PTB Report Uganda November 2010

8/8/2019 PTB Report Uganda November 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ptb-report-uganda-november-2010 1/26

1

PHYSIKALISCH-TECHNISCHE BUNDESANSTALT

Braunschweig und Berlin

REPORT

Review of the organizational structures and processes of the UNBSQuality Assurance and Import Inspection Departments

(November 2010)

ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL QUALITY INFRASTRUCTRE

IN THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY (EAC)

PN 2007.2032.6 / FV-95015

PTB Project Manager: Tobias Diergardt

Martin Kellermann

mmk Solutions CC

November 2010



2

Contents

1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Mission objectives and programme ................................................................................................ 4

3 UNBS organizational structure ........................................................................................................ 4

4 Quality Assurance Department ....................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Certification Division ............................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Surveillance Division ................................................................................................................ 9

5 Import Inspection Department ..................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Legislation .............................................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Procedures............................................................................................................................. 15

5.3 Organizational structure........................................................................................................ 166 Final comments on the Quality Assurance and Import Inspection structures .............................. 17

7 Training and Consultancy Department ......................................................................................... 18

7.1 Training of quality system auditors ....................................................................................... 18

7.2 Training of inspectors ............................................................................................................ 19

8 Draft Quality Policy for Uganda ..................................................................................................... 20

9 Quality assurance training at Makerere University....................................................................... 22

10 Recommendations for future PTB support ............................................................................... 23

Annex A: Programme of the mission ..................................................................................................... 25



3

Abbreviations and acronyms

EAC - East African Community

HACCP - Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point

IEC - International Electrotechnical Commission

ISO - International organization for Standardization

ITC - International Trade Centre (Geneva)

KEBS - Kenya Bureau of Standards

PTB - Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

SDO - Standards Development Organization

SME - Small and Medium Enterprise

SPS - Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary

SQMT - Standards, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing

TBT - Technical Barriers to Trade

UNBS - Uganda National Bureau of StandardsURA - Uganda Revenue Service

WTO - World Trade organization

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the support received regarding the logistics of the mission

from Giavlira Musoke, Manager Quality Assurance and especially Richard Ebong, Head Surveillance

Inspection. As has been the case on previous missions, staff of UNBS was very open about their

processes and the problems they faced, adding materially to the value of this report. The fundamen-

tal support from the Executive Director, Dr Terry Kahuma is gratefully acknowledged as well.



4

1 BackgroundThe Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) has benefitted over the years from a variety of

technical support under the auspices of the PTB Project: Establishment of a Regional SQMT-

Architecture in the East African Community (EAC) - FV-95015. The EAC Common Market that came

into effect in July 2010, and other developments at national and regional level have necessitated theexpansion of UNBS activities resulting in a re-organization of a number of UNBS departments and

divisions during 2010. Hence, UNBS approached PTB for technical support in evaluating the new

structures, especially with regard to the certification, surveillance and import inspection activities.

These were to be assessed against the EAC developments and international best practices. Martin

Kellermann, international expert, was contracted by PTB to undertake such a mission to UNBS from 8

to 12 November 2010.

2 Mission objectives and programme

The consultant and the relevant managers agreed to the following list of outcomes for the missionduring the opening meeting:

• Assessment of the current structures, procedures and processes in the quality assurance struc-

tures in relation to regional and international trends and best practices, determining the gaps

and providing recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sys-

tems;

• Review of the internal UNBS conflicts of interest and developing recommendations on how they

can be alleviated;

• Identification of the immediate training needs for the quality assurance structures, including

mechanisms to determine training needs on a continuous basis also in the future; and

• Review of the newly established S-Mark scheme as a regulatory mark for products falling within

the scope of compulsory standards in relation to EAC Common Market developments and inter-

national practices.

An additional objective of the mission was to have a discussion with the Makerere University Busi-

ness School on the need, viability and modalities of tertiary education and training regarding stan-

dardization and quality assurance in Uganda. The programme of the mission is attached as Annex A.

3 UNBS organizational structureThe UNBS consists of two operating entities each headed by a Deputy Executive Director. These two

are Technical Operations and Management Services. Technical Operations consist of a number of

Departments, mostly organized in accordance with traditional models, namely Standards, Testing,

Quality Assurance, Import Inspection, Legal Metrology, the National Metrology Laboratory, and

Training and Consultancy. During this mission only the structures and practices of the Quality Assur-

ance and Import Inspection Departments were reviewed in detail, hence no factual conclusions or

recommendations regarding the overall structure could be made. It does seem however, that the

management levels and manager numbers may be more than what would normally be encountered

in an effective and efficient organization with a flat structure.



5

Recommendation 1

An in-depth review of the overall structures of UNBS may be indicated to arrive at an effective and

efficient overall structure, especially once a proper strategy and business plan has been developed

for UNBS’s future business and growth.

4 Quality Assurance Department The Quality Assurance Department consists of two Divisions, the Certification Division and the Sur-

veillance Division. Import Inspection, that used to be part of this Department has been moved out

and changed into a full Department. Legal Metrology is a separate Department as is the National

Metrology Laboratory.

4.1 Certification Division

4.1.1

The UNBS Q-Mark The Certification Division is responsible for managing the UNBS Q-Mark service, a product certifica-

tion scheme introduced in 1995. The certification process is governed by Regulations that were

promulgated in the same year. As such it has the longest history amongst UNBS certification ser-

vices. There are 6 auditors working full-time in the product certification unit, but none of them have

been formally trained or been attached to accredited product certification service providers for

hands-on experience. The procedures have been properly collated in a manual.

At the time of writing, the UNBS had issued Q-Mark permits to 81 companies for 285 products. Al-

though the Q-Mark is operated as a voluntary mark, it has been used extensively as “deem-to-

satisfy” evidence over the years for products that fall within the scope of compulsory standards, i.e.having the Q-Mark confers a presumption of conformity with the relevant compulsory standard to

the product. The result is that most of the permits, estimated at over 85%, are for products that fall

within the scope of compulsory standards. Obviously most of the permits have been issued to local

manufacturers, but a small number of companies abroad, even as far as China (5), Pakistan (2) and

Indonesia (2) have been issued with permits. No subcontract agreements are in place with foreign

certification companies, and UNBS staff conduct the surveillance of the certified companies abroad.

