WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/871 
10 September 2008 
 (08-4246) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
SPS/STDF/OECD WORKSHOP ON 
GOOD PRACTICE IN SPS-RELATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION 
 
 
 Background research has been funded by the STDF for consideration at the workshop on 
good practice in SPS-related technical cooperation,  which is being organized jointly by the SPS 
Committee, Standards and Trade Development Fac ility (STDF) and Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) , in Geneva on 6 October 2008. 
  The STDF research is based on replies from WTO Members and OECD Development 
Assistance Committee Contact Points  to the request for informati on on good practice in SPS-related 
technical cooperation, circulated to th e SPS Committee in document G/SPS/GEN/816 and 
G/SPS/GEN/816/Add.1.  In this information request , Members were asked to identify one or more 
SPS-related technical assistance projects which coul d be considered as examples of good practice in 
one or more of the following regions:  Centra l America, East Africa and the Greater Mekong Delta 
Sub-region
1.  A total of 24 projects were nominated by 19 organizations in response to this request. 
 
 In-depth research has been undertaken on the projects nominated as examples of good 
practice in response to G/SPS/GEN/816 by a team of three consultants:  Mr Jason Hafmeister, Mr Spencer Henson and Mr Cornelis van der Meer.    
 Attached is the report of Mr Spencer Henson.   This report examines the projects submitted as 
examples of good practice in the East Africa region.     This report has been prepared under the c onsultant's own respons ibility and is without 
prejudice to the WTO Secretariat, the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the 
WTO.  
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                     
 
1 The following countries were included in the research:  Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama for Central America;  Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda for East Africa; and Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Viet Nam for the Greater Mekong Delta Sub-region.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page ii  
 
   
 
   
 
 
Good Practice in 
SPS-Related Technical Cooperation 
East Africa Region Report  
 
Spencer Henson and Oliver Masakure 
Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics 
University of Guelph, Canada 
 
 
 
September 2008 
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
 
This report was prepared for the STDF/OECD Worksh op on Good Practices in SPS-related Technical 
Cooperation, 6 October 2008, Geneva .  It reflects the views of the au thors alone and does not represent 
the views of the STDF or any of its partner agencies or donors 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page iii 
 
 
   
 
Table of Contents 
 
  
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. ....iv 
 
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .1 
II. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................2  
III. PARAMETERS OF GOOD PRACTICE IN THE DELIVERY AND RECEIPT 
OF SPS-RELATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION ..........................................................8  
IV. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS  AND KEY LESSONS LEARNED..............28  
ANNEX I - DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY PROJECTS .........................................................35  
ANNEX II - ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRES ..........................................................................41  
ANNEX III - IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE ..............................................................................45  
ANNEX IV - PERSONS INTERVIEWED  IN STUDY COUNTRIES ...........................................47  
ANNEX V - LITERATURE CITED OR USED ...............................................................................49  
 
 G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page iv  
 
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Introduction 
 
1. This report is one of the three regional asse ssments of good practice in SPS-related technical 
cooperation.  It examines the perspectives of beneficiaries across a series of case study projects 
regarding elements of good practice with a focus on project design and implementation, and on the 
resulting outputs and impacts.  While providing specific cases of good practice, a synthesis and comparison of the findings aims to present more general perspectives. 
2. Here the focus is on the East Africa region, specifically Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.  In 
each of these countries, the ability to comply with SPS measures in key export markets has a critical 
influence on trade performance, alongside other comp etitiveness factors.  Thus, attempts to exploit 
potentially lucrative markets for agricultural and food products, and in pa rticular higher-value non-
traditional products, as part of rural poverty allevi ation and export diversif ication strategies, are 
closely tied to efforts towards SPS capacity-building. 
Overview of methodology 
 3. The case study projects studied in this researc h were nominated by donors in response to a 
request for information on good practice in SPS-re lated technical cooperation, distributed to WTO 
Members and OECD Development Assistance Committee contact points in January 2008.  The survey requested information on SPS-related technical coope ration projects which could be considered to 
represent examples of good practice.  Through this process, six projects were proposed for the 
analysis. 
4. A variety of information sources were used to  collect both factual and attitudinal/experiential 
information on each of the six projects.  First, for four of the six case study projects, donors had completed a standard questionnaire requesting basi c factual information on the project.  Second, 
contact was made through email with personnel in the donors and/or implementers associated with 
each of the six case study projects requesting s upporting documentation and further information and 
perspectives on elements of good practice.  Third,  a review was undertaken of project documents 
obtained directly from donors in response to a request from the STDF and/or the study team, and an internet search.  Fourth, extended telephone and/or email discussions were held with some personnel 
involved with project administration, design and/or implementation.  Finally, a series of in-depth interviews were held in Kenya,  Tanzania and Uganda over the pe riod 28 July to 15 August 2008.  The 
interviews were conducted face-to-face us ing a standard semi-structured guide. 
5. The starting point for defining benchmarks or i ndicators of the impact and effectiveness of 
SPS-related technical cooperation was a framework for assessing good practice in this area, compiled 
for the STDF.  This framework highlighted issues and problems in defining indicators and in obtaining reliable measures of impacts and effectiveness.  In the analysis a distinction was made 
between the specific effects on SPS capacity, based ar ound the concept of a hierarchy of inter-related 
functions, and the resulting higher-order impacts,  for example on trade performance and/or poverty 
levels and livelihoods. 
6. Although the collection and analysis of data la rgely proceeded with relative ease, certain 
problems were encountered that served to impede th e analysis, as well as to limit the wider validity of 
the findings.  Most notably:  1) the informati on set available for each of the six case study projects 
differed both in terms of the amount and type of information available;  2) in some cases donors 
and/or project implementers we re not able to provide detailed information on project design, 
implementation and/or impacts;  3) not all project beneficiaries were willing to provide their personal 
views and experiences;  and 4) the scope and structure of the six case study projects was quite narrow  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page v 
 
 
  and excluded a number of key areas of SPS-relate d technical cooperation, restricting the wider 
validity of the findings. 
Overview of projects 
 
7. The six projects examined by the project were as follows: 
• Pesticides Initiative Programme  (PIP):  This was a large-scale EU-funded project that 
became operational in 2001.  The PIP programme  was established by the EU at the request 
of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in response to concerns over the potential negative effects on fresh produce expor ts of the harmonization of Member State 
controls on pesticides in food, and in par ticular the establishment of EU-wide maximum 
residue levels (MRLs).  Specific activities included the provision of information, training 
of producers and guidance in audit and certif ication processes and other activities driven 
by the specific needs of the beneficiaries, est ablishment of sectoral task forces, training of 
local service providers and staff in laborator ies and research institutes, enhancement of 
national control capacity related to trade in fresh produce, etc. 
 
• East Africa Phytosanitary Information Committee  (EAPIC):  This was a USAID-funded 
project that aimed to establish a network of National Plant Protection Organizations 
(NPPOs) across East Africa and infrastructure for the collection and sharing of data on plant pests and diseases.  In turn, the project has worked towards the compilation of pest 
lists for key export commodities and enhancement of capacity to undertake pest risk assessments (PRAs).  
• Capacity-Building Needs Assessments :  This FAO project aimed to test a comprehensive 
framework for assessing capacity-building needs of developing countries in the area of 
food control and to undertake related needs ass essments for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.  
Reports on these assessments included action plans that were reviewed through stakeholder consultations in each country an d subsequently approved by the respective 
national governments. 
 
• Advanced Training Programme on Qua lity Infrastructure for Food Safety:  This project 
was undertaken by SWEDAC as part of th e ongoing International Training Programme 
(ITP) of the Swedish International Developm ent Cooperation Agency (SIDA).  The course 
on which the case study focuses was undertaken in January/February 2007 with the theme 
Quality Infrastructure for Food Safety.  Participants drawn from a number of African 
countries were exposed to examples of good practice relating to food safety management 
through visits to food companies, public food saf ety control facilities, etc.  After the course 
participants completed a group exercise over a six month period, focused on drafting a 
national action plan.  This was presented at a follow-up seminar six months later. 
 
• Global Salm-Surv Training Programme on L aboratory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne 
Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa:  This project  was initiated as the 
result of a broader needs assessment on infrastructure for laboratory-based salmonella surveillance by the World Health Organization's (WHO) Global Salm-Surv (GSS).  The focus here is on a basic training course in th is area offered in October/November 2007.  
The course included theoretical aspects of surv eillance and laboratory testing and practical 
laboratory work, as well as practical case studies. 
 
• Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and 
Guinea:   This study undertaken by UNCTAD aime d to estimate the costs of compliance in 
Tanzania associated with SPS requirements in export markets for tropical products and to G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page vi  
 
  develop a standard methodology for this pur pose.  The study was implemented by the 
World Bank and undertaken by an external c onsultant.  A local workshop disseminated the 
final results. 
 
Good practice in project design 
 8. Across beneficiaries in the private and public sectors there was strong support for the design 
of the PIP.  The project was seen as addressing a real problem  – the potential threat to exports of fresh 
produce to the EU.  While it was r ecognized that the activities of the PIP were constrained by its 
design, the PIP was considered more flexible than ot her projects to which respondents had been 
exposed.  One of the recurring themes in discussions with beneficiaries was th e level of engagement 
of the PIP with the private sector; this was considered a positive attribute of the project among 
respondents in both the private and public sectors.  the long duration of the PIP was also considered a 
strength; the fact that the project had secured funding and a defined schedule of activities for five years was seen as presenting real opportunities for capacity enhancement.   
9. The EAPIC  represents a more traditional project in the area of SPS-related technical 
cooperation, but was widely seen by beneficiarie s as representing a positive example of donor support 
to the development of phytosanitary capacity.  A number of the beneficiaries saw themselves as 
having a role in the original genesis of the EAPIC .  Indeed, by many it was not considered a project 
per se, but rather that USAID was supporting the developm ent of a new institu tional structure that 
belonged to NPPOs in the region.  Beneficiaries highlighted the fact that the EAPIC’s design enabled 
it to adapt and change as priorities were identif ied, needs shifted and capacities developed. 
10. Broadly speaking, the Capacity-Building Needs Assessments  in the area of food control 
undertaken by FAO were seen as exte rnally led exercises over which beneficiaries had little influence.  
While beneficiaries did not necessarily see themselves as partners in these assessments, the exercise 
itself was seen as valuable for setting a platform for fu ture actions.  Further, the fact that they were 
based on a standard assessment tool and had been unde rtaken by an international consultant paired 
with a national consultant was seen as giving credibility. 
11. The Advanced Training Programme on Qua lity Infrastructure for Food Safety  was offered 
following a process of needs assessment and priority -setting among developing countries that have an 
active engagement with SIDA.  Many participants  suggested that the course presented examples of 
good practice in that the aims and objectives were clearly articulated and communicated to potential 
participants, the course was scheduled well ahead  of time, the course was designed to enable 
participants to engage with one another and instructors and there was a follow-up exercise and 
meeting once the course had been completed. 
12. The Global Salm-Surv training programme on Labor atory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne 
Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa  
was generally considered to follow more of the 
traditional mode of training courses in the area of SP S-related capacity-building.  For participants, the 
real innovation in the course was the combination of  theoretical and practical aspects in the design 
and implementation of the course. 
13. The Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and 
Guinea by UNCTAD was initiated following a generic request for standards-related technical 
assistance from the beneficiary countries.  It deve loped and followed a standard methodology across 
the three study countries contributing to greater rigour in the estimates that were derived, engendering 
confidence among policy-makers in their validity.  However, little was known about how and why the 
methods employed had been used.   G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page vii 
 
 
  Good practice in project implementation 
 
14. Overall, the implementation of the PIP was evaluated positively by beneficiaries, indeed it 
was considered to stand out as an example of good pr actice.  In particular, efforts to engage with a 
wide range of stakeholders acros s the public and private sectors and at both the individual and 
collective levels were lauded.  Further, activities had been adjusted over time according to ongoing 
learning processes and identified (and revised) priorities.  The PIP employed a demand-driven 
approach which enabled the support provided to be ad apted to the needs of pa rticular beneficiaries, 
who were also able to play a role in designing the assistance they received.  At the same time, the fact 
that beneficiaries had to apply for support and write  formal applications meant that there was some 
upfront cost and effort, that eliminated those who did not have the basic minimum level of pre-
existing capacity.  Support to industry task fo rces and the development of local service provider 
capacity was also seen as positive. 
15. The EAPIC  has been operational for a period of two years and over this time evolved from a 
project focused on the relatively simple task of developing lists of plant pests and diseases of trade 
significance for East Africa countries to a more complex project that aims to harmonize phytosanitary 
controls with those of the International Plant Prot ection Convention (IPPC).  Th is reflects the growing 
confidence of the member NPPOs in the context of financial and technical support from USAID.  The 
EAPIC has apparently made great efforts to engender the active participation of member NPPOs and to promote ownership of the project.  Inevitably, the EAPIC  has run into implementation problems 
when it has come up against prevailing capacity cons traints beyond the scope of the project itself.  
The project has now developed to a stage where a dditional partners have o ffered ongoing technical 
and/or financial support. 
16. The Capacity-Building Needs Assessments  project successfully implemented the assessment 
framework developed by FAO and defined  national action plans that were approved in each of the 
study countries.  The use of an international consultant – that ensu red consistency in the 
implementation of the evaluation framework and as ked difficult questions – and a local consultant 
conversant with local conditions and with exte nsive knowledge and experi ence of the national 
context, worked well.  While implementation of  the studies was directed from outside the study 
countries, the stakeholder consultations enabled local input. 
17. The Advanced Training Programme on Q uality Infrastructure for Food Safety  course was of 
significant value to participants.  In most areas, the subject matter of the course was judged to have 
reached the defined objectives, while the mode of delivery facilitated inter action amongst the body of 
participants.  Beneficiaries were presented with  hands-on exercises, while there was constant 
monitoring and interaction with trainers.  There is  evidence that beneficiaries have been able to 
directly apply the skills they have learnt, both th rough the extended project and in their day-to-day 
work. 
18. The Global Salm-Surv training programme on L aboratory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne 
Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa
 was well received by participants, who were 
able to apply at least some of the knowledge they had accrued in their day-to-day work.  The 
combination of theoretical and practical training was considered a good innovation. 
19. The Study on  Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and 
Guinea was  successfully concluded in 2005.  The resear ch team was not able to gather any 
substantive information on the manner in which th e study was undertaken, although a review of the 
study report suggests it applied rigorous methods that could be employed in other studies of this type.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page viii  
 
  Good practice in project outputs and impacts 
 
20. The direct focus of the PIP was to enhance food safety capacity.  Of all of the case study 
projects, the PIP is the most comprehensive and is the only one directed at capacity-building in the 
public and private sectors.  It is also unique in the scope of the interventions employed.  The most 
immediate and wide-ranging impact of the PIP has been to create awaren ess regarding the importance 
of food safety to export competitiveness and the need for enhancement of capacity directed at compliance with regulatory requirements and private standards in the EU.  It not only disseminated 
information on emerging issues and changes in regula tory requirements and private standards on an 
ongoing basis, but was also active in translating this  information into practical guides that could be 
implemented by exporters and their suppliers.  The PIP has been instrumental in developing specific 
elements of food safety capacity in the public a nd private sectors, including the first private 
certification service provider in the region, enhan cement of regulatory systems for the approval and 
control of pesticides, upgrading of exporter food saf ety systems and implementation of good practices 
in testing laboratories.  Many beneficiaries pointed to the fact that these in itiatives had been translated 
into better and more rigorous food safety controls.  While the broader aim of the PIP was to build the 
long-term competitiveness of private enterprises in th e horticultural sector, it is difficult to attribute 
any changes in this regard directly to the project. 
21. The EAPIC  project focuses solely on public sector capacity, specifically relating to the 
control of plant pests and diseases.  The project seek s to build institutional capacity across East Africa 
to undertake pest risk assessments that meet the n eeds of export markets, notably for the USA.  Thus, 
while having a higher-level objective of boosting export s as one of its objectives, its primary impact is 
seen as enhancing specific SPS-related capacities.  Th e project has been successful in this regard, 
establishing online databases and separate servers in project countries, which will ultimately be linked 
to a regional server, and boosting capacity to  undertake pest risk assessments, which was 
demonstrated by US approval for imports of three items of fresh produce from Kenya. 
22. Capacity assessments were  successfully completed in all st udy countries, although there were 
differences in the response of governments to the Capacity-Building Needs Assessment project and the 
degree to which this project has induced further action towards enhancement of food safety capacity.  
Many of the problems faced are beyond the control of the project. 
23. The Advanced Training Programme on Q uality Infrastructure for Food Safety  course was 
directly aimed at guiding the enhancement of food saf ety capacity, rather than in and of itself bringing 
about such enhancements.  Upon completion of the training course, participants returned to their 
countries and worked for six months on a draft policy document which they later presented at a 
workshop.  The progress and status of this draft policy varied across the study countries, but was 
generally well received and influenced the formul ation of national policies on food safety capacity 
enhancement. 
24. The target impact of the Global Salm-Surv training programme on Laboratory-Based 
Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa  was the 
enhancement of a specific element of food safety cap acity, notably related to laboratory practices for 
microbial pathogens.  While many participants in th e course were constrained in their ability to apply 
the skills imparted by this programme due to infrast ructural weaknesses in their country, most were of 
the view that their skills and expertise had been  enhanced appreciably.  Further, a number of 
participants noted that they had shared informa tion and data with other laboratories through an 
informal network that deve loped between participants. 
25. The Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and 
Guinea produced a rigorous study of the costs of compliance with export market food safety 
requirements for tropical projects in Tanzania.  It  is not apparent whether this study has had 
appreciable impacts in Tanzania.   G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page ix 
 
 
  Conclusions, recommendations and key lessons learned 
 
26. The key findings from analysis of the six case studies are as follows: 
• Demand- versus supply-driven technical cooperation:  The design and implementation of 
projects should engage potential beneficiaries in processes of needs assessment, acting to 
design technical cooperation around prevailing local capacity, instill local ownership in 
capacity-building efforts and building capacity in needs identification, appraisal and priority-
setting.  However, demand-driven modes of  technical cooperation are not necessarily 
appropriate where prevailing levels of capac ity are weak, SPS requirements in export markets 
are changing rapidly and/or emergencies arise. 
 
• Needs assessment:  In many technical cooperation projects some form of needs assessment is 
undertaken, whether involving the beneficiary, don or, or both.  Too often the form taken by 
this assessment is not clear and quite different approaches are employed across projects, creating inconsistencies, increasing the transac tion costs for beneficiaries and impeding the 
employment of good practice.  Consistent framewo rks can be highly beneficial in this context.  
 
