stopping the tariffs applied only to the toy company that brought the case. The administration has appealed that ruling as well. Uncertainity persists Following a market revolt after his major tariff announcement on April 2, Trump paused most import duties for 90 days and said he would hammer out bilateral deals with trade partners. But apart from a pact with Britain this month, agreements remain elusive, and the trade court's ruling on the tariffs and the uncertainty of the appeals process may dissuade countries like Japan from rushing into deals, analysts said. "Assuming that an appeal does not succeed in the next few days, the main win is time to prepare, and also a cap on the breadth of tariffs - which can't exceed 15% for the time being," said George Lagarias, chief economist at Forvis Mazars international advisers. The trade court ruling would have lowered the overall effective U.S. tariff rate to about 6%, but the appellate court's emergency stay means it will remain at about 15%, according to estimates from Oxford Research. That is the level it has been since Trump earlier this month struck a temporary truce that reduced punishing levies on Chinese goods until late summer. By contrast, the effective tariff rate had been between 2% and 3% before Trump returned to office in January. Trump's trade war has shaken makers of everything from luxury handbags and sneakers to household appliances and cars as the price of raw materials has risen.