The procedures for awarding the Q-Mark follow ISO/IEC Guide 65 to some extent, but a peer review

by other NSBs of the region a few months ago, highlighted a number of non-conformities that are

slowly being addressed by the Division. Progress is slow however, and there is no definitive plan toobtain accreditation or even just full compliance to ISO/IEC Guide 65 in the foreseeable future. Some

of the thinking suggests that harmonization on the EAC level should be achieved first, before accredi-

tation is sought. Such thinking is a fallacy, and every effort should be made to obtain accreditation as

quickly as possible. Whoever is accredited first in the EAC will walk away with the major part of the

business (e.g. it is rumoured that KEBS is seeking to establish an office in Uganda to expand their

business in this country).

The final approval of applications is handled by the UNBS internal Evaluation Committee independ-

ent from the auditors and division management – this is best practice and actually required by

ISO/IEC Guide 65. Surveillance audit planning is the stated responsibility of the Head of the Division,



6

and UNBS follows a strategy to rotate the auditors amongst the permit holders in order to minimize

familiarity issues. Applicants need to demonstrate the compliance of their products with the rele-

vant national standard and the manufacturing control and testing has to comply with a list of re-

quirements established by UNBS. Transport costs are generally included in the certification fees.

Some observations:

• Two surveillance visits are supposed to take place annually. The Division is falling far short of this

target, and are battling to even visit the certified companies once a year. This is not the result of

a lack of manpower. Lack of planning, not allocating the responsibility of companies to specific

auditors and lack of transport are just a few of the reasons for this state of affairs.

• The certificates are valid only for a year, hence have to be re-issued annually. This places a high

administrative burden on the Division, and does not add any value to system, nor does it prevent

non-compliance with permit conditions. It is also a moot point whether they would not be re-

issued in the event of no surveillance audits having been conducted.

Recommendation 2

• UNBS should implement a proper planning system for surveillance visits. It should be noted that

these will constitute the bulk of the activities once a fair number of organizations have been li-

censed, new application being the smaller part of the business. Establishing a planning section in

the Department may be a useful development in this respect.

• To ease the administrative burden UNBS should reconsider the validity of certificates. One way

would be to issue the certificates for a longer period of time, i.e. three years, or even an open-

ended certificate. In the latter case the certificate is withdrawn if the certified organization fails

to meet agreed requirements including payment of the licence fees or if given up voluntarily.

• UNBS should seriously consider accreditation to ISO/IEC Guide 65 for its Q-Mark in order to help

safeguard and grow its future business. UNBS therefore should develop a proper business plan

to achieve this. It should also include timelines and costs. The business plan could then be util-

ised by UNBS to obtain appropriate funding for the process.

4.1.2 System certification

The UNBS is only offering ISO 22000 certification at the moment, and have certified 10 companies.

The close to 300 companies certified to ISO 9000 in Uganda are serviced by multinational certifica-tion companies such as NIMCO, SGS and Bureau Veritas. UNBS has three auditors that have been

trained in ISO 22000, but these have not been appropriately registered. The UNBS Certification Divi-

sion has not been accredited, nor have formal plans been developed to obtain such accreditation.

Approval for certification is done through the independent Evaluation Committee of the UNBS – this

is international best practice.

Although the process follows ISO/IEC 17021 to some extent, there are some significant differences

and lack of best practices such as:



7

• The international best practice of a three year cycle of certification, annual surveillance in the

first and second year followed by a full audit the third year before the certificate is re-issued, is

not followed. Certificates are valid for one year only. This will be an impediment to accredita-

tion, hence must be aligned with international requirements as soon as possible.

• The surveillance audits that are supposed to be conducted every six months in accordance withtheir own procedures are not always taking place.

• No system is in place to record and maintain the details of the auditors on staff, i.e. qualifica-

tions, industrial experience, training, registration and ongoing auditing experience, as will be re-

quired for accreditation. This would apply to subcontracted auditors as well.

Recommendation 3

• UNBS should seriously consider accreditation to ISO/IEC 17021 for its system certification ser-

vices in order to help safeguard and grow its future business. UNBS should therefore develop a

proper business plan to achieve accreditation that would include timelines and costs. The busi-

ness plan could then be utilised by UNBS to obtain appropriate funding for the process.

• UNBS should develop and implement a system for maintaining auditor industrial experience and

qualification records, training records, audit hours, and registration records for own staff as well

as subcontracted auditors. UNBS should designate a specific office to keep these records and

that would ensure that auditors maintain their registration. These records could be kept for ex-

ample by the Human resources Department or the Office of the UNBS Quality Manager.

• UNBS should identify a pool of auditors in private industry that could be subcontracted. UNBS

then needs to support these auditors in obtaining the necessary training and registration.

4.1.3 Organizational structure

A best practice organizational structure of a certification body within an NSB is shown in Figure 1.

Important to note is the Approvals Committee that has to be independent of the auditing teams. In

this respect UNBS is following the correct process in that it’s Approvals Committee, named the

Evaluation Committee, is totally independent.

Another very important part of the governance structure of a certification body is the Impartiality

Committee in the case of system certification. The Impartiality Committee should ensure that UNBS

certification services are provided without prejudice to any entity that applies. Details on the com-

position and responsibilities of the Impartiality Committee can be obtained from ISO/IEC 17021 andthe IAF Guidelines. Even though UNBS is not yet accredited, it may be very useful to start with the

establishment of such a committee as soon as possible, and not to leave it to the last weeks before

an accreditation or peer assessment.

The three operating divisions would be the Auditing Division, a Planning Division and a Finance and

Administration Division. In this respect, the UNBS structure is problematic in that it does not have a

dedicated Planning Division. The problems it experiences in conducting the surveillance audits on

time and at the appropriate frequency is ample evidence that planning is sorely lacking. A quick cal-

culation of the available manpower indicates that this is not the problem – enough man-days are



8

available to conduct the required surveillance audits and service the new applications. Hence, UNBS

should seriously consider such a structural adjustment.

It is patently obvious that UNBS cannot keep on utilising only own staff for initial assessments and

surveillance audits. There will come a time, and probably very soon, that subcontracted auditors will

have to be utilized. This means that UNBS will have to put a mechanism in place to ensure that suchsubcontracted auditors are appropriately trained, registered and experienced – just as such a system

needs to be in place for auditors on staff. This does not exist at the moment.