• Flexibility:  Critical to the efficacy of capacity-building efforts is the need for interventions to 
be flexible in their scope and modes of de livery.  Thus, circumstances may change and 
priorities shift over time, while needs and capac ities may differ across multiple recipients of 
assistance.  The need for flexib ility also applies to the definition and assessment of intended 
impacts.   
 
• Practitioner networks:  A number of the projects reviewed above have created practitioner 
networks among beneficiaries, whether as an inte nded impact or as a secondary consequence.  
In all cases these have emerged as valuable outputs that empower beneficiaries, engender local ownership and provide an ongoing m echanism for capacity enhancement.   
• Active learning:  A welcome trend in technical cooperation projects that impart knowledge 
and skills through training is the use of more active modes of learning.  These include engagement of students in dialogue around learning objectives, problem-based learning and extended project work.   Active engagement of beneficiaries in capacity-building is also 
critical to effective cooperation and sustainability.  
 
• Linking skills development to practice:  Training programmes work most effectively when 
linked to the specific needs and day-to-day duties of beneficiaries.  While it is difficult to 
customise training to the needs of individuals, linkages with practice can be achieved through 
project work and other practical exercises. 
 
• Selection of beneficiaries:  The efficacy of training programmes at enhancing capacity 
reflects not only the content and mode of delivery but also the choice of participants.  This also applies to more comprehensive support programmes such as the PIP. Making the intended impacts of technical cooperation cl ear and explicit upfront is critical here. 
 
• Establishing local capacity-building capacity:  Investment in local providers of training and 
consultancy services acts to establish longer-term and sustainable capacity.  Further, local 
service producers are better positioned to communicate, not only because of their command of the local language but also appreciation of cultural issues. 
 
• Sequencing and connectivity of capacity-building efforts:  Critical to the efficacy and 
sustainability of capacity-building efforts is the sequencing and interconnectivity of capacity-
building efforts.  This includes access to sour ces of finance and avoiding overlap and/or non-
sequential capacity-building across multiple prog rammes of technical cooperation.  At the G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page x  
 
  same time, we need to recognize the cumulative impact of technical cooperation projects on 
capacity-building, such that the individual effe cts of particular projects may be difficult to 
discern. 
 
• Assessing and monitoring progress:  While much technical cooperation is focused on 
enhancing specific aspects of SPS capacity, unde rlying such objectives are often higher-level 
impacts, for example on export performance, inclusion of smallholders, etc.  A multi-tiered structure of intended impacts is appropriate for most programmes of technical cooperation, 
especially if they are of limited duration, im pacts are lagged and/or attribution problems are 
significant.  At the same time it is critical th at beneficiaries are able to monitor and assess 
their own capacity development. 
 
• Role as honest broker:  While there is a tendency to focus on the direct impacts of technical 
cooperation on SPS capacity, in some cases one of th e key role of external interventions is to 
act as an honest broker and/or risk taker.  T hus, donors and project im plementers, as (often) 
trusted, respected and/or powerful external pa rties, can act to overcome entrenched local 
positions and/or to build bridges between stakeholders. 
 
• Market distortions:  Efforts should be made to minimize the market demand and price 
distorting effects of  technical cooperation projects and programmes, for example through 
cost-sharing and linking support to agreed action plans. 
 
• Political support:  Critical to the success and longer-term sustainability of capacity-building 
efforts is buy-in by political decisions-makers.   Engaging beneficiary countries in assessing 
the design and implementation of capacity-buildi ng efforts can be important in this regard, 
provided these involve decision-makers at a su fficiently high level.  Dissemination of 
information, including through the media, can also  act to create the political impetus to move 
SPS issues further up the agenda. 
  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 1 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In recent years, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures have become an increasingly 
prominent issue for global trade in agricultural a nd food products.  Of particular concern is the 
potential impact that food safety and/or animal a nd plant health measures can have on the ability of 
developing countries to gain and/or maintain access to markets for higher-value agricultural and food 
products, especially in industrialized countries.  In part this reflects the growing preponderance of 
SPS measures, but also the more widespread reco gnition of the degree and manner in which trade 
flows can be affected.  These concerns are typica lly greatest for low-income countries that tend to 
have weak SPS management capacities that can thwart efforts towards export-led agricultural 
diversification and rural development.  
2. Recognition of the SPS management capacity co nstraints faced by developing countries has 
served to highlight the role of technical coopera tion and other capacity-building support, both from 
bilateral donors and multilateral deve lopment agencies.  More genera lly, greater emphasis is being 
placed on Aid for Trade, gearing development coopera tion to the enhancement of trade capacity that 
enables developing countries to enhance their intern ational trade performance as a means to economic 
development.   While the vast majority of tec hnical cooperation is directed at overcoming acute 
compliance problems, often in the context of actual or potential trade problems and disputes, increasing attention is being given to the need for a more strategic focus that enhances fundamental 
food safety and animal and plant health management  capacity and enables developing countries to be 
more proactive in their responses to evolving SPS sta ndards in global trade.  At the same time, it is 
apparent that there is a need for better coor dination of the substantial amounts of technical 
cooperation that is being provided in this area and fo r the sharing of experiences in order to identify 
good practices.  The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) aims to play a role in this regard. 
3. The focus on good practice in SPS-related tec hnical cooperation reflects broader concerns 
about "good" development assistance; that is, what works and what does not?  While scaling up of aid 
is acknowledged to be crucial, it is recognized that  enhancement of the effectiveness of any assistance 
that is given is of equal importance. The efficien t and effective delivery of development assistance 
demands better targeting to capabilities, skills, in stitutional structures and market incentives in 
recipient countries.  This suggests the need to d esign, implement and evaluate assistance programmes 
within the context of specific developing country  capacities, while moving away from the traditional 
donor/recipient relationship.  Indeed, the guideli nes defined by the Paris Declaration on Aid 
Effectiveness better elucidate the relationship betw een development partners and aid recipients by 
explicitly outlining the roles and responsibilities of  each and strengthening developing country 
ownership of the development process.  Within these guidelines, and of relevance here, donors are 
seeking to achieve effective development assist ance that promotes ownership, alignment, 
harmonization and mutual accountability as they apply to sanitary and phytosanitary issues.
2  In turn, 
a key issue is the extent to which good practice contributes to improvements in SPS compliance and, 
in turn, increased market access,  trade competitiveness, etc. 
4. This report is one of the three regional asse ssments of good practice in SPS-related technical 
cooperation, each of which focuses on a series of  case study projects that have been presented by 
donors as examples of good practice.  In particular, it examines the perspectives of beneficiaries in each of the case study projects regarding elements of good practice, with a focus on project design, 
implementation, and the resulting outputs and imp acts.  While providing specific cases of good 
practice, a synthesis and comparison of the findings  aims to present more general perspectives, for 
example with respect to: 
                                                     
 
  2 Gascoigne, D. (2007). Identification of Parameters for Good Practice and Benchmarks for judging 
the Impact of SPS-Related Technical Assistance.  Draft Report for the Standards and Trade Development 
Facility, Geneva. G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 2  
 
  • Contribution to immediate and/or medium-t erm improvements in specific areas of SPS 
capacity, for example increased awareness of  SPS measures among government officials 
and/or in the private sector; adoption of ri sk-based inspection techniques, establishment 
and maintenance of disease-free areas, enha nced laboratory testing capacity, etc. 
• Contribution to higher-order objectives, for example improved market access, enhanced 
animal/plant health status, reduction in  incidence of food-borne diseases, poverty 
reduction, etc. 
• Innovation and transferability. 
• Relevance to national policy and cost-effectiveness. 
 
5. This particular report focuses on the East A frica region, specifically Kenya, Uganda and 
Tanzania.  In each of these countries, the ability to  comply with SPS measures in key export markets 
has a critical influence on trade performance, alongsid e other competitiveness factors.  Thus, attempts 
to exploit potentially lucrative markets for agricu ltural and food products, an d in particular higher-
value non-traditional products, as part of rural poverty alleviation and export diversification strategies, 
are closely tied to efforts towards SPS capacity-bu ilding.  Historically, the predominant focus of 
concern has been compliance with technical regulati ons, the official requirements of public authorities 
in export markets.  However, more recently attent ion has widened to include the parallel role of 
private standards, for example EurepGAP/Globa lGAP, as dominant buyers have progressively 
implemented and enforced their own standards. 
6. Experiences in the three case study countries hi ghlight the key role that SPS capacity across 
the public and private sectors , and food safety capac ity in particular, plays in facilitating access to 
export markets for agricultural and food products  and in determining competiveness within those 
markets.  Indeed, across these countries we can  see examples where non-compliance with SPS 
requirements has resulted in exclusion from export ma rkets (for example exports of Nile perch in all 
three countries) and where compliance with SPS requir ements has been the basis of impressive export 
market performance (for example horticultural produc ts in Kenya).  While the actions of the public 
and private sectors has been critical in establishing the required level of capacity and achieving compliance with export market SPS measures, all three countries have recei ved (and continue to 
receive) significant levels of technical cooperation.   This makes them ideal examples for examining 
concepts of good practice in this area. 
II. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY 
Selection of case study projects 
 
7. The case study projects examined below were nomi nated by donors in response to a request 
for information on good practice in SPS-related technical cooperation (G/SPS/GEN/816) distributed 
by the WTO and OECD to WTO Members and OECD Development Assistance Committee contact points in January 2008.  The survey requested  information on SPS-relate d technical cooperation 
projects in the following regions, which could be considered to be examples of good practice: 
• Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama). 
 
• East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda). 
 
• Greater Mekong Delta Sub-region (Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and 
Viet Nam).  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 3 
 
 
  8. Through this process, six projects which had been implemented in some or all of the three 
study countries in East Africa we re nominated for the analysis: 
• Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP) (European  Union) (Studied in Kenya and Uganda). 
 
• East Africa Phytosanitary Information Comm ittee (EAPIC) (USAID) (Studied in Kenya, 
Tanzania and Uganda). 
 
• Capacity-Building Needs Assessments (FAO) (S tudied in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda). 
 
• Advanced Training Programme on Quality Infrastructure for Food Safety (SWEDAC) 
(Studied in Tanzania and Uganda). 
 
• Global Salm-Surv training programme on Laboratory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne 
Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern Afri ca (WHO) (Studied in Kenya, Tanzania 
and Uganda). 
 
• Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and 
Guinea (UNCTAD) (Studied in Tanzania). 
 
9. Where these projects had been implemented in more than one of the study countries, an 
attempt was made to compare and contrast expe riences across multiple countries.  The countries 
where each project was examined are indicated in parentheses above. 
Sources of information 
 
10. A variety of information sources were used to  collect both factual and attitudinal/experiential 
information on each of the six projects, as follows: 
• For four of the six case study projects donor s had completed a standard questionnaire 
requesting basic factual information on the project.  This was distributed as part of the G/SPS/GEN/816 document.  This questionnaire was not completed for the Pesticides 
Initiative Programme and the Cap acity-Building Needs Assessme nts.  A synthesis of the 
information provided in these ques tionnaires is provided in Annex II. 
 
• Contact was made through e-mail with personne l in the donors and/or implementers 
associated with each of the six case study pr ojects.  A request was made for any supporting 
documentation, including study reports, proj ect designs, evaluations, training programme 
participant lists, etc.  Further, an op portunity was given for personnel involved in 
administering, designing and/or implementing the project to give their own perspectives on elements of good practice. 
 
• A review was undertaken of project documents obtained directly from the donors in 
response to a request from the STDF and/or the study team, and an internet search. 
 
• Extended telephone and/or e-mail discussions were held with some personnel involved 
with project administration, design and/or implementation.  These enabled more in-depth 
perspectives to be obtained prior to the main  body of data collection described below. 
 
•
 In order to canvas the perspectives of beneficiar ies of the six projects, a series of in-depth 
interviews were held in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda over the peri od 28 July to 15 August 
2008.  The interviews were conducted face-to-fa ce using a standard semi-structured guide G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 4  
 
  (Annex III).  A list of interviewees is provided in  Annex IV.  Note that this list excludes 
interviewees who preferred to remain anonymous. 
 11. The information obtained through these various means was then synthesised, initially within 
each project and then across the six case studies. 
Benchmarks for judging the impact and eff ectiveness of SPS-related technical cooperation 
 
12. The starting point for defining benchmarks or i ndicators of the impact and effectiveness of 
SPS-related technical cooperation was a framework  on assessing good practice in this area, compiled 
for the STDF.
 3  This framework highlights the problems fa ced in assessing the impacts of a particular 
technical cooperation project or programme.  In this context, particular issues are as follows: 
• Often the impacts of a particular technical  cooperation project are experienced in the 
future, and well beyond the timeframe of the proj ect itself.  This particularly applies to 
higher-order objectives which, as a consequence, are often excluded from project evaluations and can be very difficult to attribute.  
• Many developing countries, and this certainly  applies to Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, 
have received numerous SPS-related techni cal cooperation projects that may have 
substantial areas of overlap.  This makes any a ttempt to attribute changes in levels of SPS 
capacity and/or higher-order impacts to a pa rticular project problematic and prone to 
significant levels of double-counting. 
 
• In many cases individual technical cooperation projects address a limited number of 
dimensions of SPS capacity, even within a particular area (for example food safety or 
animal health), and/or focus on a sub-set of th e recognized elements of capacity-building.  
While it may be possible to identify quite na rrow impacts from such projects (for example 
heightened levels of technical expertise af ter completion of a training programme), for 
many projects it certainly draws serious questions about any assessment of higher-order outcomes. 
 
• The projects differed markedly in their scope, making it difficult to compare and contrast 
impacts and effectiveness across them.  Thus, while the PIP (for example) simultaneously addressed a number of capacity constraints impacting fresh produce exporters, the Global Salm-Surv training programme on Laboratory- Based Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases 
for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa ai med to develop specific skills in laboratory 
analysis and surveillance.  In this contex t, the measures we would apply to assess the 
effectiveness of each would be quite different. 
 13. A distinction is made in assessing the impact s and effectiveness of SPS-related technical 
cooperation between the specific effects on SPS cap acity and the resulting higher-order impacts.  
With respect to the former, it is necessary to distinguish the multiple  and inter-related functions that 
constitute food safety, animal health and/or plant health management capacity and to recognize that a 
hierarchy or ordering exists between these.  Thus, in a relatively loo se sense we apply the hierarchy of 
SPS management functions presented in Figure 1.
4 
                                                      
3 Gascoigne, D. (2007). Identification of Parameters for Good Practice and Benchmarks for judging 
the Impact of SPS-Related Technical Assistance.  Draft  Report for the Standards and Trade Development 
Facility, Geneva. 
  4 World Bank (2005). Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards: Challenges and Opportunities 
for Developing Country Exports.  World Bank, Washington DC.   G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Figure 1:  Hierarchy of trade-related SPS management functions 
Source:  World Bank (2005) 
 
14. In this hierarchy, the foundation of any SPS management system is awareness and 
recognition, in both the public and private sector s and from the level of decision-makers to 
implementers and operatives, of the importance of  effective SPS controls to export competitiveness 
and recognition by each party of their own role in th is system.  It is unlikely that any system of SPS 
management can be effective without a broad-b ased appreciation of the associated functions and 
roles.  The next stage is the application of estab lished risk and quality management practices through 
the supply chain from production to distribution,  most notably HACCP, good manufacturing practice 
(GMP) and good agricultural practice (GAP).  Regulatory action may be required to compel 
implementation of these practices if there are insuffici ent market-based incentives to do so in the short 
to medium term.  With broad awareness and common application of good practices, many potential SPS risks can be managed effectively at the farm or fi rm level.  However, there are other risks that are 
more systemic in nature, and that are not confined to particular production or processing operations, 
such that they cannot be fully controlled on a de centralized basis and require broader oversight or 
collective action.  This can entail research and analytical functions, surveillance and quarantine 
systems and emergency management arrangements.  Many plant and animal diseases fall into this category.  These more technically-demanding functions  often require sophisticated skills, specialized 
equipment and well-defined organizational structures, supported by recurrent funding.  Some of these 
functions need to be legally mandated to ensure th at they are implemented appropriately.  Finally, at 
the top of the pyramid is SPS diplomacy, which relates to engagement with the WTO, Codex 
Alimentarius Commission, Organisation for Animal  Health (OIE) and IPPC, as well as bilateral 
relations with trading partners. SPS 
Diplomacy
Technically Demanding Risk 
Management Functions
Suitable and Applied Regulation
Application of basic ‘good practices’ for 
Hygiene and Safety
Awareness and RecognitionInstitutional Structures and Role ClaritySPS 
Diplomacy
Technically Demanding Risk 
Management Functions
Suitable and Applied Regulation
Application of basic ‘good practices’ for 
Hygiene and Safety
Awareness and RecognitionInstitutional Structures and Role ClarityG/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 6  
 
  15. The higher-order objectives or impacts of SPS -related technical coope ration represent the 
consequences of enhanced SPS management capaci ty.  Here we distinguish between three higher-
level impacts of enhanced SPS management capacity: 
• Enhancement of food safety, animal health and/ or plant health status, for example reduced 
incidence of disease, confirmation of disease-free status, etc. 
 
• Enhancement of trade performance in key agricultural and food commodities, including 
increased volume or value of exports to existi ng markets, access to new export markets, 
etc. 
 
• Reduction in levels of poverty/increases in  income/livelihood resulting from enhanced 
trade performance and/or productivity. 
 
16. It should be recognized that, as alluded to above , discerning the impact of particular technical 
cooperation projects on specific elements and/or ov erall SPS management capacity is much easier 
than attributing effects on higher-order consequences .  Indeed, many of the projects we examine here 
have enhancement of specific el ements of (lower order) SPS management capacity as their defined 
objective, although with the implicit objective of c ontributing to the enhancement of higher-order 
impacts.   
17. It should be recognized that three of the six case study projects explicitly define a series of 
target impacts and that these should obviously be th e starting point in any analysis of effectiveness of 
technical cooperation.  Thus, the PIP aimed to: 
• Increase awareness of food safety and go od agricultural practices among farmers. 
 
• Improve market access for exporting firms as a result of certification. 
 
• Reduce pesticide residues due to adoption of GAP. 
 
• Increase sector coordination throug h the creation of task forces. 
 
• Increase service and related activities. 
 
