Recruitment: challenge to NAFSA’s credibility?

The establishment of the National Agri-Trade and Food Safety Authority (NAFSA) is being portrayed as a major reform initiative aimed at modernizing Pakistan’s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) framework, food safety systems, quarantine governance, and agricultural trade facilitation. In principle, such reform is highly desirable and long overdue. However, the long-term success of NAFSA will depend not merely upon legislation or institutional restructuring but fundamentally upon the credibility, competence, and scientific integrity of its human resource system.

At present, one of the most serious concerns emerging in professional circles relates to the recruitment process being conducted for technical positions under NAFSA. Available advertisements clearly indicate that recruitment is being carried out through Pakistan Single Window (PSW) on behalf of NAFSA. PSW advertisements repeatedly state that “this position is being recruited by Pakistan Single Window (PSW) on behalf of NAFSA.” This includes positions directly related to plant quarantine, pesticide regulation, phytosanitary inspections, and SPS compliance.

The issue is not whether PSW is an important organization. Undoubtedly, PSW has an important role in trade facilitation, customs integration, digitalization, and electronic clearance systems. However, the critical question is whether a trade facilitation platform and officials largely associated with customs-oriented systems possess the technical mandate, institutional competence, and scientific specialization necessary to recruit highly specialized SPS professionals for a national biosecurity and food safety authority.

This question becomes even more serious in light of the recruitment methodology reportedly adopted so far. According to candidates and professional observers, the recruitment process has already passed through shortlisting stages and a personality assessment examination conducted online through a private testing mechanism. Surprisingly, despite recruitment for highly technical scientific positions, no specialized subject-oriented examination appears to have been conducted to assess professional competence in fields such as plant quarantine, entomology, plant pathology, food safety, toxicology, microbiology, veterinary epidemiology, pest risk analysis, or SPS regulations. This omission raises fundamental concerns regarding the seriousness and technical credibility of the recruitment process itself.

NAFSA is not a routine administrative organization. It is expected to perform highly specialized regulatory functions duly acceptable at international level, involving, but not limited to; phytosanitary certification, pest surveillance with reporting, food safety compliance, quarantine inspections, pesticide regulation with MRL (maximum Residues Level), accredited laboratory coordination, disease prevention, biosecurity management and compliance with international SPS obligations under the World Trade Organization framework.

Such responsibilities require recruitment systems based on scientific merit and technical competence, not merely generic HR procedures or personality assessments.

It is difficult to understand how candidates for positions involving phytosanitary inspections, pest diagnostics, food safety compliance, or pesticide regulation can be evaluated without rigorous subject-specialized testing. Internationally, recruitment for SPS authorities normally includes technical examinations, professional evaluations, laboratory knowledge assessment, case studies, regulatory interpretation and field-oriented competency analysis. Personality assessment alone cannot substitute scientific expertise.

The concern becomes more alarming because many of the individuals reportedly involved in recruitment administration are not themselves possess educational background or professional experience in subjects like; plant protection, veterinary quarantine, food safety systems, SPS risk analysis, quarantine operations, laboratory accreditation, or biosecurity management.

This creates the risk of technical recruitment being reduced to generalized administrative filtering rather than scientific merit evaluation. And if this is the objective, as one of the senior candidates expressed in personal communication, then this exercise is yielding well.

However, everyone recognizes that SPS governance is fundamentally different from customs and relevant administration. Customs systems primarily deal with trade documentation, tariff administration, revenue collection, and border facilitation. SPS systems, by contrast, are science-based regulatory mechanisms designed to protect agriculture, public health, food systems, and national biosecurity from pests, diseases, contaminants, and unsafe products.

No doubt, trade facilitation and SPS compliance must work together, but one cannot professionally replace the other.

Globally respected SPS authorities are led and staffed by technical specialists including plant pathologists, entomologists, veterinarians, microbiologists, food technologists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and laboratory scientists. Administrative and IT professionals support these systems, but technical governance remains under scientific leadership.

If Pakistan weakens the technical foundations of NAFSA at the recruitment stage itself, the long-term consequences may be serious. These may include:

• declining scientific credibility,

• weak inspections and certifications,

• increased export rejections,

• reduced international trust,

• institutional politicization,

• demoralization of technical professionals, and

• eventual weakening of Pakistan’s agricultural export competitiveness.

Pakistan has already experienced SPS-related export challenges involving rice, maize, sesame, fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural commodities. International markets, including the EU, are becoming increasingly strict regarding pesticide residues, traceability systems, phytosanitary compliance, and food safety requirements. Under such circumstances, weakening technical recruitment standards would be strategically dangerous.

Equally important is the constitutional and governance dimension of this matter. Recruitment to highly technical public institutions must satisfy principles of transparency, merit, rational classification, and institutional competence. If technical recruitment processes ignore specialized subject evaluation altogether, serious questions may arise regarding fairness, legality, procedural propriety, and institutional accountability.

This issue therefore deserves attention not only from the Federal Government and Parliament, but also from oversight institutions, professional bodies, academia, exporters, and, where necessary, constitutional forums including the superior judiciary.

Pakistan still has time to correct course. The recruitment process should immediately incorporate:

• specialized technical examinations,

• subject-wise assessment panels,

• SPS experts in evaluation committees,

• transparent merit criteria,

• and independent scientific oversight.

Recruitment board / committee for technical SPS positions should include professionals from above referred subjects and expertise.

A national SPS authority cannot achieve international respect unless its recruitment system itself reflects scientific competence and institutional integrity.

The real test of reform is not digitalization alone. The real test is whether scientific institutions remain scientifically governed. Without technically credible recruitment, even the most ambitious institutional reforms risk becoming administrative restructuring exercises without professional substance.

The future credibility of NAFSA — and perhaps an important part of Pakistan’s agricultural export future — may ultimately depend upon the decisions being made today regarding recruitment, governance, and technical leadership. This is not merely a recruitment issue; it is a test of Pakistan’s seriousness toward science, governance, exports and national biosecurity.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026