The Financial and Administration Division does not need to be a part of the Certification Department,

but can be part of the bigger UNBS structures. They will however be audited during any accredita-

tion exercise, and UNBS must therefore ensure that they meet the relevant ISO/IEC Guide 65, ISO/IEC

17021 and IAF requirements. Details can be found in the relevant standard, IAF Guidelines and the

procedures of the chosen accreditation body.

Board of Directors

Executive Director

Deputy Executive

Director (Technical)

Manager

Certification Department

Audit Division Planning Division Financial and

Administration

Division

Subcontracted auditors

Approvals

Committee

Certification Department

Impartiality Committee

Accreditation body

Figure 1: Typical structure of certification body



9

Recommendation 4

• UNBS should consider establishing an Impartiality Committee as a precursor to accreditation in

order to gain experience with the management of such a committee.

• UNBS should seriously consider establishing a Planning Division within its Certification Depart-

ment in order to address the obvious lack of planning and so help address the failure to maintaina proper audit schedule of certified companies.

• UNBS should review its financial system against accreditation requirements and implement

changes if found to be required as soon as possible.

4.2 Surveillance Division

The stated responsibilities of Surveillance Division include the following:

• Inspection of goods in the market place that fall within the scope of Compulsory Standards;

• Factory inspections where such goods are manufactured locally (imported goods are the respon-

sibility of the Import Inspection Department – see section 5); and

• Education and support of especially the SME sector helping them to comply with Compulsory

Standards.

Dealing with “shoddy” product has been allocated in principle to the Division, but has not been prop-

erly put into operation yet.

The Division currently consists of a Head, 2 staff members dealing with market surveillance, 3 staff

members responsible for industry surveillance, 3 staff members plus a contract worker responsible

for the S-Mark, and 2 staff members seconded from the Ministry to help with the education of theSME sector. An additional 4 personnel were seconded from the Minister’s Office to help with intelli-

gence regarding non-compliant products or “shoddy” product. A divisional structure for future ex-

pansion has been developed.

4.2.1 Surveillance

The Division conducts market surveillance on products falling within the scope of the approximately

520 Compulsory Standards. Additional standards have been proposed for approval, and the number

is therefore set to grow in the foreseeable future. Some of the inspectors have participated in ISO

17020 training sessions. The inspectors carry an Authority Identify Card issued by the Legal Depart-

ment after their names have been gazetted – a good system. Some observations:

• The inspectors do not receive any training regarding their legal powers and responsibilities be-

fore the Authority Identity Cards are issued. As they are given far-reaching powers of entry and

seizure, this is considered a necessity.

• No formal annual market surveillance plan was available – although efforts are made to deal with

specific sectors at given times. It is quite common to develop an annual market surveillance plan

for 60% of the available man-days of the inspection staff after considering leave and sick leave

patterns. The remaining 40% is used to cover ad hoc surveillance inspections, usually triggered

by a formal complaint from the UNBS management, the Ministry, the Minister, the public and/or

NGOs.



10

Recommendation 5

• It is strongly recommended that UNBS develop an annual market surveillance plan on the basis

of risk assessment, and make time available for ad hoc surveillance activities at the same time.

• It is recommended that the inspectors be given appropriate training in inspection techniques and

the legal framework for inspections and market surveillance, including a final examination beforetheir Authority Identity card is issued.

4.2.2 S-Mark

The S-Mark is being established as a regulatory product certification mark, denoting compliance of

products with Compulsory Standards. The UNBS Q-Mark is utilised as a “deem-to-satisfy” Mark, but

is not a legal requirement (see 4.1.1 above). The enabling legislation has not yet been promulgated,

but the UNBS management has made the decision to start with the S-Mark as a voluntary service in

anticipation of the appropriate legislation. At the time of the report, 30 companies had been li-censed, and another 50 or so were being considered. It is envisaged that the S-Mark will became

mandatory on 1 November 2011. Some observations:

• The S-Mark is intended to apply to locally manufactured goods only and not to imported prod-

ucts. It is furthermore envisaged that the S-Mark will become mandatory for all locally manufac-

tured goods falling within the scope of compulsory standards. This will certainly be seen as a

negative by the local industry, who would argue that they are being prejudiced with regard to

their foreign competition. On the other hand, insisting on an S-Mark for imported products will

be a very brave undertaking indeed as the Uganda Market is very small and it is highly unlikely

that manufacturers in far-away places will be inclined to go through the whole certification proc-ess, nor will UNBS be able to establish the appropriate surveillance of the same considering the

financial constraints. Because, if the S-Mark is mandatory, it can be argued that paying for licens-

ing is actually a form of tax, and the government will probably retain a heavy hand in setting the

fees, thereby keeping the fees below market realities.

• Although everybody argues quite vehemently that the Q-Mark requirements are higher and that

it should be considered a premium product certification mark, the real outcome is that both sig-

nify that the product complies with the requirements contained in the relevant standard, no less,

no more. From a producer and consumer perspective therefore, there is little difference, except

that for the producer the Q-Mark is more expensive and some of the quality documentation re-

quirements may be a bit more onerous. This situation is considered a real risk for the future of

the Q-Mark.

• No impact assessment has been conducted for the implementation of the S-Mark, hence there is

no information available regarding the number of products or companies that would be affected.

This means that UNBS does not know how many people, vehicles and other resources would be

needed to administrate the system properly, it is not known whether the laboratory capacity in

the country can cope with all the additional testing, whether the envisaged fees will cover opera-

tional costs, and ultimately what the cost/benefit analysis is, i.e. is the whole exercise worth the

effort.



11

• As this would be a technical regulation and has to be notified to the WTO TBT Secretariat, no-

body has thought about this yet. The only redeeming feature is that the S-Mark will only apply to

locally produced products – in fact the reverse of what normally happens when imported prod-

ucts are subject to more onerous requirements than locally produced ones.

• Considering the real problems that the Certification Division has in meeting their surveillanceobligations regarding the Q-Mark with only about 80 companies on their books, it is highly

unlikely that the Surveillance Division will be able to cope with their obligations in a scheme that

will soon overtake the Q-Mark in terms of company numbers. The reason for establishing the S-

Mark is therefore seriously compromised right from the start.