• Reduce poverty and income growth of farmers. 
 
18. The impacts highlighted by the EAPIC likewise included a mix of specific enhancements in 
SPS management capacity and higher-order impacts: 
 
• Increased surveillance a nd pest risk assessment. 
 
• Enhanced market access an d trade with the USA. 
 
• Increased information sharing among regional NPPOs through databases. 
  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 7 
 
 
  19. Conversely, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Capacity-Building Needs 
Assessments for Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda fo cused on lower-level impacts in terms of the 
enhancement of SPS (specifically food safety) management capacity: 5 
• Provide an appropriate level of protec tion against food safety risks for domestic 
consumers. 
 
• Conform to the relevant policy and legal frameworks and ensure the delivery of an 
efficient food safety control programme. 
 
• Meeting and demonstrating compliance with  international food safety and quality 
requirements and obligations, notably Codex Alimentarius, the Agreement on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) a nd other requirements of trading partners. 
 
20. The intended impacts of the Advanced Training Programme on Quality Infrastructure for 
Food Safety, Global Salm-Surv (GSS) training pr ogramme on Laboratory-Based Surveillance of 
Food-Borne Diseases for Anglophone Central and E astern Africa and UNCTAD Study on Costs of 
Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzan ia, Mozambique and Guinea tend to be more 
narrowly focused or are less explicit.  For example, the declared intention of the GSS network is "to 
strengthen and enhance the capacities of national a nd regional laboratories in the surveillance of 
Salmonella,  the other major food-borne pathogens and the antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella  and 
Campylobacter  from humans, food and animals through the programme activities.”6 
Problems encountered 
 
21. Although the data collection and analysis pr esented below largely proceeded with relative 
ease, certain problems were encountered that serve d to impede the analysis, as well as to limit the 
wider validity of the findings.  The most notable problems were as follows: 
• The information set available for each of the six case study projects differed significantly, 
both in terms of the amount and type of in formation available.  This made valid 
comparison across the six projects problematic; thus, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which differing experiences across the projects simply reflects the fact that more/less 
information was available. 
 
• While personnel in the donors and/or implemente rs were generally helpful, in some cases 
their ability to provide detailed information on the respective case study project was limited. 
 
• In some cases benefici aries were reluctant to speak w ith the researchers about their 
personal views and experiences, even though they were offered anonymity if they so 
desired.  While this may reflect the fact th at many of the target interviewees had busy 
schedules, it was also apparent that there w as a certain sensitivity on the part of some 
respondents, either because they did not cons ider themselves to be sufficiently senior or 
had not been sanctioned to provide comments,  or because there was some concern that 
their responses might jeopardise the scope for future technical cooperation. 
 
                                                      
  5 FAO (2006). Assessment of Capacity Building Needs of the Food Control System United Republic of 
Tanzania .  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 
  6 WHO (2008). Global Salm-Surv key activities. http://www.who.int/salmsurv/activities/en/index.html .  
Accessed 22 August 2008.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 8  
 
  • The scope and structure of the six case study projects was quite narrow and excluded a 
number of key areas of SPS-related technical c ooperation.  This restricts the wider validity 
of the findings and the results should be interpreted with this in mind. 
 
III. PARAMETERS OF GOOD PRACTICE IN THE DELIVERY AND RECEIPT OF SPS-
RELATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION 
Brief overview of projects surveyed 
 
22. This section gives a brief overview of each of the six case study projects, while Annex I 
provides specific details on the activities of th e projects in each of the study countries. 
Pesticides Initiative Programme 
 23. The PIP project became operational in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in 2001, within the 
context of a programme of technical cooperation acr oss a larger number of ACP countries, with initial 
funding of €38 million over five years.  Additiona l funding was derived from beneficiaries on a cost-
sharing basis.  The PIP programme was established by  the EU at the request of the ACP countries in 
response to concerns over the potential negative e ffects on fresh produce exports of the harmonization 
of Member State controls on pesticides in food, and in particular the establishment of EU-wide 
maximum residue levels (MRLs).  In partic ular, there were concerns about impacts on 
competitiveness of the export sector in ACP countries, concentration of the sector and exclusion of small farmers.  Subsequently, the danger of ex clusion from EU markets was heightened by the 
emergence and increasing dominance of business-to-bus iness and collective private standards, most 
notably EurepGAP/GlobalGAP. 
24. The objectives set for the PIP were as follows: 
• To provide current information on the European market quality requirements through a 
centralised system via the internet and other sources. 
 
• To help ACP countries create re gulations that foster and sustain good agricultural practices 
particularly on minor tropical crops. 
 
• To promote good  company practices through assisting ACP enterprises to adjust, upgrade 
and certify their practices. 
 
• To help the reorganization of the fresh produce sector and capacity building of different 
actors in ACP export sectors. 
 
25. The first three objectives were to be achieved th rough the provision of information, training 
of producers and guidance in audit and certifica tion processes and other activities driven by the 
specific needs of the beneficiaries.  The fourth objective was to be achieved through the establishment 
of national task forces that work with small-farmer s and exporters, training of local service providers 
and staff in laboratories and research institutes, e nhancement of national cont rol capacity related to 
trade in fresh produce, etc. 
26. On a more general level, the PIP programme aimed to contribute to the development of 
sustainable trade between ACP countries and the EU.  It was, therefore, in line with the three core 
guiding principles of the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreemen t, namely to support the development of the 
private sector in ACP countries, alleviate poverty and promote regional integration.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 9 
 
 
  East Africa Phytosanita ry Information Committee 
 
27. The original idea for the EAPIC came out of a meeting of East African NPPOs on pest risk 
assessment in April 2006.  It was recognized that the capacity of countries in the East Africa region to 
meet their mandate, under the International Pl ant Protection Convention (IPPC), to provide 
information on plant pests and diseases of significance to international trade was constrained by poor 
infrastructure and weak capacity to collect and mana ge phytosanitary information.  To address this 
constraint the EAPIC was established with fi nancial (US$130,000) and technical support from 
USAID, the latter with the substantive involvemen t of the United States Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS).  At the current time me mbership of the EAPIC consists of the NPPOs in 
Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia, as well as the African Union (AU) and the 
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). 
28. The EAPIC project is developing pest reporti ng methods and protocols in a systematic 
manner and establishing an internet -based regional plant pest database that will facilitate data sharing 
among member countries.  The intention is that this data will enable NPPOs in the region to prioritise 
plant pest and disease controls in the context of pr evailing resource constraints including surveillance, 
detection, diagnosis, inspection and reporting.  In turn, the work of the Committee aims to support the 
establishment of sanitary and phytosanitary requirements across East Africa that are compliant with IPPC protocols and facilitate regional and internati onal trade in plant products.  More broadly, the 
project is seen as presenting a framework that unde rpins regionally-based SPS controls as a whole, 
including the harmonization of border inspection protocols.
7 
Capacity-Building Needs Assessment 
 
29. This project was implemented by FAO under the FAO/Norway Technical Cooperation 
Programme, which included food safety as one area of activity.  Part of the impetus for this work came from the FAO/WHO Regional Conference  on Food Safety for Africa in 2005 which 
recommended that FAO should "lead a diagnostic study of the regional food safety situation in order 
to determine the most urgent regional needs and priority areas for improvement".
8  The tools 
developed by FAO to assist national food control agencies to assess their cap acity needs were applied 
in this regard9.   
30. The Capacity-Building Need A ssessments were undertaken by FAO in Kenya, Tanzania and 
Uganda, using the same internati onal consultant across the three countries paired with a local 
consultant in each.  These assessments  followed the procedures of the rapid assessment tool described 
above.  Indeed, they served the dual function of t esting the toolkit and providing rapid assessments of 
the current status of food control capacity in each of the three study countries.  The assessments 
included development of national action plans to wards the enhancement of food control capacity, 
which were discussed and accepted by the respective governments at national stakeholder consultative 
meetings in January 2007.  The assessments were subsequently compiled into FAO reports, two of 
which are available widely through the FAO website. 
                                                      
  7 Suiter, K., Garcia, L. and Stinner, R. (2008). Building Sanitary/Phytosanitary (SPS) capacity in East 
Africa . PowerPoint presentation. 
  8 FAO/WHO (2005). Final Report. Regional Conference on Food Safety for Africa , Harare, 3–6 
October 2005 .  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 
 9 FAO (2007) Strengthening national food control systems: A quick guide to assess capacity building 
needs   and FAO (2007) Strengthening national food control systems: Guidelines to assess capacity building 
needs . G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 10  
 
  Advanced Training Programme on Qu ality Infrastructure for Food Safety 
 
31. This is an annual training programme provided by SWEDAC that forms part of SIDA’s wider 
International Training Programmes (ITPs).  The broa d aim of the ITPs is to “contribute to capacity 
development and processes of change  in partner countries and other developing countries by offering 
key persons training programmes in subject areas gi ven priority in Swedish development cooperation, 
in which Swedish expertise is in demand, and in which use is made of experience from countries at 
different stages of development.”
 10 
32. Each ITP course focuses on a range of issues of interest to a number of developing countries, 
for example SPS and TBT measures, trade negotiations, etc.  In previous years, SWEDAC has helped 
in developing notification procedures and implemen ting new testing methods and quality systems, on 
the basis of needs assessments in  recipient countries.  Each progr amme has participants from many 
countries; from a particular region or globally.  Pa rticipation by individuals from over 60 countries is 
not unknown.  Recognizing that they may have their own learning needs and objectives, which may 
not exactly fit into the defined aims and subject matt er of the course being offered, each participant is 
required to do a six month project upon returning to their country.  The subject matter of this project 
can be of a participant’s own choosing, but sh ould enhance their own skills development and 
contribute to the development of their institutio n and country.  Thus, the training programme is 
supposed to act as a catalyst and tool that supports th e development of the participant’s project rather 
than being the end product, in and of itself.  
33. The course on which the case study focuses was unde rtaken over the period 21 January 2007 
to 16 February 2007 with the theme Quality Infrastructure for Food Safety , and a follow-up session in 
September 2007.  The budget was US$740,000.  The programme covered issues such as principles for the development of national food safety laws and policies, SPS issues and the trading system, 
international standards, food control systems, mech anisms and laws in the EU, HACCP, risk analysis 
and risk assessment, accreditation processes and laborator y testing.  Participants were exposed to 
examples of good practice in this area through visits to food companies, public food safety control 
facilities, etc. 
Global Salm-Surv training programme on Labora tory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases 
for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa  
34. This project was initiated by the WHO as a result of a broad assessment of needs showing that 
many developing countries lack the basic infrast ructure required to undertake laboratory-based 
salmonella surveillance.  In turn, reflecting the public health importance of food-borne diseases and 
the need for improved laboratory-based surveillan ce and associated testing capacity, the WHO formed 
the GSS in January 2000.   
35. Global Salm-Surv is a global ne twork of laboratories and individuals involved in the 
surveillance, isolation, identification and antimicrobial resistance testing of Salmonella .  It forms part 
of WHO's endeavours to strengthen the capacities of its Member States in the surveillance and control 
of major food-borne diseases and to contribute to the global effort towards the containment of 
antimicrobial resistance in food-borne pathogens.  The programme is targeted at microbiologists and 
epidemiologists who work in public health, veterinary services, food-related services and 
environmental health.  While GSS is currently focused on Salmonella , efforts are being made to 
extend it to other food-borne pathoge ns.  Indeed, the isolation of Campylobacter  and E Coli 0157  are 
included in the training programme offered. 
                                                     
 
  10 SIDA (2008). Quality Infrastructu re for Food Safety and Quality, 
http://www.sida.se/?d=160&language=en_US . Accessed 27 August 2008.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 11 
 
 
  36. The GSS offers a multi-level training programme as pa rt of its activities.  The focus here is on 
the basic (or Level I) course offered in Kenya ove r the period 29 October 2007 to 2 November 2007, 
which cost around US$100,000.   This course focused on non-typhoid Salmonella  and Vibrio 
Cholerae as priority pathogens in the target countries.  The previously designed curriculum, directed 
at Francophone African countries, was adapted fo r the English speaking African context by a WHO 
expert based in Africa.  The course included theore tical aspects of surveillance and laboratory testing 
and practical laboratory work, as well as practical case studies. 
Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea 
 
37. This study was undertaken at a cost of US$18, 000 in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea to 
identify and quantify the costs of compliance w ith SPS standards faced by exports of tropical 
products.  The study was initiated in 2004 and co mpleted in 2006, following an UNCTAD expert 
meeting on market access at which Tanzania, Mo zambique and Guinea requested standards-related 
assistance.  In Tanzania, the World Bank took charge of the study with the inte ntion that estimates of 
costs of compliance would be derived and actions  recommended to build capacity, particularly for 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP compliance in production and distribution systems in Tanzania.  The study, 
which involved producers, exporters, business bodies, enterprises and institutions, identified both 
macro and micro costs of compliance.  Macro cost s included public and semi-public expenditures (for 
example training, infrastructure and equipment upgrading, inspection, testing, etc), while micro costs included set up and recurrent costs borne by compan ies (for example purchase of equipment, training, 
implementation of management systems, etc).  The study also developed a comprehensive set of tools 
which can be used by the private and public sectors to test and improve food safety control systems.  
A national workshop was held in Tanzania b ased on the findings from the three countries. 
Good practice in project design 
 
Pesticides Initiative Programme 
 38. Across beneficiaries in the private and public sectors there was almost universal support for 
the design of the PIP project.  Although none of th e in-country beneficiaries we spoke to had been 
involved in the initiation or design of the project, par tly reflecting the fact that PIP is a multi-country 
project that extends well beyond East Africa, a nd it was certainly seen as being top down in its 
promulgation, the goals of the project were seen as appropriate and timely given the challenges the 
fresh produce sectors in the three countries were faci ng.  Beneficiaries were not aware of how these 
goals had been defined and whether any form of a needs assessment had been undertaken in support 
of the project’s design, although it was generally co nsidered that any substantive assessment at the 
country level was unlikely given the wide geographical scope of the PIP. 
39. It was apparent that there was wide-scale suppor t for PIP at the political level and within the 
fresh produce sector in all three countries.  This  reflects the fact that the project was seen as 
addressing a real problem - the potential threat to expor ts of fresh produce to the EU.  However, there 
were some indications that, while the PIP is rega rded favourably today, this was not necessarily the 
case when it was originally implemented.  It should be recalled that the PIP started in 2001 and so this 
current assessment can only present the current picture and an ex post  reconstruction of views on the 
project in the past.  Indeed, some respondents sugg ested that they had initially been sceptical of the 
project, and that the PIP itself had played a major role in making them recognize the potential 
problems they faced with the evolution of pesticid e residue limits and other food safety requirements 
in the EU.  This raises an interesting conundrum; how can potential beneficiaries be involved in the 
design of a project like the PIP when they ar e not aware and/or lack understanding of the SPS 
challenges that they face? 
40. Awareness of the scope of the PIP differed signi ficantly between beneficiaries.  Broadly, 
larger firms and public officials had a better unde rstanding of the multiple components of the project G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 12  
 
  and the manner in which they inter-related and jo intly addressed the cha llenges associated with 
management of pesticide residues and other food safety issues in the fresh produce sector.  These 
beneficiaries generally considered themselves to be  actively engaged with the PIP at a managerial 
level and thus considered that th ey had some influence on how the pr oject evolved over time.  Smaller 
firms, conversely, saw themselves as having a more passive and traditional donor-beneficiary 
relationship and were really only aware of the assi stance that the PIP offered to their business.  
41. While it was recognized that the activities of the PIP were constrained by the project’s design 
and what was acceptable to the project’s funder – the European Commission – it was recognized that 
the PIP was considerably more flexible than ot her projects to which respondents had been exposed; 
broadly speaking, respondents had experience of mul tiple projects (especially those in Kenya) in the 
area of food safety capacity-building to which they c ould compare.  Thus, it was seen that the PIP was 
able to adapt to changing circumstances - the em ergence of private food safety standards such as 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP was referred to on multiple oc casions in this context – and also to the 
particular needs and circumstances of each country and firms therein.  Comparison was made to other 
projects which tended to present a standard blueprint to which beneficiaries were supposed to adjust, 
rather than the project adjusting to the needs of bene ficiaries.  In this way, the notion that the PIP was 
demand-driven seemed to have come thr ough at the level of beneficiaries.  
42. One of the recurring themes in discussion with beneficiaries was the level of engagement of 
the PIP with the private sector directly; this was considered a positive attribute of the project among 
respondents in both the private and public sectors.  Thus, beneficiaries in the private sector pointed to the fact that they had been excluded from past projects because they were from the private sector 
and/or they were included as token private sector representatives.  Conversely, it was recognized that 
direct private sector engagement was a key elemen t of the design of the PIP, which enabled the 
project to assess the needs of firms in a reliable mann er (as opposed to through the indirect conduit of 
the public sector) and to channel assistance directly  to individual businesses.  Certainly when PIP 
started, this approach was extremely rare, although more recently the level of direct engagement of 
donors with the private sector was seen as havi ng became more of the norm; some respondents 
suggested that the PIP had been instrumental in bringing about this shift in the ways in which 
capacity-building interventions interacted with exporters. 
43. While the PIP was recognized to have been one of the first projects aimed at enhancing the 
food safety capacity of the public and private sectors,  most notably controls on pesticide residues in 
fresh produce, and instrumental in bringing attention to the rise of private food safety standards, this 
area was now seen as crowded.  Thus, many of the beneficiaries we spoke to were engaged with a 
number of projects in the broad area of GAP, contro ls on the use of pesticides and compliance with 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP.  It was not obvious to these be neficiaries that there was a significant level of 
coordination across the projects in which they were engaged; indeed instances of overlap and even 
competition between projects were highlighted. 
44. A further positive attribute of the PIP was its long duration compared to the other projects 
studied.  The fact that the project had secured f unding and a defined schedule of activities for five 
years – in stark contrast to certain other interventi ons that beneficiaries had been engaged with that 
had only lasted a matter of months – was s een as presenting real opportunities for capacity 
enhancement.  Beneficiaries pointed to the normal routine of project support that meant little could be 
achieved once baseline assessments and evaluations of needs had exhausted much of the life of the 
project.  The PIP was seen as a refreshing break from this norm.   At the same time, some 
beneficiaries had only begun r eceiving support from PIP relatively recently and now saw themselves 
as being cut off when they had only just begun to buil d their capacity.  To these beneficiaries, the fact 
that the PIP had been operating for three or four years previously had little consequence.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 13 
 
