Humanitarian purpose: WFP seeks permission to use Port Qasim

Wants to send wheat from US to Afghanistan via Pakistan.


PHOTO: EXPRESS

ISLAMABAD/ LAHORE: The World Food Program (WFP) has sought permission from Pakistani authorities to utilise Port Qasim, as it looks to transfer over 20,000 tons of wheat from the US to Afghanistan.

A source at the Ministry of National Food Security and Research said that the WFP has sought the permission from concerned authorities to use the port for delivering it to Afghanistan by the end of this month.

However, another official in the ministry said that the authorities are reluctant to allow the wheat via Port Qasim as Pakistan already has huge quantities of surplus wheat stock and it is finding ways to dispose it before arrival of the new crop.

“We are more interested in disposing our own surplus wheat stock rather than allowing inflow of any additional stock which could reach the market and hurt the interest of our farmers,” said the official.

However, no decision in this regard has been taken yet and it would be considered after keeping in mind all possible aspects and implications of the decision. The official also said that last year, WFP had purchased wheat from Pakistan for the same humanitarian purpose and it would be a much better option this year as well.

At present, Pakistan has almost 3 million tons of surplus wheat stock with provinces as well as with PASSCO, and the Economic Coordination Committee has allowed the food security and research ministry to export 40% of it. However, it has only been able to export around 80,000 tons so far.

When contacted, WFP spokesperson Amjad Jamal has made a formal request.

“Through this practice, Pakistan’s transport sector receives good business,” stated Amjad.

Published in The Express Tribune, March  10th,  2015.

Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