• The burgeoning S-Mark Division being grouped with Surveillance Division activities may not be

the optimum place for it. In essence it is a product certification activity and hence more organ-

izational and operational synergies could be gained by combining it with the Q-Mark and system

certification activities. It is not a normal surveillance activity, even though UNBS may be con-

templating having the S-Mark declared mandatory for local manufacturers. In addition, surveil-

lance is normally financed from government funding, whereas the S-Mark will be paid for by thelicensees. Financial governance may therefore be another reason for a rethink on the S-Mark

structure.

Recommendation 6

It is strongly recommended that UNBS review the total strategy and modalities of the implementa-

tion of the S-Mark scheme with specific attention to:

• Locally manufactured goods viz a viz imported goods;

• The internal competition between the Q-Mark and the S-Mark;

• Establishing the full scope of work to implement the S-Mark in order to properly plan and pro-

vide resources;

• Promulgating the required legislation;

• Finding its optimum place in the UNBS structure; and

• Notifying the WTO TBT Agreement Secretariat.

A proper business plan should be developed considering all the above information, and thereafter, if

it is still considered to be a viable business proposition, proper planning for implementation should

be developed, including the commitment of the necessary resources.

4.2.3 Shoddy goods

Low cost and low quality goods are a real problem in developing countries where the average con-

sumer does not have much purchasing power. Shoddy goods are therefore plentiful in the market

place and a real challenge for the political level and ultimately the NSBs that bear the brunt of the

consumer frustration. Uganda is no different. The Surveillance Division has been given the responsi-

bility to also deal with shoddy goods, but lacks any enabling legislation to do so. The more clever

traders can therefore totally ignore any current efforts of the UNBS. Unfortunately, the draft regula-

tion developed with PTB support in August 2008 does not seem to have progressed any further.



12

Product liability legislation, which is a more sophisticated name for the same issue, is being consid-

ered at the EAC level, and that has to be factored into the future developments in Uganda as well.

4.2.4 Organizational structure

A draft organizational structure developed by the Division is shown in Figure 1. This is overly com-

plex, a mixture of structure and activities, many one-on-one reporting lines, long communication

lines, and hence considered to be neither effective nor efficient in meeting the challenges of a mar-

ket surveillance division. It is always good practice for the structure to roughly follow function, keep

reporting lines as short as possible, and have about 8 to 15 staff reporting to a manager or head.

The Surveillance Division has not yet developed a proper business plan and its activities are not for-

malized or finalized. In essence however, the division has may need to consider the following activi-

ties which would define the structure:

• Surveillance inspection in the market place;

• Surveillance inspections of warehousing;• Inspections of manufacturing premises, mainly where indicated by negative results from the pre-

vious two activities;

• Data analysis and risk assessment to determine the primary surveillance focus; and

• Planning of the surveillance activities, annual as well as the ad hoc activities.

Considering the above, and taking into account that the market surveillance activities have to be

rolled out also in regional areas, a draft structure that could be considered is shown in Figure 2. This

still contains the functions, but may be a much more realistic structure. The actual names of the

various sections can still be aligned with custom and practice in UNBS. Long descriptive names seem

to be en vogue, but they can also be shortened quite a lot. People will eventually know who does

what without departments and sections sporting such long and unwieldy names.

The final structure however, can only really be considered when a proper business plan has been de-

veloped. Issues that still need to be finalised include whether factory inspections should really be

considered a main focus in the quest to ensure products complying with compulsory standards. In-

ternational best practice would indicate that majoring on post market activities, e.g. market and

warehousing surveillance combined with a rigorous sanctions regime when required, is a much more

effective and cost-efficient approach.

Recommendation 7• UNBS should develop a proper business plan for surveillance activities considering international

experiences in this regard, the common market developments in the EAC, available resources

and other relevant factors.

• Once a proper business plan has been developed, the optimum structure can be formulated

based on the business plan.

• A proper sanctions regime needs to be developed and agreed to between the Surveillance Divi-

sion and the Legal Department of UNBS that needs to be rigorously applied once non-

conformities are picked up and suppliers knowingly and consistently fail to heed requests for rec-

tification of the issue.



Surveillance Division

Industrial Surveillance

Factory inspection

Engineering

Food and Agriculture

Beverages and Spirit

Cosmetics andChemicals

Research /TechnicalAdvisory

Factory Inspection

Engineering &Metrology

Chemicals /ConsumerGoods

Food and Agriculture

Human Food Products

Animal Feeds

Regulatory ImpactAssessment

Market Surveillance

Supper Market

Electrical andElectronics

Food Products

Cosmetics/Prohibited Substance

Warehousing / Stores

Chemicals

Food GradeChemicals

Cosmetics

Consumer Goods

Hardware/ FactoryOutlets

Engineering-Construction

Engineering - General

Emergency Unit

Intelligence

Figure1: Draft organizational structure: Surveillance Division



Figure 2: Proposed organizational structure: Surveillance Division

Surveillance

Division

Industrial

Surveillance

Market

SurveillanceRegions

Planning and

Risk Assessment

− Manufacturing

− Food and agricul-

ture

− Building and Con-struction

− Transport

− Retail

− Warehousing

− Northern Region

− Central Region

− South Western Region

− Eastern Region

− Data analysis

− Risk assessment

− Planning



15

5 Import Inspection Department The Import Inspection Department has only recently been elevated to the level of a Department due to

the increase of business and personnel - previously it was a Division in the Quality Assurance Depart-

ment. It is a fairly large Department with nearly 50 staff members at Head Office and in the field. UNBS

is endeavouring to have field officers stationed at all the major border posts with its surrounding coun-

tries, but not all have yet been realized. In addition, field officers are stationed at Entebbe Airport, and

in Kampala to deal with the various bonded warehouses, container depots and the like that fall under

the control of customs, i.e. the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA). UNBS is supposed to inspect all im-

ported products that fall within the scope of Compulsory Standards (approximately 520 have been

promulgated so far). UNBS inspect approximately 2 500 consignments out of the 96 000 that customs

clear per month, take samples from about 30 for testing, and report 2 to 3 failures per month. In effect

therefore an audit type approach.