 
  East African Phytosanitary Information Committee 
 
45. The EAPIC represents a more traditional project in the area of SPS-related technical 
cooperation when contrasted to the PIP, but w as widely seen by beneficiaries as representing a 
positive example of donor support to the development of phytosanitary capacity.  The focus of the 
project is on the development of official control cap acity, such that its engagement is naturally with 
the public sector.  The EAPIC receives both financ ial and technical support from USAID.  Thus, there 
is an APHIS official based in Kenya that suppor ts the work of the project on an ongoing basis. 
46. A number of the beneficiaries we spoke to consider ed that they had had a role in the original 
genesis of the EAPIC, the idea for which had emerge d at a meeting of East African NPPOs in April 
2006.  Indeed, the EAPIC was not considered a project per se, but rather USAID was seen as 
supporting the development of a new institutional struct ure that belonged to the NPPOs in the region.  
The establishment of the EAPIC also had broad po litical support in each of the study countries.  
Evaluations of phytosanitary capacity (some us ing the IPPC’s standard assessment tool) had 
highlighted fundamental weaknesses in controls  on plant pests and diseases while there was 
recognition that the enhancement of phytosanitary cap acity was critical to the facilitation of trade with 
the USA under the African Growth Opportunity Ac t (AGOA) as we ll as the maintenance of 
established markets in the EU. 
47. Beneficiaries highlighted the fact that the EA PIC had been able to adapt and change as 
priorities were identified, needs changed and capacity  developed.  This reiterates the fact that the 
EAPIC is seen as an evolving institution, while f unding from USAID has not acted to constrain the 
activities that can be undertaken.  T hus, while the initial idea was to developing lists of pests of trade 
importance for the region, its focus has now shifte d to harmonization with IPPC norms. At the same 
time, priorities have been set and care taken so that the EAPIC does not "get ahead of itself".  In this 
effort, five crops of significance to regional tr ade and food security have been prioritised. 
48. While the EAPIC is implemented across five countries, it is coordinated in a way that 
promotes the autonomy of NPPOs, encouraging lo cal ownership and dedication.  Each NPPO 
prioritises its specific lists on the basis of national n eeds, but there is a mutual benefit for the region as 
a whole because of data sharing through a flexible database management system that is internet based. 
For example, the project has completed pest risk as sessments for garden peas, baby carrots and baby 
corn in Kenya that have been accepted by APHIS in the United States. 11 
49. While it was recognized by beneficiaries that they had received support towards the 
enhancement of phytosanitary capacity on previo us occasions, the EAPIC was clearly seen as 
different.  The fact that USAID was providing substantive financial support was obviously a factor here.  The contrast was made with previous assess ments of capacity by donors that had identified 
weaknesses in capacity but had not provided an y support to help address those weaknesses; 
respondents remarked that they knew what they had to do to enhance their capacity but did not have 
the means to do it.  At the same time, respondents felt more empowere d and in control of the EAPIC, 
and as a consequence were both able and willing to  engage with USAID a nd their partner NPPOs 
rather than being passive recipients of assistance.   
Capacity-Building Needs Assessment 
 
50. Broadly speaking, the programme of needs ass essments on food control capacity undertaken 
by FAO in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda were s een as top down exercises over which beneficiaries 
had little influence.  Although, the recipient govern ments had all recognized the need to identify 
priorities for food safety capacity enhancement and to define national action plans - and indeed both 
                                                     
 
  11 Suiter, K., Garcia, L. and Steiner, R. (2008). Building Sanitary/Phytosanitary (SPS) Capacity in East 
Africa . PowerPoint presentation. G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 14  
 
  Tanzania and Uganda had previously made official  requests towards this end - the assessments were 
not seen as being owned by the governments.  Rather, participation in the project was seen as necessary to attract future donor support towards the enhancement of food safety control capacity, 
while the project was seen as a way of obtaini ng external support to fund a necessary needs 
assessment. 
51. While the beneficiaries we spoke to did not  necessarily see themselves as partners in the 
needs assessments, which we re seen as having been "done by F AO", the exercise it self was seen as 
valuable for setting a platform for future actions.  Further, the fact that the assessments were based on 
a standard assessment tool developed by FAO a nd were undertaken by a team consisting of an 
international consultant paired with a national consultant was seen as giving credibility to the 
exercise.  Interestingly, the involvement of F AO was seen as important in garnering the domestic 
political support necessary to bring about institutiona l change and to attract financial resources from 
domestic and international sources. 
Advanced Training Programme on Qu ality Infrastructure for Food Safety 
 
52. Reflecting the focus and modus operandi  of the ITP, this course was offered following a 
process of needs assessment and priority-setting among developing countries that have an active 
engagement with SIDA.  One of the courses offere d by the ITP in 2007 was on Quality Infrastructure 
for Food Safety, which was designed and presented by SWEDAC. 
53. Although many participants remarked that th ey had been on countless training courses, many 
of which were of dubious value, they suggested that the SWEDAC could be presented as an example 
of good practice.  Key in this regard were the following aspects of course design: 
 
• The aims and objectives of the course were clearly articulated and communicated to 
potential participants well ahead of time.  
• The course was scheduled well ahead of time;  governments were sent invitations six 
months before the course was to be held.  This  meant that official requests could be filed 
and work schedules managed accordingly. 
 
• The course was well designed and enabled partic ipants to engage with  one another and to 
play an active role in the proceedings. 
 
• Participants did not just leave the training c ourse abruptly, but rather continued through an 
individual project that also afforded the oppor tunity to continue engagement with other 
course participants and instructors. 
 54. As a result of the above design factors, the beneficiaries interviewed during this research 
considered that the course attracted the right peopl e, i.e. individuals who could most gain from the 
programme of training and had the necessary interest , skills and experience to engage with the body 
of participants.  The fact that the course attracted  participants from a number of different countries, 
and from diverse backgrounds and institutional setti ngs, was seen as a major advantage, offering 
scope for experience-sharing and the deve lopment of longer-term working relations. 
55. Although beneficiaries did not feel that they had any role in the design of the training course, 
or in the initial process of need s assessment, they felt it was both appropriate and timely; suggesting 
that the underlying process of project design had been undertaken effectively.  The lack of 
engagement of beneficiaries in the design process reflects the fact that the course was offered to 
potential participants in multiple countries, while more  senior officials are likel y to have participated 
in the initial priority-setting exercise.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Global Salm-Surv training programme on Labora tory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases 
for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa  
56. The design of this project was generally consider ed to follow more of the traditional mode of 
training courses in the area of SPS-related capacity- building.  Thus, the need for the course was 
identified through a generic process of assessment by  WHO, on the basis of experiences with prior 
training in Francophone Africa and a published evaluation of capacity needs.
12 It was subsequently 
designed by adapting existing training materials that  had been used and tested elsewhere, although in 
consultation with potential beneficiaries.  Previous ly, the course had been successfully completed in 
13 Francophone African countries and there were existing plans to replicate it in Portuguese and 
English-speaking African countries as funds became available.  As a consequence, while beneficiaries 
saw the need for the course and considered the subj ect matter appropriate and beneficial, they played 
no role in its design. 
57. For participants, the real innovation in the c ourse was the combination of theoretical and 
practical aspects.  While many participants had b een on previous training courses that covered some 
of the same material, they had not necessarily been given the opportunity to apply, or at least think 
about how the concepts and techniques learned might be applied.  Indeed, it is evident that a great 
deal of care went into the design of the course und ertaken over a period of six months, with regular 
teleconferences among the design team.  Th is would appear to have paid off. 
Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea 
 
58. There was only limited awareness of the design of the study in Tanzania.  The project had 
been developed by UNCTAD in response to a request  for assistance related to SPS capacity-building, 
although this request was of a generic nature, while  the specific design of the study was essentially 
undertaken by UNCTAD.  A secondary objective of the study was to design and test a standard 
methodology for assessing and estimating costs of compliance.  Among those who were aware of the 
study, it was recognized that a standard met hodology had been applied across the three study 
countries and that this contributed to greater rigour  in the estimates that were derived, engendering 
confidence among policy-makers in their validity.  However, little was known about how and why the 
methods employed had been used.  From a design pe rspective this project would appear to represent a 
rather traditional study in the area of SPS-related capacity and compliance, the impetus for which 
came from UNCTAD rather than the beneficiary country.  
Good practice in project implementation 
 Pesticides Initiatives Programme  
59. Overall, the implementation of the PIP was evaluated extremely positively by the 
beneficiaries we interviewed, w ith suggestions that it stood out as an example of good practice in 
donor support for the enhancement of SPS capacity dir ected at exports of high-value agricultural and 
food products.  Two factors were seen as key here.  First, the strong initial project design that was 
seen as comprehensive in scope and inclusive by st akeholders.  Second, the strong management of the 
project that steered processes of adjustment to priorities and activities as circumstances changed and 
learning processes proceeded. 
60. One of the key positive aspects of the implementation of the PIP recognized by many 
beneficiaries was efforts to engage with a wide range of stakeholders across both the public and 
private sectors and at both the individual and collective levels.  This reflects the fact that the project was able, while the management team of the PIP we re able and willing, to adjust activities according 
                                                     
 
 12 Herikstad, H., Motarjemi Y., and Tauxe, R.V. (2002 ). Salmonella surveillance: a global survey of 
public health serotyping, Epidemiology and Infection . 129, 1–8. G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 16  
 
  to ongoing learning processes and identified (and revised) priorities.  Respondents remarked that 
many projects are hampered by their initial design, unable to adjust as circumstances change and as 
capacity among beneficiaries evolves.  In extrem e cases, efforts to develop capacity may proceed 
even though the need for this capacity has gone, simp ly because that was the defined impact of the 
project.  At the same time, it is apparent that cer tain initial aspects of the design of the PIP were 
inappropriate and reflected a lack of appreciation of what mechanisms would be most effective at 
achieving the defined project outcomes; certainly th e management of the PIP faced a steep learning 
curve in the context of a situation that was rapidly evolving when the project was first implemented.  
The fact that they achieved the n ecessary adjustments, and were able to  continue to adapt to changing 
circumstances (for example the growing role of priv ate food safety standards) represents a significant 
strength of the project’s implementation. 
61. It is interesting to reflect on the demand-dr iven approach that represents a fundamental 
principle on which the PIP was designed and implem ented.  This was lauded by respondents, not only 
because it enabled the support provided by the progra mme to be adapted to the needs of particular 
private sector beneficiaries, but also because those be neficiaries were able to play a role in designing 
the assistance they received.  Respondents lamented  that, too often donors came to them and told 
them what they wanted.  At the same time, the f act that beneficiaries had to apply for support and 
write formal applications meant that there was some upfront cost and effort, that eliminated those who 
were not serious and/or did not have the basic mini mum level of capacity required to make effective 
support of any assistance given. 
62. Paradoxically, however, the fact that the PIP focused on responding to the demands of private 
firms rather than telling them what they needed , created initial problems with lack of demand.
13  This 
reflects the fact that, apart from leading exporters (most notably in Kenya), many firms were unaware 
of the potential challenges they faced due to re gulatory changes and the emergence of private 
standards in the EU.  Thus, the PIP, through its aw areness-raising activities, in effect had to create 
demand for its own capacity-building efforts at th e firm level.  Putting aside the administrative 
challenges this presented for the management of the PIP, this raises interesting questions about the 
operability of a demand-driven mode l of assistance when prevailing aw areness is low (as in Uganda, 
for example).  It also presents challenges for the allocation of assistance over time.  Should firms be 
given support on a first-come-first-served basis, tendi ng to favour those firms that are better informed 
up front, that will tend to be larger and have greater  levels of prevailing capacity?  Should firms be 
given one-time financial support?  Alternatively, sh ould a portion of funds be reserved for firms that 
need to first be helped on to the first level of the pyramid in Figure 1, such that they have the 
awareness and understanding necessary to fuel dema nd for higher-levels of capacity-building? 
63. An underlying criticism of the PIP project, that applies to many examples of SPS-related 
technical cooperation, especially directed at the pr ivate sector, is the cost-sharing component and the 
fact that significant elements of hard infrastructur e are ineligible for support.  Thus, some respondents 
remarked that they "knew what they had to do", largely as a result of the training and information 
sharing they had received under the PIP, but "did not have the means to do what was needed".  
Paradoxically, therefore, the PIP was the sour ce of considerable frustration among certain 
beneficiaries, notably those in smaller firms that fa ced considerable capital constraints.  At the same 
time, however, many of these firms were not subject to an acute need to upgrade their capacity – most 
were not facing immediate demands from their custom ers to comply with private standards such as 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP – and so could plan the phasi ng-in of capacity improvements over a protracted 
time period that better suited their financial resources. 
64. A key activity within PIP’s programme of s upport was the establishment of industry task 
forces that bring together key stakeholders in th e public and private sectors.  Although these have 
struggled to get off of the ground in some cases, es pecially where prevailing levels of capacity were 
                                                      
 13 PIP (2005). Mid-Term Review of the Pesticides Initiative Programme .  COLEACP, Brussels.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 17 
 
 
  very weak and/or there is less of a collective inte rest within the industry, these have been key to 
establishing some degree of national ownership in the process of capacity-building supported by the 
PIP.  Indeed, it is evident that the degree of w ithin-country leadership has increased appreciably over 
time, most notably in Kenya.  Certainly in the Kenyan context it would appear that the level of 
awareness and cooperation across the private and public sectors is at a level that much of the capacity 
developed by the PIP is now sustainable.  Indeed, the fact that the task force is now predominantly 
industry led is seen as a major achievement.  This is less evident, however, in Tanzania and Uganda, 
reflecting the fact that the prevailing level of cap acity across the public and private sectors when the 
PIP started was much lower than in Kenya.  Inde ed, in Uganda initial attempts to strengthen an 
existing task force led by the Department of Crop Protection in the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal 
Husbandry and Fisheries (MAAIF) failed and efforts had to start afresh around the leadership of the 
Horticulture Promotion Council of Uganda.  
65. Over the period the PIP has been implemented, a number of other donors have commenced 
projects aimed at developing capacity towards complia nce with private food safety standards, as well 
as the implementation of GAP more generally, especi ally in Kenya.  Indeed, a certain degree of 
competition between donors has emerged to attract be neficiaries that are seen as having the critical 
levels of existing capacity needed to present an acc eptable chance of success.  Initially, there was only 
limited coordination of support across these project s, although this situation has improved more 
recently.  The national task forces have played a role here, while donors have themselves recognized 
that there is little to be gained from duplication.  This is most notable in Kenya where the national 
task force has become a key entry poin t for donor interventions in the sector. 
66. The PIP made great efforts to establish local capac ity and then to engage local consultants to 
undertake training, needs assessments, et c., rather than continue to bri ng in expatriate experts.  This 
was lauded by many of the beneficiaries interviewed.   Indeed, over time external consultants were 
only used where there was an evident lack of nationa l capacity and then efforts were made to "close 
that gap" in the supply of expertise.  In this way,  the project has served to establish a critical mass of 
local capacity that will remain once the project concl udes.  At the same time, the PIP did not impose 
particular consultants on beneficiaries, but rath er presented firms with a list of approved service 
providers.  Indeed, local consultants were of ten seen as preferential to non-Ugandans and non-
Kenyans, having the language and social skills to  interact with farmers.  While the PIP was 
instrumental in establishing a critical supply base of consultants, the project has also been the main 
source of demand, such that many beneficiary firm s have never paid the full price for any services 
they receive.  At the same time, PIP had an establis hed day rate for consulta nts that was well above 
what might be considered a normal market pri ce, acting to crowd out any non-supported private 
demand. 
67. Looking across the PIP as a whole, many beneficiaries recognized the highly structured 
nature of the support provided, across both the public  and private sectors.  The sequential nature with 
which assistance was provided enabled recipients to  track their own progress, often against agreed 
plans of action, and not get ahead of themselves.  For example, firms could not apply for additional 
support until the existing phase of support had been co mpleted and verified.  At the same time, the 
services of consultants had to be verified by reci pient companies before contractors were paid.  
Beneficiaries remarked that a secondary impact of th is system was the establi shment of a culture of 
accountability among recipients of assistance.  While  there is an inevitable trade-off between 
accountability and flexibility, and recognising that some respondents considered the thematic and 
regional budget lines to be inflexible and reimburse ment procedures overly long, most beneficiaries 
interviewed considered the balance be tween the two to be "about right". 
 G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 18  
 
  East African Phytosanitary Information Committee 
 
68. The EAPIC has been operational for a period of  two years and over this time, has evolved 
from a project focused on the relatively simple task of developing lists of plant pests and diseases of 
trade significance for four East African countries to a more complex project that aims to harmonize 
phytosanitary controls with those of the IPPC and to  use this as a model for ACP countries as a whole.  
This reflects the growing confidence of the member NPPOs in the context of financial and technical 
support from USAID.  Indeed, the USDA official posted in the region sees the EAPIC emerging into a broader and longer-term institution beyond the life of USAID financing, and perhaps with alternative 
or additional donor support. 
69. The EAPIC has apparently made great efforts to  engender the active participation of member 
NPPOs and to promote ownership of the project.  Thus, key policy and strategic decisions are made 
by a vote of members.  Likewise, each NPPO enters its own plant pest and disease data, which is checked by the software that has been adapted from a package developed by the Centre for Integrated 
Pest Management (CIPM) in the United States.  In this way, ownership of na tional data is promoted, 
while validation permits the sharing of these data across members. 
70. Inevitably, the EAPIC has run into implemen tation problems when it has come up against 
prevailing capacity constraints beyond the scope of th e project itself.  For example, the project has set 
up separate servers in project member countries whic h will be linked by a regional server housed at 
KEPHIS in Nairobi which has the best infrastructur e.  However, Uganda has been struggling to host 
its server.  Because of electricity problems, the server has been running intermittently, while the 
internet service is expensive and unreliable. 
71. The project has now developed to a stage wher e additional partners ha ve offered technical 
and/or financial support.  For exam ple, FAO is to fund a programme manager for two years, who will, 
among other things, co-ordinate and prioritize traini ng within the EAPIC.  FAO is also providing 
technical support on biosecurity capacity, with fi nance from Sweden under the Technical Cooperation 
Programme.  The Gates Foundation has also expres sed a willingness to provide funding related to 
their interest in food security.  Th is suggests that the EAPIC has evol ved to the stage where it is self-
sustaining, both financially and organizationally. 
Capacity-Building Needs Assessment 
 
