OVERVIEW OF GOOD PRACTICE IN EAST AFRICA

Spencer Henson & Oliver MasakureInternational Food Economy Research GroupDepartment of Food, Agricultural & Resource EconomicsUniversity of Guelph

OVERVIEW

‘Good practice’ benchmarks The projects Examples of ‘good practice’ across projects General principles of ‘good practice’ Conclusions

‘GOOD PRACTICE’ BENCHMARKS

Challenges: Timeframe – interventions verses impacts Attribution:

Multiple interventions Natural evolution of capacity Multi-factorial impacts

Partial capacity-building Differing scope of interventions

Metrics: Process Impacts:

SPS-related managerial capacity Higher-order objectives

HIERARCHY OF SPS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

Technologically-Demanding Risk Management Functions

Institutional Structures & Role Clarity

Application of basic ‘good practice’ for hygiene & safety

Awareness & recognition

HIGHER-ORDER IMPACTS

Metrics: Enhancement of SPS status Enhancement of trade performance:

Value/volume of exports Unit value of exports Access to new markets

Impacts on livelihoods/poverty Differential impacts:

Gender Vulnerable groups/regions Large versus small firms/farms

CASE STUDY PROJECTS

Pesticide Initiative Programme (PIP) (EU) East Africa Phytosanitary Information

Committee (USAID) Food Control Capacity-Building Needs

assessments (FAO) Advanced Training Programme on Quality

Infrastructure for Food Safety (SWEDAC/SIDA) Global Salm-Surv Training Programme on

Laboratory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa (WHO)

Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea (UNCTAD)

PESTICIDE INITIATIVE PROGRAMME

Extended duration Basic awareness raising/information provision Flexible work programme Multi-tiered approach:

Public/Private Regulatory measures/Private standards Individual/Collective Levels of SPS capacity

Engagement with private sector: Demand-driven Cost-sharing

Local capacity-building for service provision: Individuals Materials

EAST AFRICA PHYTOSANITARY INFORMATION COMMITTEE

Recipient role in project genesis Significant degree of local control/ownership Ability to evolve Local capacity linked to regional capacity Regional cooperation & coordination Flexibility across countries:

Basic capacity Higher-level capacity

Critical capacity developed to attract other donors

FOOD CONTROL CAPACITY-BUILDING NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

Standard framework Project team:

Local consultant International consultant

Stakeholder engagement Efforts towards political ‘buy-in’ On-going engagement

ADVANCED TRAINING PROGRAMME ON QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FOOD SAFETY

Needs assessment Scheduling & organization Extended engagement:

Length of training programme Follow-up

Practical elements Two-way engagement between participants

and instructors Project work Nature of participants

GLOBAL SALM-SURV TRAINING PROGRAMME ON LABORATORY-BASED SURVEILLANCE

Adaptation to local context Combination of theoretical & practical training Extended training programme Mixture of participants Establishment of informal network of

practitioners Use of local facilities

STUDY ON COSTS OF AGRI-FOOD SAFETY AND SPS COMPLIANCE IN TANZANIA

Standard methodology Local consultants National dissemination workshop Public & private sectors

HIERARCHY OF SPS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

Technologically-Demanding Risk Management Functions

Institutional Structures & Role Clarity

Application of basic ‘good practice’ for hygiene & safety

Awareness & recognition

EVIDENCE OF HIGHER-ORDER IMPACTS

SPS status Trade flows Livelihoods/Poverty

COMMON AREAS OF LESS ‘GOOD PRACTICE’

Supply-driven model still often prevails: Needs identified externally Broader external priorities

Local engagement in capacity-building can be limited

Often limited attention to ‘capacity to build capacity’

Rigorous assessments remain the exception Much assistance remains fragmented & partial:

Multiple interventions Failure to address fundamental constraints

Predominant focus on public sector

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ‘GOOD PRACTICE’

Demand versus supply-driven technical cooperation

Needs assessment Flexibility Practitioner networks Active learning Linking skills development to practice Selection of beneficiaries Establishing local capacity-building capacity

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ‘GOOD PRACTICE’

Taking account of prevailing local capacity & needs

Sequencing and connectivity of capacity-building efforts

Assessing and monitoring progress Role as ‘honest broker’ Market distortions Political support

CONCLUSIONS

Can identify areas of ‘good practice’ across the six case studies

Key role of project design in context of donor policies Can identify some general principles of ‘good

practice’ Some ‘traditional’ modes of assistance remain. Challenge is to employ ‘good practice’ more

generally Biggest challenge relates to higher-order impacts:

Bringing about real change Identifying & measuring that change

Key role of coincidence of interest