5.1

LegislationThe regulations for import inspections were promulgated in 2002. Unfortunately these are incomplete

and need urgent revision in a few key areas, including the penalties for transgressions that are abso-

lutely laughable. A revision was undertaken in 2008, but progress to get them promulgated has been

extremely slow, both in UNBS and in the Ministry. This apparent lack of urgency must be addressed to

ensure that the inspection work is underpinned by appropriate legislation. Currently the inspection staff

of UNBS can be considered to be operating with their one hand tied behind their backs. This saps en-

ergy, and motivation tends to diminish.

5.2 Procedures

Staff is supposed to work in accordance with Guidelines for Inspection that were developed in 2003.These however, are only very general or indicative in nature. A set of proper procedures have been

drafted based on the best practices and experience that have evolved over the years. These have been

circulated to staff members for comment with little or no reaction. Nor has the management of the

former Division or current Department yet pushed for their completion and approval. The result is that

inspectors to some extent follow their own inclinations, and differences amongst inspectors are very

evident. Even suppliers and importers are said to be calling for proper procedures in order to foster

transparency, consistency and integrity.

This is not a healthy situation at all. It is therefore extremely important that these draft procedures1

be

finalised, aligned with ISO/IEC 17020 as far as possible, approved and implemented. As part of their im-plementation a formal training programme for all inspectors should be arranged, with an examination at

the end, to ensure that the inspection activities continue on a proper footing. Failure to address this

situation, will lead to more and more problems with the inspection activities as inspectors will take short

cuts, diverge even more amongst each other in what they do, thereby compromising the effectiveness

and efficiency of the whole process.

1 The set of draft import inspection procedures will be reviewed separately from this report.



16

5.3 Organizational structure

With import inspection activities expanding at a breath taking pace, it is important that an appropriate

organizational structure is put in place to deal effectively and efficiently with the responsibilities and

work load. The approved structure of the Import Inspection Department is shown in Figure 3 below.

In general the organizational structure follows the functions and responsibilities of the Department.

That is good. The majority of staff obviously is part of the two Divisions operating in the field. For the

Coordination Division to be divided into three sections therefore does not make sense considering the

small number of staff in the sections. This will need to be rethought. It is not useful to have a few sec-

tions consisting of only one person. The functions may be necessary, but it may be more meaningful to

have the five members of staff report to the Coordination Division Head, each with their own responsi-

bilities without any further subdivision into sections. This would also be more useful to deal with leave,

illness and other redundancies, i.e. available staff members be assigned work of people absent.

Recommendation 8

It is recommended that UNBS revisit the organizational structure of the Import Inspection Division,

strengthen the risk assessment and data management section, and ensure that one-on-one structures

are minimized.

Import Inspection Department

Border Entry Point

Division

Inland Customs Stations &

Mobile Team Division

Coordination

Division

Central,

South

Western &

Western

Section

Eastern and

Northern

Region

Section

ICD / Bonds

Inspection,

Registration

n Section

Mobile

Team

Section

Data Mgt

Section Risk Mgt &

System

Support

Section

Compliance

Review

Section

Figure 3: Organizational structure of Import Inspection Department



17

6 Final comments on the Quality Assurance and Import Inspection

structuresThere is a tendency internationally to separate regulatory administration from standards development

and conformity assessment services. Having all these functions in the same organization such as in the

UNBS is problematic: (i) It eventually leads to a conflict of interest; (ii) UNBS is no longer seen as thefriend of industry but becomes the unwelcome “policeman” thereby compromising its developmental

role; and (iii) Standards development is geared towards satisfying only the regulatory needs of the coun-

try or worse, the NSB strives to have as many standards as possible declared compulsory in order to se-

cure income, leading to over-regulation. This situation is exacerbated by governments when they give

regulatory powers to the NSB and at the same time withdraw funding, arguing that the NSB now has the

wherewithal to earn its keep.

Quite a few developing countries are therefore in the process, or have done so already, to separate the

regulatory activities from the NSB. If this is seen as a future scenario in Uganda, and it is certainly not

that far-fetched given the need to negotiate trade agreements with major trading blocs such as the EU,then it would be useful if UNBS fine-tunes its organizational structure in such a way that all the regula-

tory functions are combined in a single management entity. If a “divorce” comes about in the future, it

is fairly easy to separate the regulatory functions and establishing them as an independent entity with-

out disrupting the rest of the organization too much.

This means that the market surveillance functions should not be in the same department as the certifi-

cation services. It would make a lot more sense to combine the market surveillance and import inspec-

tions, as both are regulatory functions. It is acknowledged that UNBS needs to balance the amount of

work and staff across Departments and Divisions, and hence this may not be possible in the short term,

but it is a re-organization that should not be left aside for too long.

Another complicating long-term development could be the eventual scaling down of import inspections.

Import inspections are extremely costly, the logistics are challenging to the point of becoming impossi-

ble, and the time taken for testing many of the products runs into weeks and months. Over and above

these challenges, it is also very clear from the underlying statistics and market surveillance data that it is

highly unlikely that all shipments of non-compliant products are identified. Hence, many countries have

stopped all-inclusive import inspection with the exception of a few high-risk products, and conduct im-

port inspections very much on a sampling or audit basis based on risk assessment.

These countries rely heavily on a proper market surveillance regime, tight product liability legislation

and effective sanctions when the need arises. As Uganda’s intra-regional and foreign trade expands,

this will very quickly become an issue also for this country. UNBS should therefore be prepared to

change its approach regarding import inspection in the not too distant future, and ensure that their in-

formation evaluation, risk assessment capability and a seamless integration with the customs and excise

data base is in place to shift to a more audit type approach rather than to try and inspect everything.

Recommendation 9

UNBS should develop a proper strategy for its future, i.e. what it wishes to be in the future, and how to

get there. Current customs and practices should really be challenged during this process.



18

7 Training and Consultancy Department The Training and Consultancy Department provides training to both industry and UNBS staff, whereas

consultancy is geared towards the SME sector. The Department trains a total of about 300 people from

industry annually. In addition, many more are trained in company specific training programmes. A no-

table achievement. Whereas the training activities were discussed in fair depth in terms of the objec-

tives of this mission, the activities of the consultancy arm of the Department were not, and hence no

comments are provided in this regard.