72. The project successfully applied and tested FAO’s Strengthening National Food Control 
Systems: A Quick Guide to  Assess Capacity-Building , and  national action plans were developed and 
approved for each of the three study countries.  Th e use of an international consultant, who spent 
limited time in each of the study countries but ensured consistency in the implementation of the 
evaluation framework and asked difficult questions that  a local consultant might be reluctant to ask, 
combined with a local consultant conversant with  local conditions and with extensive knowledge and 
experience of the national context, worked well.  
73. While the implementation of the studies was very much directed from outside the study 
countries, thus not being conducive to local owners hip or control, following the completion of the 
capacity assessments and action plans, a stakeholder consultation was held in each country.  The aim 
of these consultations was to engender local buy-i n and support towards the implementation of the 
defined action plan.  While the views of stakehol ders were taken into account in finalizing the 
capacity assessments and action plans, such an appro ach is not an ideal way of engaging local actors 
and remains rather top down.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Advanced Training Programme on Qu ality Infrastructure for Food Safety 
 
74. The course was implemented over a four week period with a total of 24 participants.  
Feedback from participants, both through a quantit ative instrument elicited by SWEDAC and in 
interviews, indicated that the training course had been of significant value.  In most areas, the subject 
matter of the courses was judged to have reached the defined objectives to a large extent, although 
with some small areas of relative weakness (notab ly accreditation and laboratory testing).  This 
suggests that, despite the length of the course and br eadth of subject matter covered, the project was 
successful in attaining its teaching objectives. 
75. The training course was implemented in a manner that facilitated interaction within the body 
of participants.  Beneficiaries were presented wi th hands-on exercises, while there was constant 
monitoring and interaction with trainers. Visits were arranged to laboratories and food processing 
facilities, exposing participants to new technologies an d international standards of good practice.  This 
served to place the taught elements of the course in to their real life persp ective.  There is some 
evidence that beneficiaries have been able to direc tly apply the skills they have learnt; for example, 
participants from the Uganda Bureau of Standa rds (UBS), Tanzania Food Technology Centre (TFTC) 
and Tanzania’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food Secu rity and Cooperatives (MAFSC) indicated that they 
have been able to upgrade their own materials used in food industry training. 
76. Participants in the course undertook a project over the six months following the conclusion of 
the formal taught component.  This took the form of an action plan for the enhancement of quality 
infrastructure in each participant’s own country.  In both Tanzania and Uganda, there is some 
evidence that the papers produced by  participants fed into the definition of national action plans by 
government.  Indeed, the process of defining action plans was already proceeding in these countries, 
albeit in an ad hoc  manner. 
77. The course included a follow-up session that was held in Nairobi in September 2007. At this 
session, each country presented their action plans on which they had been working over the previous 
six months.  This provided an opportunity for feedback from the trainers involved in the course and 
helped to reinforce the network of policy-makers that the initial course had served to establish.  The 
beneficiaries we spoke to suggested that many had maintained contacts with their fellow participants, 
both from within their own country and wider afield , representing a wider benefit from participation. 
78. The training course offered by SWEDAC clearly represents an example of good practice in 
comparison with the one-way and passive modes of inst ruction that are typically applied in the area of 
SPS capacity building.  Certainly, the active engage ment of students over a protracted period of time 
and requiring participants to a pply the knowledge they have acqui red through the definition of a 
national action plan are innovative and employ highe r-levels of learning.  While the design of the 
course is clearly critical here, so was the selection of participants.  The majority of participants were 
not high level officials (that often make up a significant proportion of training course attendees) but 
individuals involved in the day-to-day management  of food safety.  Further, in putting forward 
potential participants, governments were asked to commit that opportunities would be provided for 
the selected individuals to apply the knowledge and skills they had acquired in the course on an 
ongoing basis.  While it is difficult to enforce this  commitment, this require ment at least forced 
governments to think which of their staff would be nefit most from attendance and provide the greatest 
return to their ministry or department. 
79. It should be noted that the training course was implemented at an opportune time in the case 
of Tanzania and Uganda since both countries we re planning to implement a national food safety 
policy.  Thus, in the Tanzanian Ministry of Health , a committee had been tasked with finding areas of 
regulatory overlap within government in the area of food safety and to define ways in which these 
might be overcome.  In both of these countries, ther efore, there was a high level of receptivity to the 
training being offered.  It should be recognized, howev er, that this situation occurred by action rather G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 20  
 
  than design, reflecting the fact that the course wa s offered across a multitude of countries.  Although 
there was no direct evidence of it, the coincide nce of the SWEDAC training course and the FAO 
capacity-building assessments can be assumed to have some degree of synergy. 
Global Salm-Surv training programme on Labora tory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases 
for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa 
 
80. The course was successfully im plemented in October/November 2007 at the Kenya Medical 
Research Institute (KEMRI), which undertook much  of the local organization.  The course was 
attended by 26 participants from 10 countries, in cluding the three case study countries for this 
research.  The curriculum combined  teaching sessions and practical classes that permitted participants 
to obtain hands-on experience with the techniqu es being presented, presented by a combination of 
regional and international trainers.  On the basis of  interviews with attendees at the training course, 
the course was well received and participants were generally able to apply at least some of the 
knowledge they had accrued in their day-to-day wo rk; around 50 percent of participants were from 
public health, 25 percent clinical from microbiology and 25 percent from food and veterinary science.  
At the same time, some benefici aries remarked that laboratory facilities in their home institutions 
were not conducive to the application of the techniques the course had introduced them to. 
81. A qualitative evaluation was undertaken of the course, which was generally favourable.  
However, this mainly focused on administrative a nd organizational aspects.  On the basis of this 
evaluation there are plans to organize the next stage of the training programme (Level II). 
Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea 
 82. The study was successfully concluded in 2005, coordinated by the World Bank and with the 
substantive work in Tanzania bein g undertaken by a consultant.  The research team was not able to 
gather any substantive information on the manner in which the study was undertaken, although a review of the study report suggests it employed  standard, although rigorous, methods.  From our 
interviews with beneficiaries in Tanzania it was not evident that there wa s widespread awareness of 
the study. 
Good practice in projects outputs and impacts 
 
83. This section aims to provide analysis of the impacts of each of the six case study projects.  In 
so doing, it focuses on the degree to which each project acted to enhance SPS-related management 
capacity, using the hierarchy of functions presented in  Figure 1 as the lens, and impact of higher-level 
objectives.   
Pesticides Initiatives Programme 
 
84. The direct focus of the PIP h as been on the enhancement of food safety management capacity 
across the public and private sectors in beneficiary countries towards "the improvement of the food 
safety of the fruits and vegetables exported to the Eur opean markets" which shou ld be "adapted to the 
international standards and to th e growing requirements of the cons umers, thanks to the traceability 
and the food-safety approaches of their associations and professional committees."  Of all of the case 
study projects, the PIP is the most comprehensive a nd is the only one directed at capacity-building in 
the public and private sectors.  It is also unique in the scope of interventions employed that encompass 
training, information dissemination, support for th e establishment and/or enhancement of regulatory 
and management systems, technical and financial assistance for certification to private standards, induction of collective action and cooperation within  the private sector and between the public and 
private sectors, etc.  As such it presents a number of examples of good practice in terms of impacts.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 21 
 
 
  85. The most immediate and wide-ranging impact of the PIP has been to create awareness in the 
fresh produce sector in all three of the study countries regarding the importance of food safety to export competitiveness and the need for enhancemen t of capacity directed at compliance with 
regulatory requirements and private standards in th e EU.  While it is probable that such awareness 
would have eventually emerged in these countries,  it is widely recognized that PIP served to 
disseminate information far more rapidly than woul d otherwise have been the case, especially within 
the public sector and among smaller exporters.  At the same time, awareness has been fostered along 
the supply chain, rather than just at the level of exporters, for example to out-growers, and among service providers.  In turn, there is now widespr ead recognition of the importance of co-ordination 
within the private sector and between the public an d private sectors.  The task forces promoted and 
supported by PIP were recognized to have been critical  in this regard.  Some respondents were of the 
view that these task forces would have emerged ev en if PIP had not been in place, although they 
would have taken much longer to become establis hed and would have prob ably taken a different 
direction. 
86. PIP not only served to engender initial awareness of the importance of food safety capacity 
and compliance to the fresh produce sector in the three countries, but disseminated information on 
emerging issues and changes in regulatory requireme nts and private standards on an ongoing basis.  
For example, the PIP published a regular newsletter.  It was recognized that th e resources to establish 
a system of information capture, monitoring and di ssemination would have been beyond the resources 
of the three countries, and indeed concerns were  expressed among beneficiaries about how they would 
continue to gain access to timely inform ation once the PIP had come to an end. 
87. As well as disseminating technical informati on, the PIP was active in translating this 
information into practical guides that could be im plemented by exporters and their suppliers more 
readily.  These took the form of production protocols and training charts, as well as video materials.  
The PIP has also worked with private and public  (for example the Horticultural Crop Development 
Authority (HCDA) in Kenya) partners to devel op and implement training programmes, for example 
directed at smallholders.  Respondents considered these materials to have been of immense value, 
enabling them to understand and implement rather co mplex systems in their own contexts.  This was 
particularly the case among smaller firms that l acked the resources of the major exporters, most 
notably in Kenya.  Indeed, while the large and well-established exporters undoubtedly benefited from 
the PIP, arguably the greatest impacts were seen among small and medium-sized firms that generally had lower levels of prevailing capacity and lacked the financial and technical resources to capture 
information on food safety requirements and standa rds and to adapt their systems of procurement 
accordingly. 
88. Looking further up the pyramid in Figure 1, the PIP has been instrumental in developing 
specific elements of hard and soft capacity, in bot h the public and private sectors.  For example:   
• In Kenya, the first private certification servi ces provider in the region (AfriCert) has received 
considerable direct support in the form of training and establishment of auditing and 
certification systems.  Further, to date most of the paid services provided by this company 
have been funded by the PIP.  Across all three countries private providers of training and consultancy, integrated pest management (IP M) and auditing services have all received 
substantive support from the PIP. 
 
• A number of exporters have been provided with support towards certification to the 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP and/or organic standards.  This support has taken the form of training, 
consultancy services for the implementation of in ternal control systems, full or part funding 
of initial auditing and certification costs, etc. 
 
• Enhancement of regulatory systems for the a pproval and control of pesticides and of 
surveillance and testing regimes directed at c ontrolling pesticide residues in fresh produce for G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 22  
 
  export.  This has included the promulgation of new legal instruments and the reform of 
regulatory systems.  For example, the PIP work ed with the Pesticide Control Products Board 
(PCPB) in Kenya to create an active pestic ide database that lists current and approved 
pesticides. 
 
• Development of industry standards, for exam ple KenyaGAP, that were benchmarked to 
regulatory and/or private standards in the EU.  The process of developing these standards and 
work towards their implementation was seen as  driving improvements in overall levels of 
food safety management in the fresh produce export sector. 
 
• Implementation of good practices in testing laboratories, training in new analytical methods 
and maintenance procedures for equipment, etc.  This included training programmes, visits to 
laboratories in the EU, etc.  In the case of th e KEPHIS laboratory in Kenya, accreditation to 
ISO17025 has been achieved and efforts are being made for certification to ISO 9001 2000. 
 89. Many beneficiaries pointed to the fact that th ese initiatives had been translated into better and 
more rigorous food safety controls across the private and public sectors, such that exporters (for 
example) were more confident in the safety of their products and their compliance with EU market 
requirements.  Some respondents suggested that th eir level of rejections and/or complaints from 
customers had declined as a result, while they were  more confident in themselves that they were 
applying good practices.  At the same time, there was a widespread view that significant gains in 
export volumes or revenue should not be expected (a nd indeed had not been experienced); rather, the 
enhancement of food safety capacity had become necessary to prevent being excluded from EU 
markets in the future. 
90. While the PIP was widely lauded as an effectiv e and timely intervention, almost without 
exception, some private sector respondents pointed to the fact that they had not been able to 
implement the changes recommended because of lack of  finance.  Indeed, some of the beneficiaries 
interviewed said they were "tired" of being told wh at they needed to do and instead needed assistance 
in gaining access to the means to make the necessary investments.  Likewise, the scope for the public 
sector to implement improved laboratory practic e was constrained by the inability to make 
investments in new equipment or shortages of perso nnel, most notably in Uganda.  This highlights the 
challenging environment that the PIP was working in and the need to be realistic about what can be 
achieved and to adjust the level and types of support provided accordingly.  However, it also 
highlights the need for technical support programmes such as PIP to be accompanied by efforts on the 
part of beneficiary governments and firms to make accompanying investments,  and perhaps to be co-
ordinated with wider financial support projects and programmes. 
91. The broader or general aim of the PIP was to "build the long-term competitiveness of private 
enterprises in the ACP horticultural sector" as part of an "equitable growth for small and medium-
sized producers."  This suggests that the ultimate fo cus of PIP is on higher-level objectives, such as 
export growth and the inclusion of small holders, rather than SPS capacity-building per se .  In a 
development context, this would a ppear to be appropriate.  However, while the project identifies the 
enhancement of SPS-related capacity as a key driver  towards the competitiveness of the horticultural 
sector in ACP countries, a wide range of other fact ors over which the project has little or no influence 
or focus (for example the enhancement of productivity,  development of transport infrastructures, etc.) 
have a key influence making it extremely difficult to separate out or attribute the influence of PIP.  
This was reflected in the mid-term evaluation of the PIP which deemed that the overall goal of the 
project was too ambitious and should be reformulated. 
92. Recognizing the attribution problems noted above, many beneficiaries were of the view that 
the PIP had contributed to maintaining and enhanc ing access to EU markets for fresh produce against 
the spectre of exclusion associated with the harmoni zation of MRLs in the EU and the emergence of 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP.  While this claim is extremel y difficult to substantiate – we have no way of  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 23 
 
 
  knowing the counterfactual – it is evident that thr ee study countries are in a much better position to 
address the challenges they face due to ongoing ch anges in regulatory requirements and private 
standards.  At the same time, many smaller e xporters across the three study countries (that mainly 
supplied traders in EU wholesale markets on a consignment basis) were not yet facing demands for stricter food safety controls from their customers, and indeed had not faced any problems in 
complying with regulatory requirements (for exam ple on pesticide residues).  While we might 
reasonably expect such firms to be in a better pos ition to meet stricter food safety requirements as and 
when they are applied in the future, we ha ve no way of knowing when this will occur. 
93. The other danger raised by the imposition of st ricter food safety requirements and standards 
in the EU is the exclusion of smallholders fro m supply chains to exporters.  The PIP has put 
significant levels of support into supporting ex porters, including some of the larger and better 
established firms, in their efforts to adjust their procurement systems in a manner that enables smaller 
producers to comply. This has included complian ce and certification to EurepGAP/GlobalGAP.  
While some of the beneficiaries we talked to had rationalized their supply base, claiming the costs of 
implementing and maintaining effective food safet y controls over numerous  small farmers as the 
reason, it is difficult to surmise th e extent to which the PIP has mitig ated this process.  At the same 
time, it is evident that a number of exporters had made substantial inputs of time and money into their 
smallholder supply base.  Many of these exporters suggested that the support they had received from 
the PIP had been critical in their decision to make such investments. 
94. Looking at the concept of competitiveness beyond the issue of food safety, a number of 
beneficiaries (especially larger firms) suggested  that the support they had received from PIP had 
enabled them to make broader managerial and or ganizational changes, which had contributed to 
increased efficiency and reduced costs.  For exampl e, exporters had seen the management of their out-
grower schemes improved, through changes to thei r own managerial systems and attitudinal change 
and better production practices among small producers.  This had resulted in improvement in quality, 
reduced use of pesticides and other inputs, etc.  It  was suggested that these improvements had not only 
been to the benefit of the exporter, but also sm allholders, who had seen better returns due to lower 
production costs paired with reduced rejection rates. 
95. A critical concern about the PIP is the degree to  which the capacity created is sustainable.  
That is, will this capacity be maintained rather than dwindle in the absen ce of external technical 
and/or financial support  and can it evolve further as food safety requirements in EU markets change?  
While only time will tell - the PIP only came to an en d in 2008 – there are signs that some elements of 
capacity have the rigour to be maintained.  For ex ample, AfriCert in Keny a is beginning to see a 
commercial market for its services in Africa and Agribusiness Management Associates (AMA), a consultancy service in Uganda, h as developed its own training pr ogrammes on the basis of skills 
obtained through the PIP and recently co-bid with Fintrac on a $40 million USAID project.  At the same time, some concerns were expressed about the degree to which sufficient market demand will 
exist in the medium term to support the consultanc y and analytically services put in place with PIP 
support.  For example, while the KEPHIS laborator y in Kenya now has quite substantial analytical 
capacity for pesticide residues and is being using routinely by the HCDA, most exporters still send 
their samples to laboratories overseas, predominantly in Europe.  This is not to say that firms in 
Kenya do not have confidence in KEPHIS, but ra ther that their customers tend to have more 
confidence in testing results from laboratories in Eu rope.  In the case of private service providers such 
as AfriCert and AMA, there are c oncerns that demand will dwindle without the PIP to provide the 
impetus and financial support to sue such services;  indeed, one or two respondents remarked that 
firms were not used to paying for such services wh en a donor had always been there to write the 
cheque. 
96. It was evident that the impact and efficacy of the PIP differed across the study countries, 
reflecting levels of prevailing capacity, sectoral st ructure, market requirements and incentives towards 
enhancement of food safety controls, etc.  For exam ple, the PIP was able to make relatively quick G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 24  
 
  inroads into the horticultural sector in Kenya, wh ere a relatively effective industry organization was 
already in place (FPEAK) and there were a number of leading exporters that had already made substantive progress towards the implementation of GAP and other food safety management practices.  
Here the role of PIP was to support these larger firms in their efforts while inducing processes of 
upgrading of food safety controls among smaller expor ters.  The fact that FPEAK was already in 
place enabled PIP to form collaborative relations; fo r example, a protocol was put in place between 
the PIP and FPEAK to promote local press coverage on current food safety issues that facilitated 
wider dissemination among stakeholders and promoted political interest in these issues.  Conversely, in Uganda the horticultural export sector was na scent, with no significant exporters and a weak 
industry organization.  In this context, the PI P’s focus had to be on strengthening institutional 
structures.  
97. Differences in progress and approaches of the PI P across the study countr ies are also evident 
in the case of the development and implemen tation of private sta ndards benchmarked to 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP.  The KenyaGAP standard has now been fully developed and efforts are being 
made towards implementation.  Beneficiaries were of  the view that this would not have been achieved 
without the PIP, not only because of the technical support it provided, but because it acted as an 
independent arbiter that prevented the standard s from being captured by dominant interests and 
bottlenecks due to different parties defending thei r established positions.  At the same time, the 
success of Kenya in developing KenyaGAP reflects th e fact that the industry is well developed and 
has a middle-ground of firms that may benefit from th e promulgation of such a standard.  Conversely, 
while Uganda is also making efforts to develop its  own private standard that would ultimately be 
benchmarked to EurepGAP/Globa lGAP, the continued weakness of the Horticultural Promotion 
Organization of Uganda (HPOU), lack of a critical mass of industry leaders and absence of any real 
market drivers towards the implementation of GAP  have meant that little progress has been made.  
While this could be seen as a failing of the PIP, and indeed some respondents saw it as such, it also illustrates the ability and willingness of the management  team implementing the PIP to adjust to local 
conditions in terms of the particular foci of their efforts and allocation of financial and technical 
resources. 
98. Unique to the PIP across all of the case study projects, were the efforts made not only to 
develop capacity in the beneficiary countries but also  to influence the evolution of regulatory policy in 
the EU.  Thus, PIP provided support to KEPHIS to undertake testing of soil, water and produce 
samples and undertook trials with smallholders  to ascertain achievable MRLs.  These were 
communicated to the European Co mmission and are recognized to have had some influence on the 
MRLs set for certain crops and active ingredients. 
East African Phytosanitary Information Committee 
 
