Agriculture in Pakistan has been undergoing drastic and dramatic changes for the last four decades. First of these changes was the Green Revolution (GR) that had received appreciation through out developing countries and Pakistan was one of these countries, enjoying the fruits of that revolution.

Though the objectives of that revolution were not full realized in these countries. It worked at least for producing food and fibre to increasing human population and it also helped these countries to achieve self-sufficiency in staple food crops.

High-yielding farming through magic of chemicals and fertilizers and controlled irrigation was the tools of the GR. By 1990’s, almost 70 per cent of the Asian rice areas, 50 per cent Africa and South America, 70 per cent of the world’s corn, and 40 per cent of all farmers in the third world are using GR varieties.

The second GR i.e., farming with biotech seeds is still in infancy in the developing countries including Pakistan. Various multinational companies like Monsanto, Syngenta etc., have aimed down the path of the agro-chemicals and genetically modified food, and if we just allow these various companies spurred by free market, to their magic, and also if they survive the anti-globalization activists.

With establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) pressure has mounted on poor countries to liberalize market and to remove protective measures. The WTO was established on Jan 1995. The Marrakash Declaration April 15, 1994 affirmed the results of Uruguay Round (DEC 1993). The WTO is an embodiment of Uruguay results and successor of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT). In Agreement on Agriculture (under GATT), the developing countries had to reduce/abolish subsidies on various agri products to lessen fiscal burden of the industrialized countries while at the same time opening new markets for their ever increasing surpluses.

According to one school of thought the reality of the WTO agenda for free trade free competition and a level playing field in agriculture is based on greater inequality, monopolization, centralization of control of agri-food industry and massive dumping of agri-food exports by major industrialized countries. The objectives of World Trade Organization are not only slogans but in many cases the WTO victories against trade barriers in Japan and South Korea (Health and Safety Inspection of agricultural imports and shelf life of agricultural products), Hungary (export subsidiary scheme), Philippines (pork and poultry import control) and EU (banana imports) have been proved vitality and authority in trading.

One significant aspect of these victories under the WTO banner is harmonization of national and subnational laws and regulations with those of international standards, though latter supposed to be basis of local laws and regulations, any local standards which exceed these international standards are labelled unfair trade barriers. Since definition of new international standards under WTO is determined by private industry, there is an inevitable downward harmonization. This harmonized destruction is most evident with implementation of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) and the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The SPS agreement concern harmonization of health and hygiene, and inspection of import with TRIPS deals with harmonization of copyright and related right, industrial designs, trade marks, geographical indications, patents, plant varieties protection and integrated circuit. It is important to note that inclusion of these two issues have increased the scope and power of transnational corporations (TNCs). It is for this reason that TNCs are directly involved in WTO negotiation on harmonized standards, and in defining these standards especially through Codex and International Standardization Organization (ISO). The International standard on which the WTO enforces SPS Agreement is based on the standard devised by Codex.

Codex is an international standard setting body established by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1962 and is made up of government representative and official advisor from private business. US-based agri-food TNCs participates in Codex meetings and determines the position taken by the governments. As a result, Codex standards are extremely lax, allowing use of hazardous chemicals, which are otherwise banned in many countries. For example, Codex permits DDT residue in milk, meat, grain and use of several other banned hazardous. In near future, new international standards on agrochemicals in the WTO will continue to base on Codex standards.

In pesticides, harmonization of standards are extremely important in defining, generic/commodity chemicals, units to describe the active ingredients in liquid formulations, new registration studies on generic pesticide materials. Moreover, growing emphasis on quality standards and public health about food safety in developed world have led both governments and retailers set increasingly high standards on production and processing methods and these are putting increasing pressure on suppliers. For example EU legislation associated with pesticides are maximum residue limits (MRLs) that are affecting developing country growers exporting fruits and vegetables to EU.

Keeping in view this single factor of MRL can upset the whole export circuits of citrus, dates, mangoes, banana and potato in Pakistan where application of pesticides (insecticides, fungicides and weedicides) is not only necessity but also inescapable boon. Awareness of international standards among the farmers, researchers, and agri-extension workers in the country are not well conceived though attention is being concentrated on cotton which obviously is a major forex earner for the country. To protect cotton contamination, the growers in Rahim Yar Khan have been asked to transit the cotton in cotton bags replacing jute bags but the quality of lint under the cover of pesticide application is not being realized. However, effect of pesticide application on exportable fruits and vegetables is a serious concern amongst all parties associated with its business under International Crop Protection Convention (1997). Question naturally arises where are priorities of the research focused on these changing standards in the country and how can all the concerned parties deal with problems.

A number of affected industries and governments in the developing countries have also begun to take steps to address problem inherent in harmonization process. The following steps are suggested for immediate action on harmonization of standards.

1. Development and implementation of communication programme to ensure that growers, exporters, and governments have prompt access to accurate and understandable information about legislation, guidance how to respond challenges. Governments should educate the parties concerned with food item export on the international standards through seminars, on air media and summer camps etc. Agri universities should be asked to add into curriculum the changing standards of the quality procedures.

2. Initiate data generation for the establishment of MRLs.

3. Establish special support programme for small holders, assisting intermediaries (e.g., NGOs) working with relevant small holders to set up appropriate monitoring and traceability systems and provide necessary managerial and technical training on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and appropriate pesticide use.

4. Establish network mechanism to link operators and producers to relevant IPM experts and information resources possibly with a joint funding arrangement.

5. Establish system for more consultative and need based approach to prioritizing crop / active ingredients combinations for MRL establishment and allocate public fund for establishing prioritized MRLs.