7.1 Training of quality system auditors

Training is provided to industry regarding the implementation of standards, including ISO 9000, ISO

14000, ISO 22000 and HACCP. Training related to internal audits is also provided, but training of audi-

tors and lead auditors not. Some UNBS staff was trained a few years ago under a UNIDO programme,

but there was no follow up to ensure their registration. Hence, there are no registered auditors and

lead auditors currently in UNBS, and probably even in Uganda. This is a major gap, and will need to be

addressed as soon as possible if UNBS is to stands any chance of obtaining accreditation for its certifica-tion activities. In this respect it would be very important to develop a holistic approach to develop a

pool of registered auditors and lead auditors that becomes self-perpetuating, instead of continuously

having to rely on foreign training programmes that all too often are fragmented and in the end ineffec-

tive. Elements to be included in such an approach are:

• Provide for formal training for a fairly large number of potential auditors from both UNBS and pri-

vate industry;

• Ensure that these trainee auditors gain the necessary auditing experience required for registration;

• Provide for registered lead auditors from abroad to spend some time in Uganda to evaluate the

trainee auditors during actual audits, in order for them to request registration from a recognizedauditor registration organization

2;

• Provide formal training as lead auditors to the registered auditors; and

• Provide for peer review of these as lead auditors in order for them to be registered as lead auditors.

• Utilise these registered lead auditors to evaluate trainee auditors and for peer reviews of lead audi-

tors and so perpetuate the system.

It is very important that such a holistic approach be formalized with time lines and allocated responsi-

bilities in order to ensure that UNBS in particular has access to a pool of competent auditors and lead

auditors without which accreditation of its certification services will not be possible. And without ac-

creditation, the future growth of such a service will be severely compromised. A proper training andregistration plan may also help UNBS obtain technical support from development partners. Lack of a

proper plan will clearly lead to a lack of enthusiasm on their part.

2Uganda can establish its own registration scheme for auditors and lead auditors, but that would be a long term

goal. In the short to medium term registration with an organization such as IRCA (Website: http://www.irca.org) in

the UK may be the best solution. Instead of national auditor registration scheme, a regional EAC auditor registra-

tion scheme may also be a viable long term alternative.



19

Recommendation 10

It is strongly recommended that UNBS Training and Consultancy Division establish auditor and lead audi-

tor training programmes for staff and private industry that meet international requirements in close co-

operation with the Certification Department and the UNBS Quality Manager.

7.2 Training of inspectors

UNBS has and is appointing a large number of inspectors to conduct market and factory surveillance and

import inspection. Although some of these have received general training regarding ISO/IEC 17020, two

major gaps in their training are evident, namely –

1. None of the inspectors have received formal training in the procedures to be followed. As they are

constantly in the eye of suppliers, manufacturers, importers and the like, it is extremely important

that they always act with integrity and in accordance with defined and transparent procedures.

Hence a formal in-depth training in the procedures is indicated. Currently they learn good and bad

habits from their co-workers, and hence do not always follow proper procedures. This needs to be

rectified, and the Training Division in collaboration with the Surveillance Division and Import Inspec-

tion Department need to develop a proper training modules in inspection techniques and behaviour

for these inspectors. A formal examination is also indicated to ensure that the training has been ef-

fective.

2. The inspectors receive immense legal powers of entry and hence need to know their legal powers

and their responsibilities. Although some have undergone some training in this respect, it was more

of a sensitization course without any examination. This is such an important issue that formal

course with examination should become a precondition for the issue of their Authority Card. In ad-dition, they should be trained in what to do in sticky situations, such as when they are refused entry

into premises, or when they are run out of warehouses at the wrong end of a gun. Such events may

sound far-fetched, but they have happened in quite a few countries already.

3. UNBS has drafted a Code of Conduct for Inspectors that they wish every inspector to abide by. This

is useful concept, but it cannot replace a well-constructed list of inspector responsibilities in the

UNBS Act or its Regulations, it can only support them. The Code of Conduct therefore has to be very

carefully aligned with relevant legislation, or, if the legislation is not sufficient, it should be strength-

ened. The current draft is overly long, many concepts are duplicated in different sections, and

hence it loses its impact.

Recommendation 11

• It is strongly recommended that UNBS Training and Consultancy Division establish inspector training

programmes for staff based on UNBS procedures and legal requirements in close cooperation with

the Certification and Import Inspection Departments and the UNBS Quality Manager.

• The draft Inspector’s Code of Conduct should be carefully revised to rid it of duplicated sections,

align it with legislation and shorten it to no more than two pages in order to render it effective.



20

8 Draft Quality Policy for UgandaAfter a tremendous amount of work by private industry with input from the Ministry of Tourism, Trade

and Industry (MTTI), the Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (UNCCI) published a draft

policy paper on standardization and quality assurance a year back. This idea has now been grasped by

the MTTI and they have developed an official Draft National Standards and Quality Policy3

that has been

circulated for national consultations. The draft policy deals with most of the issues that an effective

quality policy should deal with as quite a large portion of the very useful UNCCI document has been util-

ised in the new draft. There are however a few major gaps that are quite apparent when viewed against

similar successful policies of other countries and the challenges currently being faced by Uganda in this

domain:

1. In the first place, the draft policy is not always very clear on the difference between standards and

technical regulations. Compliance with standards is always “non-mandatory” according to WTO TBT

Agreement rules, whereas compliance with Technical Regulations is always “mandatory”. This is a

very important difference that has to be very clearly articulated. The fact that Uganda calls techni-cal regulations Compulsory Standards frequently obfuscates this distinction in the draft policy. Too

often this leads policy makers to conclude that all national standards are of a mandatory kind, which

is a far cry from the requirements of the WTO TBT Agreement. Hence the Section 5.1 Harmonize

and Strengthen the Standards Regulatory Framework, which includes some very useful policy objec-

tives, needs to be carefully edited to ensure consistency with WTO TBT Agreement nomenclature

and requirements and that the difference between standards and technical regulations (i.e. compul-

sory standards) remains clear.

2. In the same Section 5.1 the perception can be created that Uganda will end up with a number of

standards agencies. This is not international best practice. Normally one would establish an apexnational standards body, i.e. the UNBS. This body is responsible for the publication of all Ugandan

National Standards, not necessarily their development. Other organizations or even government

departments, recognized by the UNBS after ensuring that they comply with Annex 3 of the WTO TBT

Agreement, can develop standards up to the point of a draft national standard, but then this draft is

transferred to the UNBS to effect the final publication. Such organizations are generally known as

Standards Development Organizations (SDOs). Such an arrangement ensures that national stan-

dards are always easily available, and it enables Uganda to meet WTO TBT Agreement requirements

on the development and notification of standards quite easily.