99. In contrast to the PIP, the EAPIC project focu ses solely on public sector capacity, specifically 
relating to the control of plant pests and diseases.  The project seeks to build institutional capacity 
across East African to undertake p est risk assessments that will meet the needs of export markets, 
notably the USA.  Thus, while having a higher-l evel objective of boosting exports as one of its 
objectives, its primary impact is seen as boosting specific SPS-related capacities towards the top of 
the pyramid in Figure 1. 
100. Towards the goal of enhancing phytosanitary capacity across the region, the project has 
established separate servers in proj ect countries, which will ultimately be linked to a regional server at 
KEPHIS in Kenya.  In turn, the EAPIC aims to cr eate a platform for NPPOs to carry out systematic 
pest risk assessments.  Prior to the implementation of the project, the pest risk assessments and/ or 
pest lists compiled by NPPOs tended to be ad hoc and in most
 cases  not comprehensive.  This 
reflected the weakness of surveillance and/or comm unication systems.  For example, while the Kenya 
Agricultural Research Institute ( KARI) had been compiling pest lists since 1954, these were out of 
date and excluded certain categories of pests, for example viruses and nematodes.  Through the  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 25 
 
 
  information provided across the network of countri es, the aim is for NPPOs to compile updated and 
comprehensive pest lists that can be maintained.  In  turn, the ability to undert ake pest risk assessments 
will allow scientists to prioritise is sues and employ effective systems; they will know which pests to 
look for and how to do it.  This provides a very good example of good practice in regional cooperation. 
101. The EAPIC is an ongoing project and, alth ough substantive progress has been made, the 
ultimate impacts are yet to be realized.  The intern al EAPIC team is already using preliminary pest 
lists to check for diseases, enabling faster decisi ons about imports, exports and quarantine in inter-
regional trade, although final lists  will not be uploaded to the regional data sharing system until later 
in 2008.  However, the beneficiaries we spoke to no ted that significant benefits had been achieved in 
terms of the functionality of their phytosanitary cont rols, while participation in the EAPIC had served 
to highlight the importance of this area of SPS cap acity to political decision-makers.  Certainly the 
degree of cooperation across NPPOs in the region has been enhanced significantly; one respondent 
remarked that in the past "they never really talked  to each other" and this has evidently changed. 
102. One area where the EAPIC has made substan tial progress, and presents an example of good 
practice, is achieving approval for the exportation of  specific products for export to the US.  Thus, 
with the support of APHIS, the Kenyan government prepared and submitted p est risk assessments and 
obtained approval for importation to the US of shelle d garden peas, baby carrots and baby corn in a 
relatively short period of time.  The project anticip ates that green beans, snow peas and sugar snap 
peas will be approved for export to the US in th e not too distant future.  While illustrating the 
potential trade benefits of the EAPIC – these have ye t to be realized since no exports of the approved 
commodities have taken place to date – this example also illustrates the capacity of countries in the 
region to overcome restrictions due to S PS measures if given appropriate assistance. 
Capacity-Building Needs Assessment 
 
103. While capacity assessments had been successfully completed in all three of the case study 
countries, there were evident differences in the res ponse of governments and th e degree to which this 
project has induced further action towards the enhanc ement of food safety functions in Figure 1.  We 
review progress to date in each of th e study countries in turn below. 
104. In Kenya, progress since the stakeholder meeting that concluded the project has been limited.  
Due to political instability in December 2007, FAO postponed all elements of its planned activities 
involving political structures or decisions.  Thus, the national action plan and proposed legislative 
changes were put on hold and a decision was made to focus on Tanzania in the immediate future.  
However, items in the action plan have been priori tized and it is anticipated that efforts will soon 
commence towards their implementation.  Indeed, F AO has continued to provide technical assistance 
to the National Food Safety Committee (NFSC) towards developing a national food safety policy 
document and respondents were of the view that initiatives would soon be taken towards enhancement 
of food safety capacity in the country. 
105. In Tanzania, the Tanzania Bureau of St andards (TBS) and FAO organized a national 
symposium for policy decision-makers on 28 June 2 008 that aimed to raise awareness of food safety 
and quality issues.  Subsequently, a two-year acti on plan to follow-up on the recommendations of the 
original project report has been formulated w ith the support of FAO and that also envisages 
cooperation with WHO, UNIDO and UNDP in the area of food safety and quality.  This work will 
involve the strengthening of food inspection system s, training on Codex Alimentarius guidelines for 
food quality and safety, development of public awareness and communications material for the 
informal food sector, small and medium firms in the formal sector and consumers and specific needs 
assessments for stakeholders identified in the action pl an.  We are yet to see the extent to which these 
identified priorities move forward and are reflected in  real gains in capacity, although it is evident that G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 26  
 
  there is considerable political impetus behind th e action plans and beneficiaries we spoke to 
anticipated real progress in the medium term. 
106. A key finding of the capacity assessment in Tanzania was the lack of accreditation of 
Tanzanian laboratories which, it was deemed, serious ly undermined the country’s food control system 
with regard to international SPS commitments.  It recommended speeding up of existing accreditation 
initiatives and extension of accreditation efforts to  other laboratories, especially the chemistry 
laboratories at the TBS.  Prior to the project, th e TBS had formulated plans towards the enhancement 
of laboratory capacity with funding from DANIDA for staff training and the upgrading of 17 laboratories across the country.  Understandably, the FAO assessment repeated these same needs within their assessments.  
107. In the case of Tanzania there is some eviden ce that the capacity assessment undertaken by 
FAO has had a tangible impact on government po licy.  In May 2008 the Tanzania Food and Drug 
Authority (TFDA) was restructured as recommend ed by the national report resulting from the 
capacity assessment.  At the same time, however, it is  not clear that a coherent single policy has been 
devised and is being implemented at the current time.  This suggests rather mixed evidence on 
impacts at the current time. 
108. In Uganda, the country action plan was revised by stakeholders, notably relevant government 
agencies and adopted as the National Strategic Plan to Improve Food Safety and Quality in Uganda.  
After the high-level stakeholders consultative mee ting in February 2007, government agencies agreed 
to prioritise their activities according to this adopted plan.  The action plan was intended to lead to the 
development of a strategic food safety action plan , although this has not proceeded as intended.  
While the Uganda National Bureau of standards (UNBS) and Ministry of Health were receiving 
support from UNIDO, with funding by Norway, that could support a number of the identified priorities, poor communications and lack of res ources locally were hampering progress.  Again this 
suggested a significant degree of overlap betwee n the capacity assessment and ongoing technical 
cooperation efforts in the area of food safety, and also the lack of coordination of these efforts. 
109. While the capacity assessments undertaken by  FAO were designed to identify capacity 
weaknesses and guide the formulation of action plan s rather than having a direct impact on capacity 
per se , experiences across the three countries highl ight some key issues for good practice.  
Fundamental here is the importance of political bu y-in at a high level, reflecting the need for 
significant investments of local resources towa rds capacity enhancement and the fact that 
responsibility for food safety controls typically cuts  across multiple ministries and departments and/or 
can require the reallocation of responsibilities and r esources.  At the same time it is critical that 
assessments of this kind are coordinated with existing technical cooperation, which presumably 
completed their own capacity assessments. 
Advanced Training Programme on Qu ality Infrastructure for Food Safety 
 
110. The four week programme of training provided by this project aimed to expose practitioners 
from developing countries to international standard s on good practice, train them in the systematic 
development of food safety policies and allow these pr actitioners to go back to guide the development 
of food quality and safety systems and policies, and to promote these policies, among relevant 
stakeholders in their countries.  Thus, the project was directly aimed at s upporting the enhancement of 
food safety capacity, with a focus on most levels in Figure 1, while not in and of itself bringing about 
such capacity enhancements; presumably actions by  national governments with or without donor 
support would be instrumental in this regard.  
111. Upon completion of the training course participants  returned to their countries and worked for 
six months on a draft policy document which they  later presented at workshop in Nairobi in 
September 2007. The progress and status of this draft policy varied across the study countries.   G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 27 
 
 
  112. The Ugandan team submitted a draft food saf ety policy to the National Codex Committee 
(NCC).  This was very well received although action to be taken had to be directed through the 
Ministry of Health as the lead authority on food safet y and health policy.  Subsequently, together with 
the chairman of the NCC, the Ugandan team formed a working group.  This working group produced a draft document that was presented to the Ministry of Health in September 2007.  Currently, Uganda 
is drafting a new food law and members of the team interviewed during this research felt that they had 
provided a useful input to this process, which is ongoing. 
113. In Tanzania, the Tanzania Food and Drugs Author ity (TFDA) is leading the development of a 
national food safety policy.  After the SWEDAC training programme, the Tanzanian team presented 
their draft report, as a result of which the t eam was reformulated to include more senior 
representatives of the Ministry of Health, TFDA a nd Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre (TFNC).  
The draft report was subsequently revised, result ing in a draft National Food Safety Policy in 
December 2007.  The team is currently working on  a Swahili version of the draft policy, the final 
version of which will be translated into English.  Our understanding is that the Ministry of Health has 
informed parliament that it will have a national fo od safety policy in place within a year or two.  
Alongside these developments, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, 
the team routinely communicates on food quality i ssues to consumers, producers, retailers, etc. 
114. The SWEDAC training course provides an excellent example of good practice in the 
provision of training towards SPS capacity enhanc ement.  Notably, it demonstrates how linking 
condensed periods of training to practical applica tions on the part of trainees can both enhance the 
degree of skills development and enable beneficiari es to have real impacts in their home country.  
Thus, in the case of both Uganda and Tanzania we see  that attendees have been able to engage with 
their governments and have a tangible impact on the evol ution of policy.  At the same time this case 
illustrates the need for training programmes of this ty pe to be attuned to po licy development priorities 
and processes in the home countries of attendees; the f act that participants in the SWEDAC training 
programme have been able to have such a signifi cant impact in their home country reflects the fact 
that both Uganda and Tanzania are in the process of defining a national food safety policy/strategy. 
Global Salm-Surv training programme on Labora tory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases 
for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa  
115. The target impact of this training course was the enhancement of a specific element of food 
safety capacity towards the centre of the pyramid in Figure 1.  While many participants in the course 
were constrained in their ability to apply the sk ills imparted by this programme - laboratory-based 
analysis and surveillance of Salmonella  – most participants interviewed to were of the view that their 
skills and expertise had been enhan ced appreciably.  Perhaps of greater significance, however, was the 
informal network of researchers that was created among participants in the course.  A number of 
participants noted that they had shared information and even data with other laboratories, for example 
on antimicrobial resistance, that were members of this  network.  Further, they indicated that because 
they had met their counterparts face-to-face and sp ent a protracted period of time getting to know 
them they were willing to engage in remote dialogue and information sharing of this type.  This would 
not have happened if they had not attended the cour se.  While it was recogni zed that a more formal 
network was needed across countries, this inform al collaboration was regarded as "better than 
nothing". 
116. In terms of enhancement of food safety capacity, to date it is not possible to ascertain whether 
this project has induced substantive increases in capacity, beyond soft skills towards the base of 
Figure 1.  At the same time, it do es present an example of good practice in more technical training –  
extended periods of training combining technical a nd practical aspects – that appears to have been 
effective in imparting new skills and creating inter actions between participants that are maintained 
once the course has been concluded. G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 28  
 
  Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea 
 
117. This project produced a quite rigorous study of  the costs of compliance with export market 
food safety requirements for tropical projects in Tanzan ia.  It is not apparent, however, whether this 
study has had any appreciable impacts domestically in Tanzania. 
118. The discussion of project impacts above focuses on each of the study projects on a case-by-
case basis.  In so doing, the cu mulative impact of these projects was not considered.  Presumably, 
advancements in SPS capacity in all three of the study countries, which we can certainly observe, 
reflect (at least in part) the significant levels of  technical cooperation over recent years, including but 
not restricted to the six case study projects.  For example, we might reasonably expect the Capacity-
Building Needs Assessment undertaken by FAO and Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS 
Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea  undertaken by UNCTAD, and indirectly the 
Advanced Training Programme on Quality Infrastru cture for Food Safety undertaken by SWEDAC, 
to have informed capacity-building processes in the case study countries.  Assessing and attributing 
ongoing processes of capacity are beyond the scope of this  study, but should certainly be the focus of 
future research work. 
 
IV. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND KEY LESSONS LEARNED 
119. The six project case studies outlined above, do  present examples of good practice across a 
range of forms of technical cooperation.  Below we outline some of the main themes that have 
emerged and also raise some questions about the design of projects in varying contexts. 
Demand-versus supply-driven technical cooperation 
 
120. It is now generally recognized that technical cooperation should ideally be demand-driven, in 
contrast to the predominance of supply-driven approaches in the past.  Thus, the design and 
implementation of projects should engage potentia l beneficiaries in processes of needs assessment, 
acting to design cooperation around prevailing local  capacity, instill local ownership in capacity-
building efforts and building capacity in needs identification,  appraisal and priority-setting.  We see 
evidence of this in a number of the case study project s.  For example, PIP required that private sector 
beneficiaries applied for support and that a needs assessment was undertaken, although this 
assessment normally involved an external consultant .  In this way assistance was tailored to each 
individual beneficiary to the extent permitted by the boundaries of the project as a whole.  While 
being demand-driven, in that a priority-setting exer cise was undertaken to define the specific area in 
which SIDA’s International Training Programme focused, the Advanced Training Programme on 
Quality Infrastructure for Food Safety was not ta ilored to the specific needs of each beneficiary 
country, but rather targeted developing countries as a whole.  In other cases, for example the EAPIC, 
countries in the region as a collective identified the n eed for a particular capacity-building effort, in 
collaboration with the donor. 
121. It is apparent, however, that demand-driven modes of technical cooperation are not always 
appropriate.  Indeed, we would suggest that assistan ce might be more meaningfully supply-driven in 
certain contexts, for example where: 
• Prevailing levels of SPS-related capacity are weak  in the public and/or private sectors, such 
that there may be lack of awareness of the need  for and/or nature of specific elements of 
capacity. 
 
• SPS requirements in export markets are changing rapidly.  This is particularly the case where 
capacity to capture information on evolving SPS requirements is weak and/or not explicitly 
linked to decision-making processes.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 29 
 
 
  • Acute risks/emergencies arise that require ra pid action, especially where these risks are new 
and local capacity to address them is weak. 
 122. Thus, the Global Salm-Surv training programme followed a more traditional supply-driven 
approach, with the WHO  being the predominant driver behind the decision to mount the course and in 
adapting it to local circumstances.  Given the speci fic expertise involved and the efforts of the WHO 
to promote capacity in the area of laboratory surv eillance of food-borne pathogens, this would appear 
to be appropriate; given that capacity in many of  the beneficiary countries was weak, how could they 
be expected to identify specific needs for capacity-building?  Like wise, in its initial phase the PIP 
engaged in an extensive process of awareness-rais ing about changes in EU regulatory controls for 
pesticides residues in fresh produce and later on the emergence of private food safety standards; 
previous to these efforts there was little recogniti on of these changes except among leading exporters.  
In this way the PIP created demand for capacity-build ing, but then engaged beneficiaries in the design 
of the specific assistance they received. 
Needs assessment 
 
123. In many technical cooperation projects some fo rm of needs assessment is undertaken, whether 
involving the beneficiary, donor, or both.  Too ofte n the form taken by this assessment is not clear and 
quite different approaches are employed across pr ojects, creating inconsistencies, increasing the 
transaction costs for beneficiaries and impeding the employment of good practice.  The effort by FAO to design and validate a rapid assessment tool for fo od control capacity, which was piloted through the 
Capacity-Building Needs Assessment  project described above, is a welcome initiative.  Indeed, there 
are now structured frameworks for assessing capac ity relating to plant health (by the IPPC 
Secretariat), animal health (by the OIE) and food safety (by FAO) which enab le needs to be assessed 
within  each these areas in a consistent manner.  The progressive use of these frameworks across 
donors would enable developing country beneficiarie s to develop skills and experience that empower 
them in needs assessment processes.  
Flexibility 
 
124. Inevitably, technical cooperation efforts are bounde d by the constraints imparted by project 
design and the policies and procedures of donors.  Criti cal to the efficacy of capacity-building efforts, 
however, is room for interventions to be flexible  in their scope and modes of delivery.  Thus, 
circumstances may change and priorities shift over time, while needs and capacities may differ across 
multiple recipients of assistance.  The PIP provi des a particularly good example of the need for 
flexibility and the resulting benefits in terms of project impacts.  Thus: 
• The level and forms of assistance was adapted acro ss countries.   Hence, the way in which the 
PIP engaged with FPEAK in Kenya was quite di fferent to the support they provided to the 
horticultural sector task force in Uganda, re flecting the level of prevailing capacity and 
challenges. 
 
• The assistance provided to individual exporters was tailored to their prevailing capacity, 
commercial position and needs.  
• The project was able to accommodate the growing importance of private food safety 
standards, in particular EurepGAP/GlobalGAP a nd divert resources to support beneficiaries in 
achieving certification to such standards. 
 