The context could also indicate that what is meant by “standards agencies” are actually “regulatory

agencies” of which there would be quite a few, each Ministry having established their own. This is

quite normal, but they are not standards agencies, they are regulatory agencies. Their mandates

have to be carefully sorted out to ensure that overlaps and gaps are minimized. Generally speaking

these overlaps are the real problem for suppliers and for trade, i.e. products are regulated by more

than one agency, frequently in accordance with differing requirements, all of which can be catego-

rized under unnecessary non-tariff trade barriers or NTBs. This division of labour needs to be clari-

fied, even detailing the broad principles in the draft policy whereby this will be done, as well as an

3 The text of the policy can be obtained from the official website of MTTI at: hhtp://www.mtti.go.ug.



21

unequivocal commitment of government to see it through. It is usually the division of labour be-

tween the national standards body that has been given regulatory responsibilities and the regula-

tory authorities in other Ministries that is usually the biggest issue. Many countries are therefore

considering separating regulatory type work from the national standards body (see also discussion

in section 6 of this report).

3. Section 5.2 addresses maybe one of the major challenges of the current Ugandan situation, namely

the lack of coordination and a clear division of labour amongst regulatory authorities. Hence it over-

laps to a large extent with Section 5.1. The wording “clear coordination and collaboration platform”

can be interpreted in many ways. Most countries that have gone down this road have found that

such a “platform” needs to be given legal teeth, otherwise it does not work. A forum, a coordinating

committee, an inter-Ministerial committee or similar representative structures do not work. Coun-

tries who have got it right have established a Technical Regulation Department in the Office of the

President or Prime Minster under a Technical Regulation Law. This Department has the responsibil-

ity to ensure full compliance with the WTO TBT Agreement and similar regional protocols or agree-ments by Ministries, their Agencies and the Quality Infrastructure organizations. They therefore

wield a lot of power, and cannot easily be placed within a Ministry. Uganda should seriously con-

sider such a construct – it will be much more effective than what is currently in the draft policy.

4. Another gap in the draft policy is the responsibilities and involvement of industry. The government

cannot make the policy work unless the private sector buys into the idea and supports it whole-

heartedly. Yet, the current draft deals mainly with government activities. The involvement of indus-

try in the ongoing standardization work, active participation in the governance of Quality Infrastruc-

ture organizations, implementation of standards and technical regulations in industry and the mar-

ket place, even financial support for the running of Quality Infrastructure organizations, etc. are all

elements that could be usefully included.

5. The last major issue that needs to be addressed is the involvement of the development partners.

Uganda, like many developing economies, gains tremendously from ongoing donor community ac-

tivities in the country, also in the standards, conformity and technical regulation and SPS domain.

Too frequently however, there is little coordination between Ministries and the development part-

ners when it comes to the establishment of infrastructure. The result is that overcapacity in testing

and certification services, thereby greatly jeopardizing the self-sufficiency of the same, stressing the

supply of skilled personnel and other negative outcomes. The draft policy could be enhanced quite

a bit by the including the relevant coordination requirements.

Recommendation 12

It is strongly recommended that UNBS utilise the public consultations regarding the draft Standards and

Quality Policy to strengthen the already good document even more by the inclusion of policy for –

• Articulating the clear difference between standards and technical regulations, and ensuring that the

requirements of the WTO TBT Agreement are complied with;



22

• An unambiguous commitment that government will delineate the responsibilities amongst regula-

tory authorities and the quality infrastructure organizations, even to the extent of revising relevant

legislation;

• A clear statement that UNBS should be the apex standards body, responsible for the publication of

all national standards, even though others may develop them;• The establishment of a Technical Regulation Department in the Office of at least the Prime Minister

with regulatory powers to oversee and coordinate standards and regulatory activities amongst Min-

istries and their Agencies in order to fully meet WTO TBT Agreement and EAC Common Market Pro-

tocols;

• Responsibilities of the private sector; and

• Coordination mechanisms between development partners and government.

9 Quality assurance training at Makerere UniversityThe Makerere University Business School has approximately 15 000 pre and post-graduate students,

Due to its large number of students, it will be re-established as an independent university in 2011. The

Makerere Business School and UNBS signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2009 whereby

they will work together to provide higher education regarding standardization and quality management

in Uganda. The Business School is primarily responsible for the academic side whereas UNBS would

provide lecturers and offer internships to students where relevant. The Business School is very keen to

enhance their offerings regarding standardization and quality assurance on two fronts, namely

• Short term courses for SMEs and individuals that wish to gain insight into the subject matter, espe-cially with the view to export to the region as well as further afield; and

• Lon term diploma or graduate courses for individuals that may wish to make this domain their ca-

reer.

The former would typically be of a week duration, whereas the latter would be for one year or longer.

The PTB sponsored three day workshop for Export Quality Management was of specific interest, and the

possibility of running this again in 2011 as a Train-the-Trainer course would be welcomed. The Business

School would be more than happy to organize and host such a course. It was pointed out that the ITC

Publication on which the PTB course was based is being revised and that the revised version should be

published early next year. It was agreed that it would not make sense to base the course on the previ-

ous version of the book, but that the revised and updated version should be utilised.

A workshop with PTB support was planned for the first quarter of 2010, but did not take place due to

factors beyond the control of PTB and the designated trainer. Makerere and UNBS held the training

workshop anyway, and utilised the relevant ITC publication as best they could. It was well attended and

was considered a success, but it is understood that lecturers would need considerable strengthening

from an expert to become really effective.

The long term pre- and post-graduate courses fall outside the ambit of PTB support, but it may be useful

to facilitate linkages of the Makerere Business School with UNISA or Pretoria University Business Schools



23

that have such courses, or even the University of Hamburg that has been a recipient of the ISO award

for the best University programme on standardization. If the Makerere Business School can establish

such pre- and post-graduate courses, they would fill a much needed gap not only in Uganda, but also in

the whole of the EAC.

10 Recommendations for future PTB support Future PTB support would to a large extent be guided by the planning for the third phase of the project.

There are however a number of elements in UNBS that would require future support, and which PTB

could consider. These include the following:

1. It is quite clear that the whole issue of product certification marks, regulatory marks, import inspec-

tion would require the development of a holistic strategy. This can be considered evidence of a

much bigger need of developing a holistic strategy for the future for the UNBS. The continuing

changes in the East African Community, the start of the EAC common market with its inevitable

opening of the intra-regional border posts, the establishment of the “One stop customs” Act will all

have a major impact on the business of UNBS. The old business model will come increasingly under

strain. Hence it might have a positive impact on the future of UNBS if PTB could facilitate the proc-

ess of developing a viable business strategy for UNBS, if its senior management really believes in

such a concept and requests such facilitation.

2. The outcome of the strategy discussed under (1) above will have an effect on the organizational

structure of the UNBS, especially the whole quality assurance domain, i.e. product and system certi-

fication, inspection and market surveillance. Once the strategy has been developed, it may be use-

ful to provide support to UNBS in developing an organizational structure that can carry the imple-

mentation of the strategy.

3. PTB should consider the offer of the Makerere Business School to host an Export Quality Workshop

in 2011 once the ITC book has been republished. This should be in the form of a Train-the-Trainer

workshop, i.e. a four day workshop with an examination at the end. The Makerere Business School

should identify a number of lecturers from amongst its staff, as should UNBS, to participate. The

Makerere Business School should then be supported in developing their own training material, so

that they can provide these workshops in future.

4. One of the major impediments for growth in the certification business of UNBS is the general lack of trained and registered auditors. A fair number of staff has been trained over the years as auditors,

but few are working in the certification divisions and their registration has not been pursued. PTB

should therefore consider supporting UNBS in developing a proper plan for the training and registra-

tion of quality auditors in the certification divisions and in private industry, starting with training in

audit skills, ensuring that they get the appropriate experience, contracting registered lead auditors

from abroad under which they can perform audits for registration, support their registration with

IRCA or similar and provide guidance on the establishment of a concomitant record system in UNBS.

The same should be done for lead auditors as a follow up to the auditor registration programme.

Only in this way can the whole auditor development programme become self-sustainable.



24

5. The situation regarding training of inspectors is very similar to that of the training and registration of

auditors (see point 4 above). Hence, it may be appropriate for PTB to provide support to UNBS in

developing the training modalities for the training of inspectors in ISO 17020, UNBS inspection pro-

cedures and legal responsibilities. This could be extended to also include a Train-the-Trainer pro-

gramme to establish a self-sustaining inspector training and registration programme in UNBS.



25

Annex A: Programme of the mission

Date Activity Discussion PartnersSunday

7th

Novem-

ber

Arrival from Johannesburg

Monday

8th

Novem-

ber

Opening meeting with UNBS Technical Manag-

ers

− Finalization of programme

− Agreement on outcome of the mission

Gyavlira Musoke – Manager Quality Assur-

ance

Richard Ebong – Head Surveillance Division

Samuel G L Balagadde – Manager Import

Inspection

Daniel Atugonza – Senior Surveillance Offi-

cer

Joseph M Lugoloobi – Inspector

Winfried Atugonza – S-Mark ManagerMeeting with Quality Assurance Department

- Structure of the Department,

- Quality Assurances Matters

- Identification of Training Needs

Gyaviira Musoke – Manager Quality Assur-

ance

1st

meeting with Standards Strategy Coordina-

tor

− Review of the draft Standards and Quality

Policy of Uganda

Julius Oboth – Standards Strategy Imple-

mentation Coordinator

Tuesday

9th

Novem-

ber

Meeting With the Surveillance Division

- Studying the Proposed Structure

- Code of Conduct and Applicable Legislations

- Compulsory Registration ( S-Mark)- How to Conduct Market Surveillance

- Market Surveillance procedure

- Identification of training needs for the Divi-

sion

Richard Ebong – Head Surveillance Division

Daniel Atugonza – Senior Surveillance Offi-

cer

Winnie Atugonza – Senior Surveillance Offi-cer

Vitalis Shaka – Surveillance Officer

Margie Ndagire - Inspector

Joseph Lutaaya – Standards officer (MSME)

Richard Ngonzi – Standards officer (MSME)

2nd

meeting with Standards Strategy Coordina-

tor

- Review of the draft Standards and Quality

Policy of Uganda

Julius Oboth – Standards Strategy Imple-

mentation Coordinator

(Unfortunately the planned attendance of

Deus Kamweya from MTTI did not material-

ize)

Wednesday10

thNovem-

ber

Meeting with Manager import Inspection- Structure of the Department

- Applicable legislation

- How to conduct inspection

- Import inspection procedure

- Identification of training Needs

Samuel L. Balagadde – Manager ImportInspection Department

Eric Kagoba – Senior Inspector

Zainah Tondo – Inspector

Linda Kobere – Inspector

Matina Kaleebi – Inspector

Innocent Namara – Inspector

MacSamuel Lasagula - Inspector



Date Activity Discussion Partners

Thursday

11th

Novem-

ber

Meeting Training and Consultancy Department

- How to conduct internal training for techni-

cal officers of Quality Assurances and import

inspection

- Identification of international linkages and

support necessary

Eng. Jackson K. Mubangizi – Manager Train-

ing and Consultancy Department

Daniel Magada – Senior Training Officer

Meeting with the Legal Team

− Prosecution of Cases related to Quality Is-

sues

− Review of status of UNBS legislation

Helen Wenene – Senior Legal Officer

Caroline Ayenzibwa – Legal officer

Friday

12th

Novem-

ber

Makerere University Business School

− Standards and quality related studies

Stephen K Nkundabanyanga – Lecturer and

Business Consultant

Dinah Nahabwe – Assistant Director, Fac-

ulty of Commerce

Bazinzi Matamba - Lecturer

Paul Walakira – Standards Department

UNBS

Wrap Up Meeting

− Findings and recommendations of mission

Dr. Terry Kahuma – Executive Director

UNBS

UNBS Technical Managers

Saturday

13th

Novem-

ber

Departure for Johannesburg

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nakibuuka-magdalein
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

PTB Report Uganda November 2010

Documents