125. Flexibility was also observed in the EAPIC, whic h started as a relatively simple attempt to 
develop pest lists for the East Africa region, but evolved into a more amb itious effort to enhance 
capacity to undertake pest risk assess ments, share data across countries, etc.  Much of this change was G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 30  
 
  driven by beneficiaries of the project, with the ab ility of the project to evolve acting to engender a 
sense of local ownership. 
126. The need for flexibility also applies to the de finition and assessment of intended impacts.  
Thus, what can reasonably be achieved in the cont ext of relatively strong prevailing capacity, across 
the public and/or private sectors, is quite different  to the challenges faced in  building capacity in the 
context of a nascent industry or SPS management syst em.  Technical cooperation projects need to be 
able to account for such differences, especially where a project is applied across countries and/or 
sectors so as not to enforce a one size fits all m odel and/or to judge the impacts of an intervention 
using the same measures in differing contexts. 
Practitioner networks 
 127. A number of the projects reviewed above have created practitioner networks among 
beneficiaries, whether as an intended impact or as a secondary consequence.  In all cases, these have 
emerged as valuable outputs that  empower beneficiaries and engende r local ownership and provide an 
ongoing mechanism for capacity enhancement.  In  the case of the EAPIC, the establishment of a 
network of NPPOs was the explicit aim of the in tervention.  This project has been extremely 
successful in establishing a viable community of  practitioners and institutions engaged in the 
management of plant pests and diseases.  Key here has been engendering a high degree of local ownership and control.  In the case of the Globa l Salm-Surv training programme and the Advanced 
Training Programme on Quality Infrastructure for Food Safety less formal networks of beneficiaries have been established, but which have emerged as potential long-term  mechanisms for the sharing of 
knowledge and experiences.  Key here was the fact  that both training programmes were held over 
extended periods of time, while most participants  were away from their normal place of work and 
were able to engage with fellow partic ipants in both work and leisure time. 
Active learning 
 
128. A welcome trend in technical cooperation proj ects that impart knowledge and skills through 
training is the use of more active modes of learning.  These can include the engagement of students in dialogue among themselves and/or with instructors, problem-based learning, project work, etc.  These 
methods are in stark contrast to the traditional student-instructor relationship that has pervaded 
training programmes to date.  The Advanced Trai ning Programme on Quality Infrastructure for Food 
Safety project provides a particularly  good example of these practices.  Thus, students were actively 
encouraged to engage with one a nother and their instructors and to apply the knowledge they gained 
through the course to an extended project on which they received feedback.  As with this project, 
more active modes of learning frequently require th at training programmes are extended - in this case 
the programme lasted four weeks and participants we  spoke to were of the view it could even have 
been extended to five weeks – which necessitate s that resources are focused on training fewer 
beneficiaries better.  The Global Salm-Surv training programme also provides an example of good 
practice in this regard, combining formal instruct ion in laboratory techniques with practical sessions 
in the laboratory.  
129. Beyond the development of soft capacity through training programmes, the active 
engagement of beneficiaries in cap acity-building is critical to effec tive cooperation and sustainability.  
The PIP has been particularly effective in this re gard, for example through the use of Memoranda of 
Understanding (MoUs) with beneficiaries linked to agreed action plans.  Thus, individual 
beneficiaries are able to track their own progress, while taking responsibility for ensuring capacity is 
developed as agreed.  Because capacity is develope d on a cost-sharing basis, beneficiaries have a 
stake in their own development and an incentive to ensure that funds are spent well, including that 
private service producers perform as expected.  This acts to enhance the efficacy of capacity-building 
efforts and also to promote value for money on the part of investments by the PIP.  While these 
arrangements may act to deter weaker and/or more risk averse firms from participating in the PIP, we  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 31 
 
 
  might question the sustainability of capacity within su ch firms; perhaps it is appropriate that they are 
excluded from capacity-building arrangements of this type. 
Linking skills development to practice 
 
130. It is evident that training programmes work most  effectively when linked to the specific needs 
and day-to-day duties of beneficiaries.  While it is very difficult to customise training to the needs of 
individuals, linkages with practice can be achieved thr ough project work and other practical exercises.  
The Advanced Training Programme on Quality Infr astructure for Food Safety provides an excellent 
example of good practice in this regard.  Here participants undertook a six month project involving 
the drafting of a national action plan in the area of food safety.  Through working as a group and 
engaging decision-makers in their government, it is evid ent that participants in this project were able 
to apply the knowledge they had acquired to valuab le effect, not only enhancing their own learning 
experience but producing an output that was of wider value and contributed to ongoing processes of 
capacity-building in the area of food safety. 
Selection of beneficiaries 
 131. The efficacy of training programmes at enhanc ing capacity reflects not only the content and 
mode of delivery but also the choice of participants .  This also applies to more comprehensive support 
programmes such as the PIP.  This is a sensitive is sue because it implies that certain beneficiaries – 
countries, firms, producers or individuals – are excluded.  Making the intended impacts of technical cooperation clear and explicit upfront is critical here ; if for no other reason to legitimise participation 
decisions.  At the same time it is important to  recognize what prevailing capacities are necessary for 
effective engagement with potential beneficiaries.  There is no point in developing capacity higher up 
in the hierarchy in Figure 1 if lower levels of capacity are missing. 
132. In the case of training programmes, substan tive and sustainable capacity will only be 
generated if the individuals chosen to receive tr aining have the necessary skills and experience and the 
opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills they ac quire in their day-to-day work.  The Advanced 
Training Programme on Quality Infrastructure for Food Safety and Global Salm-Surv training 
programmes providing examples of good practice in th is regard.  Thus, both of these projects were 
focused at participants from a range of backgrounds  - bringing differing experiences and needs into 
the learning environment – and involved individuals at a practical rather than senior management level that were engaged on a day-to-day basis wi th managing food safety.  Too often, training 
programmes have been directed at, or have attracted, the participation of more senior officials that are 
not directly involved in the application of the kn owledge and skills being imparted, such that the 
impact of the training gets diluted as knowledge is passed on to others when pa rticipants complete the 
programme. 
133. In more broad-based programmes of training su ch as the PIP decisions, arguably care in the 
selection of beneficiaries is even more critical give n the scope and level of investments in capacity-
building efforts.  The PIP dealt with differences in prevailing capacity across beneficiary countries by 
adapting its programme of support; the blend and in tensity of support provided to the horticultural 
sector in Kenya was quite different to that employed in Uganda.  At the level of individual firms, in 
many ways beneficiaries were self-selecting; th ey had to apply for support (although often with 
support and encouragement from the PIP and local se rvice providers).  Thus, firms without minimum 
levels of capacity were, in effect, excluded.  Admi nistratively, this was easier for the PIP and arguably 
more effective at separating those who would/would not benefit from support. 
Establishing local capacity-building capacity 
 
134. One of the key elements of good practice in the PI P was the level of effort and investment in 
local capacity to deliver training and consultancy ser vices to beneficiaries.  Thus, while international G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 32  
 
  consultants were used initially in Kenya, Uganda  and Tanzania, over time a critical body of local 
private service providers was established through trai ning and the provision of materials.  These 
private service providers were then included on the list of approved consultants from which firms 
receiving PIP support could be selected.  In all three countries, the capacity-building needs of exporters can now be met locally, while training and other services have been adapted to local 
circumstances.  In the case of cap acity-building among smallholders, fo r example, it is suggested that 
such local service producers are better positioned to communicate, not only b ecause of their command 
of the local language but also appreciation of cultural issues. 
135. Alongside the development of local private service providers, the PIP has developed a large 
body of training materials, guides, etc.  These tr anslate relatively complex concepts, for example 
associated with GAP, into simple language that pot ential beneficiaries find easier to understand and 
apply to their own circumstances.  Such materials re present a legacy of the PIP that can be employed 
well beyond the end of the project.  The one concern about such materials, however, is the scope for 
them to become outdated.  Here, local institutions wi ll play a key role in the future; this is seen as one 
of the roles of the task forces supported by PIP in each of the beneficiary countries.  
Sequencing and connectivity of capacity-building efforts 
 
136. Critical to the efficacy and sustainability of cap acity-building efforts is  the sequencing of and 
interconnectivities of capacity-building efforts.  The case studies examined above present examples of 
challenges as much as good practice in this rega rd.  Thus, one of the frustrations faced by 
beneficiaries of the PIP was the inability of the pr oject to support capital investments or the costs of 
staff.  While this may be deemed appropriate, it is  apparent that the efficacy of some of the support 
provided by the PIP was compromised somewhat by th e inability of beneficiaries to gain access to 
finance from elsewhere, whether another programme of technical cooperation or the banking sector.  
If the PIP had been able to coordinate its activities with other donors and/or fi nancial institutions such 
constraints might have been alleviated.  Likewise, some participants in the Global Salm-Surv training 
programme expressed frustration that they had been  unable to apply the skills acquired through the 
project because of weak laboratory facilities in their home country. 
137. A parallel problem is the scope for different t echnical cooperation projects to overlap and/or 
build capacity out of sequence.  For instance,  capacity assessments addressing food safety were 
carried out by FAO, UNIDO and/or DANIDA in the case study countries.  Such overlaps enhance the 
transaction costs faced by beneficiaries in dealing with multiple donors and can lead to duplication of 
efforts that waste scarce funds for technical coope ration.  The case studies do not provide any clues on 
how to address this problem.  At the same time, we might expect the cumulative impact of the case study projects, alongside other programmes of technical  cooperation, to have been significant.  There 
is a need to recognize this and to make efforts to a ssess such impacts.  Yet, this creates challenges for 
performance evaluations of individual projects; it may be difficult to separate out their individual 
impacts while their cumulative effects are significant. 
Assessing and monitoring progress 
 
138. While much technical cooperation is focused  on enhancing specific aspects of SPS capacity, 
often at particular levels of the hierarchy in Fi gure 1, underlying such objectives is often higher-level 
impacts, for example on the value of exports, inclus ion of smallholders, etc.  A multi-tiered structure 
of intended impacts is appropriate for most progra mmes of technical cooperation, especially if they 
are of limited duration, impacts are lagged and/or attribution problems are significant.  Thus, both the 
PIP and EAPIC had multiple objectives that related both to specific enhancements in SPS capacity 
and impacts on trade.  While the former can be qu ite closely monitored and attributed to project 
interventions, the latter are more aspirational and difficult to directly attribute, but can serve as 
guiding principles in the design and implementation of  project interventions.  Across all of the defined 
impacts it is critical that projects are realistic about  what can be achieved given levels of prevailing  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 33 
 
 
  capacity;  it is better that interventions are suc cessful in achieving a little than unsuccessful in 
achieving a lot.  The mid-term review of the PIP hi ghlighted how projects have a tendency to offer too 
much and the need for more realistic goals. 
139. Alongside the selection of multi-tiered and appropria te impact measures, it is critical that 
beneficiaries are able to monitor and assess their ow n capacity development.  In the case of the PIP, 
individual firms defined their own work programm es in conjunction with consultants and could 
monitor progress over time.  With the Advanced Training Programme on Quality Infrastructure for 
Food Safety, participants were provi ded with the opportunity to reconve ne six months after the formal 
training programme had concluded an d were provided with feedback on their national action plans.  
With networks such as the EAPIC and Globa l Salm-Surv training programme, countries can 
benchmark their own capacity a nd progress against one another.  
Role as honest broker 
 
140. While there is a tendency to focus on the direct  impacts of technical cooperation projects and 
programmes on the enhancement of SPS capacity and the financial investments that are being made, 
in some cases one of their most profound functions is  as honest broker and/or risk taker.  Thus, donors 
and project implementers, as (often) trusted, respec ted and/or powerful external parties, can act to 
overcome entrenched positions and to build bridg es between stakeholders (for example across the 
public and private sectors).  This is particularly  important where fundamental institutional change 
and/or relocation of resources is needed, or where th ere is a history that needs to be overcome.  The 
support of task forces by the PIP presents an example of  good practice in this regard; the fact that the 
PIP was engaged with these instituti ons rendered legitimacy and made them safe for stakeholders who 
resisted engagement. 
Market distortions 
 
141. Almost inevitably technical cooperation projects and programmes not only create demands 
for capacity-building and support services but also dist ort markets for such services.  When prevailing 
levels of capacity and market demand are low, exte rnal support is often critical to lay down basic and 
broad-based functions that avoid sequencing prob lems in establishing higher-level SPS functions.  
This is seen, for example, with the development of private service providers in Kenya and Uganda, 
where PIP support has been critical in the face of litt le or no commercial demand.  At the same time, 
donor support can act to inflate market prices – crowding out genuine market demand – and inflating 
demand among beneficiaries that do not bear the consequences should capacity-building efforts fail 
and/or the markets they supply  do not demand such services. 
142. Although the PIP has undoubtedly had some distor ting effect on markets for private support 
services, it also presents examples of good practice in th is regard.  Thus, the fact that all assistance to 
exporters is on a cost-sharing basis has served to ensure that beneficiaries have a stake in the 
investments made by the PIP.  Likewise, linking support to agreed action plans and not releasing 
further tranches of funds until agreed milestones ha ve been met means that beneficiaries have to 
demonstrate progress. 
Political support 
 
143. Critical to the success and longer-term sustainab ility of capacity-building efforts is buy-in by 
political decisions-makers.  Where awareness and ap preciation of the need for capacity enhancement 
is missing, necessary institutional change can be impeded and the financial allocations required to 
operate and maintain capacity are less likely to be  made.  Engaging beneficiary countries in assessing 
the design and implementation of capacity-building effo rts can be important in this regards, provided 
these involve decision-makers at a sufficiently high  level.  Dissemination of information, including 
through the media, can also act to create the political impetus to move SPS issues further up the G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 34  
 
  agenda.  The PIP provides an example of good practice in engendering political support for its work.  
Key here has been the establishment and/or enha ncement of task forces involving the public and 
private sectors, dissemination of timely and reliabl e information and engaging with the media. 
144. The Capacity-Building Needs Assessment proj ect illustrates the importance of garnering 
political support once needs assessme nts have been concluded and the challenges faced by technical 
cooperation programmes in doing so.  The use of national stakeholder consultations provides an 
example of good practice in this regard;  while this project was fundamentally driven by FAO, 
although with some buy-in on the part of the be neficiary countries, these consultations enabled 
stakeholders to have some influence on the content and format of the resulting action plans.  The fact 
that the needs assessments were tied to action plan s, and governments were encouraged to adopt these 
plans, provided a platform for political support fo r capacity-building efforts into the future and 
accountability.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 35 
 
 
  ANNEX I - DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY PROJECTS 
Pesticides Initiatives Programme 
 
The Pesticides Initiatives Programme (PIP) had four key components: 
1. Information and communication component , designed to help enterprises and the ACP and 
EU institutions to keep abreast of the Eur opean market quality requirements, such as the 
efforts made by ACP producers and exporters.  Its activities focused on: 
 
• Implementation of a communication strategy , calling on regional and local relays, to 
provide the information required for the pr oactiveness of the PIP target groups;  
 
• Implementation of a centralised system via Internet to communicate with the local 
relays. 
 
2. Regulation component  aimed at setting new MRLs/IT reflecting Good Agricultural 
Practice for minor crops in tropical areas and fostering adaptation of the regulation. Its activities focused on:  
 
• Identification through an iterative process of  consultation/validation of the priority 
product/active ingredients pairs ; 
 
• Definition and validation of the experimentation protocols; 
 
• Proposals for ways to adjust the ACP national plant health regulations.  
 
The methodology, divided into three main phases, was developed as the project 
progressed:  
• Drafting of a crop protocol including the Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)  
 
• Selection of the main crops from the most economically important ones; 
 
• In-field survey to find out about the pest s, the agricultural practice of a sample 
of representative enterprises and to dete rmine the active substances they use, 
the doses employed, the frequency of use and the time before harvest; 
 
• Selection of the active substances with  DG SANCO, the EU’s residues group, 
the pesticide manufacturers a nd the research institutes; 
 
• Drafting of a complete crop protocol for the preparation of the soil through to 
the intermediate storage via the applica tion of the pesticides. Each pest or 
disease is treated by at least two active ingredients. 
 
• Field trials:  
 
• Definition of the most representative ecological zones; 
 
• Choice of several combinations of active substances; 
 
•
 Validation of the choice by the pesticide manufacturers, DG SANCO and the 
research institutes; 
 G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 36  
 
  • Monitoring of the protocols given to the local private enterprises; 
 
• Analyses of the residues done in Eur opean laboratories certified for good 
practice. The costs of the trials and an alyses are to be charged to the PIP. 
 
• Presentation of cases to obtain an import tolerance  
 
• Analysis of the results of the residues to determine if there is a need to ask for 
an  import tolerance application for an active substance/crop pair;  
• Development of the IT application w ith the pesticides manufacturer that 
possessed the molecule. The expenses linked to  the file are to be paid by the 
molecules manufacturer; 
 
• Assessment of the file by a Member State Rapporteur; 
 
3. Good company practice component , aimed at helping ACP enterprises in their efforts to 
adjust, upgrade and certify their practice. Its activities focused on: 
 
• Development of common frameworks by crop;  
 
• Training of the producers and conditione rs, leading to a process of validation 
(audit and certification); 
 
• Information to European buyers and consumers; 
 
• Demand-driven assistance, for cost  sharing, for the enterprises. 
 
4. Organization and capacity-building component , aimed at helping the structuring of the 
sector and the local capacity building of the di fferent ACP actors.  Here activities focused 
on setting up national task forces, working closely with small-scale and medium-scale 
producers, that would act as representatives of the Programme Management Unit and as a framework for public/private consultation and th e implementation of some functions (to be 
defined by the national task forces) carried out  at regional level and in all ACP countries 
by appropriate structures that were representative of the private sector. 
 
Some of the key elements of PIP’s activiti es in the two study countries are as follows: 
 
Kenya 
The PIP trained company staff so that they would carry through the implement food safety systems.  
This training was undertaken collectively where food safety, production and pack-house managers 
from different companies participat ed in workshops on the various aspects of food safety.  A total of 
179 Participants were trained using eight training modules designed by the PIP. 
 
A total of 30 companies in Kenya took part in in-company training sessions involving team leaders, 
field assistants and lead farmers.  This traini ng took place at each company’s production sites and 
was provided by trained trainers and consultants.  The training covered topics such as hygiene, safe 
use of pesticides, safe production practices and internal auditing procedures.  The PIP supported exporting firms to implement food safety systems that complied with EU requirements and the setting-up of traceability syst ems (paper or computerised) where possible, 
following actions defined in each company’s me morandum of understanding (MoU) and action plan 
drawn up with PIP.  Follow-ups were undertaken by trained consultants.  Companies which decided to  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 37 
 
 
  use traceability software had the option of using a pack age developed by the PIP.  In total, 14 Kenyan 
companies received support on traceability.  The PIP also supported around 40 local companies a nd consultants who provide  training and advisory 
services.  The training these received was aimed at making affordable services available to Kenyan 
producers and reducing the need for foreign experts and certification bodies. 
 The Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Keny a (FPEAK) co-ordinated the development of 
KenyaGAP, which was launched on 29 July 2007, w ith significant PIP support.  This was a major 
milestone for Kenya’s horticulture sector and affirm ed its role as a leading supplier of high quality 
products to international markets.  KenyaGAP wa s the first comprehensive quality assurance scheme 
in Africa, covering fruits, vegetables and flowers, to acquire EurepGap/GlobalGap
 equivalence.  It 
was also unique in that it incorporated the sp ecific needs and concerns of small-scale farming 
methods.  
The PIP also supported marketing and informati on dissemination activities through FPEAK.  It 
provided funding for FPEAK to participate in regiona l trade shows in Kenya and the Fruit Logistica 
fair in Berlin.  In addition, there was a protocol between PIP and FPEAK for print press promotion of issues relevant to the horticultural sector in Kenya.  The PIP was instrumental in the development of  the National Task Force on Horticulture, which 
evolved out of the Maximum Residue Levels Steer ing Committee initially established by the Ministry 
of Agriculture.  The secretariat of the task for ce is based at FPEAK and has received significant 
financial and administrative support from the PIP.  Th e task force holds regular issue-based meetings 
where all stakeholders in the sector discuss loca l and international challenges facing Kenya’s 
horticulture sector.  Other countries in the region ha ve tried to emulate the National Task Force on 
Horticulture, seeing it as an effective instrument for addressing broad challenges facing the sector.  
For example, the task force had been instrumental in Kenya’s response to ongoing debates about 
‘food miles’ and consequences for exports of fresh produce from Kenya.    The PCPB has compiled a list of approved pesticid es in Kenya with the assistance of PIP that 
indicates the specific uses for each approved active subs tance.  The approved pesticide list is updated 
every three months. 
 Laboratory testing capacity in Kenya has been enhanced  with the support of the PIP.  Notably, the PIP 
has provided training on analytical procedures, and supported pre-audits  and audits towards 
certification to ISO 17025, notably in the Ke nya Plant Health Inspection Service (KEPHIS) 
laboratory.  The PIP did not, however, provide funding for capital investments towards the upgrading 
of laboratory facilities.  Through PIP’s assistance, Kenya’s horticulture sec tor has successfully engaged with the EU on 
compliance issues relating to pesticides and MRLs.  Thus, support was provided to KEPHIS for the 
testing of MRLs levels for certain active subs tances in passion fruit an d green beans following 
efficacy trials among smallholder farmers.  As a r esult, ‘realistic’ MRLs coul d be defined that could 
be presented to the European Commission.  PIP has had a positive impact on the capacity of the Horticultural Crops Development Authority 
(HCDA) in its work with smallholders.  In par ticular, it has supported the development of courses and 
materials for the training of small-scale farmers. 
 
Uganda 
In Uganda, PIP supported the training of 19 ex porting companies in Uganda, which have signed 
MoUs.  Training has been provided on implementation of food safety systems, organic certification, 
traceability, etc.  As a collective level, the PIP h as worked with firms in the flower sector on the G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 38  
 
  development of training modules that are based around training materials developed by the PIP.  Once 
firms engaged with the PIP have received traini ng and are ready to implement their food safety 
systems, support has been provided by local c onsultants to guide the implementation process. 
 The PIP has given support to smallholder producer s engaged in the production of fresh produce for 
export.  Thus, it supported the creation of ten prod ucer groups for training in IPM and supporting one 
produce in his efforts to achieve certification am ong his out-growers.  More than 100 producers and 
out-growers received training on IPM.  Support has been provided for the establishment of  a national task force, the Task Force for 
Responding to the EU Export Market Requirements,  as a forum to address the challenges faced by the 
Ugandan horticultural sector. The PIP provided support to  the task force in a number of areas, notably 
providing a representative to work part-time in the task  force’s secretariat, contributing to the costs of 
information campaigns to foster awareness on EU re quirements by key stakeholders and other actions 
required to develop a national food safety system. 
 
The PIP supported a private laboratory (Chemiphar) to enhance its capacity for pesticide residue 
analysis of fruits and vegetables and achieving accreditation to ISO 17025. 
 The Agricultural Chemicals Board (ACB ) is the Ugandan body responsible for the registration, 
labelling, and regulation of imports  and exports of agricultural pesticides. The PIP provided assistance 
towards upgrading of the pesticide approval process sk ills of the registrar and registration officers in 
the evaluation of dossiers submitted for registration of pesticides.  It also advised MAAIF towards 
ensuring that Uganda’s pesticide policy and regulat ory framework is harmonize d with EU regulations. 
 
East Africa Phytosanita ry Information Committee 
 The East Africa Phytosanitary Information Committee  (EAPIC) was formed in Nairobi in April 2006 
during a pest risk assessment meeting of the East African National Plant Protection Organization (NPPOs).  The EAPIC emerged, in part, out of th e realisation that the capacity of developing 
countries to meet IPPC mandates for the provision of information on plant pests and diseases was 
constrained by poor infrastructure and info rmation capture and management systems. 
 
The project is developing a regional plant pest databa se for agricultural pest information that will help 
prioritize SPS issues/strategies in individual NPPOs a nd facilitate regional and international trade.  
The data will be shared among the EAPIC, cons isting of NPPOs in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, 
Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia, and representativ es of the AU and COMESA.  The committee aims 
systematically to develop pest reporting methods/pro tocols and internet-based databases in support of 
SPS requirements for East Africa that are compliant w ith IPPC protocols and to help countries in the 
region prioritise plant pest activities with respect to  diagnosis, surveillance, detection, reporting and 
inspection.  Thus the project aims to develop a framework that underpins all other regionally-based 
SPS activities, including harmonization of border inspection protocols.  
So far the project has set up separate servers in pr oject member countries, which will be linked to a 
regional server at KEPHIS in Kenya.  While Tanzan ia and Uganda have face d problems due to power 
cuts and weak and expensive internet access,  they now have their servers running. 
 The project has created partnerships and, working within organizations at the technical, managerial 
and policy levels, brought together a mixture of expert s.  For example, at the last meeting in Lusaka in 
April 21-25, 2008, the project invited high level gove rnment officials and managers to signal their 
commitment to the project.  The meeting also  provided an opportunity for regional economic 
communities, such as SADC and COMESA, and other stakeholders to create awareness of their activities and their role in the EAPIC. 
  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 39 
 
 
  The project has also been training NPPO personnel, pa rticularly in database management.  The project 
will soon appoint a programme manager to be funded by  FAO for two years.  One of this person’s key 
roles will be to prioritise training with EAPIC.  Since the project started, a list covering 2300 pests and diseases has been established.  Further, Kenya 
has obtained approval for the export of three fresh pr oducts to the United States on the basis of pest 
risk assessments prepared and subm itted with help from the EAPIC. 
 
Capacity-Building Needs Assessment 
 
This project resulted from an FAO/WHO Regional C onference on Food Safety for Africa, held in 
Harare, Zimbabwe, in 2005.  The action plan from the conference recommended that FAO should 
"lead a diagnostic study of the regional food safety s ituation in order to determine the most urgent 
regional needs and priority areas for improvement". 
  At the same time, FAO was developing tools to 
assist national food control agencies to assess their capacity building needs in the area of food safety 
as part of its capacity building activities. 
 The Assessment of Capacity Building Needs of the Food Control System was conducted in Kenya, 
Tanzania and Uganda by three local consultants co ordinated by one international consultant.  This 
assessment  followed procedures stipulated in one of the need assessments tools created by FAO, 
namely Strengthening National Food Control Systems:   A Quick Guide to Assess Capacity Building.  
Thus it had the dual purpose of testing the effectiveness of the guide and assessing the capacity-
building needs in food safety and quality of Keny a, Tanzania and Uganda, as well as Laos and 
Cambodia. This work was funded by the Norweg ian government within the FAO/Government of 
Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement and formed part of the FAO project 
FNOP/INT/103/NOR B2 Objective 1:  ‘Improved F ood Safety and Quality at the National Level and 
Along the Food Chain.’  The focus of this project wa s to identify the main components of the national 
food control system in each country and use the guide to evaluate the capacity of food safety systems in the countries.    The capacity-building needs assessme nt guide was successfully applied in the three countries and a 
draft report, including a detailed action plan prepar ed.  Subsequently, a stakeholder consultation was 
held in each country at which feedback was obtained and an agreed final version of the action plan for 
each country was adopted by the government.  Sin ce these action plans were agreed, FAO has made 
efforts to engage with the three country government s towards the implementation of the action plans.  
To date this engagement has progressed most in Ta nzania, where existing plans towards the reform of 
food safety capacity were already in existence.  At  the time of this survey, engagement with the 
Kenyan government had been largely put on hold due to political turmoil in the country. 
 
Advanced Training Programme on Qu ality Infrastructure for Food Safety 
 
The main objectives of the three week training were: 
 
• To expose practitioners from developing countries to international standards on good practice 
 
• Train them on systematic development of food safety policies. 
 
• Allow these practitioners to go back to guide development of food quality and safety systems 
and policies in their countries and promote it among the relevant stakeholders in their 
countries.  
 
The team from Uganda was made up of four members; two members from the Ministry of 
Agriculture, one member from the Ministry of H ealth and one member from the Uganda National G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 40  
 
  Bureau of Standards (UNBS).  Tanzania was represented by four members, one each from the 
Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Coop eratives (MAFSC), Depart ment of Fisheries, 
Tanzania Food and Drug Authority (TFDA) and Tan zania Food and Nutrition Centre (TFNC).  Upon 
completion of the SWEDAC training the trained offici als returned to their co untry and worked for six 
months on a policy document draft which they later presented at workshop in Nairobi in August 2007.   
 
Global Salm-Surv training programme on Labora tory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne Diseases 
for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa  
The WHO Global Salm-Surv (WHO-GSS training cour se on Laboratory-Based Surveillance of Food-
borne Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern Africa was mounted in Kenya from 29 October to 
2 November, 2007. It was initiated by WHO after a Global Salm-Surv Strategic meeting in Nyon, 
Switzerland in May 2007 by WHO-GSS steering comm ittee partners.  The curriculum was developed 
and revised for the regional context by a WHO expe rt in Africa.  Pathogens chosen for the course 
were non-typhodial Salmonella  and Vibrio Cholerae .  The course offered laboratory work and 
theoretical training.  Basic concepts about laborat ory-based surveillance and practical case study were 
undertaken.  
Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS Compliance in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea 
 
This study was undertaken at a cost of US$18,000 in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea to indentify 
and quantify the costs of compliance with SPS standa rds faced by exports of tropical products.  The 
study was initiated in 2004 and completed in 2006,  following an UNCTAD expert meeting on market 
access at which Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea requested standards-related assistance.  In 
Tanzania, the World Bank took charge of the study  with the intention that estimates of costs of 
compliance would be derived and actions reco mmended to build capacity, particularly for 
EurepGAP/GlobalGAP compliance in production and distribution systems in Tanzania.  The study, 
which involved producers, exporters, business bodies, enterprises and institutions, identified both 
‘macro’ and ‘micro’ costs of compliance.  Macro costs included public and semi-public expenditures 
(for example training, infrastructure and equipment upgrading, inspection, testing, etc), while micro costs included set up and recurrent costs borne by  companies (for example purchase of equipment, 
training, implementation of management systems, etc).  The study also developed a comprehensive 
set of tools which can be used by the private and p ublic sectors to test and im prove food safety control 
systems.  A national workshop was held in Tanzan ia based on the findings from the three countries.  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 41 
 
 
  ANNEX II - ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRES 
In order to gauge the impact of training, the trainers carried out assessment to determine the  extent to 
which the course impacted the skills and knowledge  level of participants.  A summary of the 
responses to completed questionnaires is provided below in Table 1.  
Table 1.  Summary of questionnaire responses 
 
PROJECT Activity 
EAPIC WHO SWEDAC UNCTAD 
Project Design 
Project type Pilot Ongoing Pilot Pilot 
What the project sought 
to address Plant health Food Safety Animal Health 
Food safety 
Plant health General SPS capacity General SPS 
capacity 
Project initiator Donor identified 
need Request from 
beneficiary  International 
organization Donor identified 
need Request from 
beneficiary  Request from 
beneficiary  
Project designer Donor and 
beneficiary 
collaboration Donor and 
beneficiary 
collaboration Donor and 
beneficiary 
collaboration Donor 
Needs assessment done? Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Needs assessment for 
specific need done? No No No No 
Needs assessment as part 
of a broader assessment of needs? Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Consideration of relevant 
ongoing or completed projects Designed as a 
follow up to other previous  donors Designed as a 
follow up to other previous  donors Pilot project Pilot project 
Enough time given to 
preparation of project? 60-80% 80-100% 60-80% 80-100% G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 42  
 
   
PROJECT Activity 
EAPIC WHO SWEDAC UNCTAD 
Beneficiaries consulted 
during project preparation National plant 
protection organizations FAO COMESA 
African Union 
Centre for Integrated Pest Management Trainers from 
beneficiary countries Content of 
programme presented to a regional institution  
relevant to the 
programme Public and 
private sector through a national workshop 
Implementation 
Who implemented the project? Donor Beneficiaries 
(trainers and participants from 10 African 
countries) Independent 
contractor Beneficiaries World Bank 
Extent of beneficiary 
participation project 
implementation? 60-80% 40-60% 80-100% - 
Specific role of 
beneficiary in project implementation Meetings 
venues, Developing meeting agendas, 
objectives 
Developed pest list protocols Local 
organizations acted as trainers Arranged training facilities 
and 
accommodation Participation in 
4 weeks training Nine month-national project Workshop 
presentations - 
Difficulties with 
beneficiaries during implementation Resources to 
purchase servers No No - 
Responsibility for 
monitoring project Donor 
Beneficiary Beneficiary 
International organization Independent 
contractor World Bank 
Extent to which project 
met objectives, timelines 
and budgets 80-100% 80-100% 60-80% -  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 43 
 
 
   
PROJECT Activity 
EAPIC WHO SWEDAC UNCTAD 
Changes made during the 
project Objectives of 
meetings adjusted to progress None None - 
Who requested changes 
project changes? Donor 
Beneficiary None None - 
Evaluation 
Evaluation No; peer 
evaluations as groups met and discussed Yes Yes - 
To what extent project 
continued after funding? 80-100% 60-80% 60-80% - 
To what extent 
beneficiaries can sustain 
project? 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% - 
Was capacity for 
sustainability assessed in project design? Yes Yes Yes - 
Outputs 
Extent to which outputs 
were achieved 80-100% 80-100% 40-60% 80-100% 
Factors determining 
outputs Commitment by 
NPPOs and institutions, Dialogues and troubleshoot-ing 
in meetings Good course 
content Appropriate time allocation to lectures and 
presentations 
Laboratory exercises Lack of time 
Lack of local funding Local 
commitment through the national workshop 
Achievement of higher-order objectives Yes No No Don’t know G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 44  
 
   
PROJECT Activity 
EAPIC WHO SWEDAC UNCTAD 
Outputs (continued)  
Specific higher-order 
objectives achieved Institutional 
capacity of 
NPPOs Harmonization of pest lists to decreased pest 
and disease 
burden Long term 
institutional 
capacity of public health institutions - - 
Good Practice  
Project cycle Collaboration 
between donors 
and beneficiaries Collaboration 
between donors 
and beneficiaries - An initial study 
is a good basis 
for a project Dissemination of country needs through the 
workshop 
Achievement of higher-order objectives Decreasing pests 
and diseases 
Harmonising border inspections Market access 
Regional 
collaboration Help enhance 
laboratory based 
surveillance and Food-borne diseases Improved food 
safety will 
enhance market access The programme 
filled a gap on 
SPS knowledge capacity at a national level Pilot project for 
East African 
countries to create a national platform for SPS issues 
Provided tools 
for policy planning - 
 
 
PROJECT Activity 
EAPIC WHO SWEDAC UNCTAD 
Replicable aspects of good practice Long term 
objectives 
Internet based databases Harmonization of SPS border 
controls Joint planning, 
designing 
Joint implementation  A holistic policy 
approach to SPS 
issues Based on policy action plans can be identified for  
intervention Organization of 
workshops for 
greater dissemination of information 
Extent to which project 
was cost effective 80-100% 80-100% 60-80% 80-100% 
  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 45 
 
 
  ANNEX III - IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE 
Standards and Trade Development Facility 
Good Practice in SPS-related Technical Cooperation 
Country-level Follow-up Research 
 
Project Design  
1. What elements of good practice were there in the design phase of this project? 
• How was the project initiated? 
• What role did beneficiary's have in initiating and/or designing the project 
• How did priorities in national development stra tegies feed into the initiation and/or design 
of the project? 
• What use was made of needs assessment in the initiation and/or design of the project? 
• To what degree was there local and/or regional political support for the project?  How 
was this assessed and facilitated? 
• How were the goals of the project articulated?  How clearly? 
• What were the objectives of the project? 
• What indicators were specified to assess the degree to which these objectives were 
achieved? 
•  What synergies existed with completed a nd/or ongoing activities in the same area? 
• How was the potential sustainability of the capacity developed by the project assessed 
• How much attention was given to the sustai nability of the capacity developed in the 
project design? 
 
Implementation 
 
2. What elements of good practice were there in the implementation phase of this project? 
• To what degree was their local ownership?  How was this promoted? 
• To what degree were beneficiaries involved in the implementation of the project?  How 
was this promoted? 
• To what degree was the private sector involved in implementing the project?  How was 
this promoted? 
• What partnerships were estab lished with beneficiaries, other donors, etc. as part of the 
implementation of the project? 
• What flexibility existed in the project  to address unforeseen challenges and/or 
circumstances? 
• What synergies existed with other related ac tivities, including by other agencies, donors, 
etc? 
• How was the project and its anticipated outco mes communicated within and/or outside of 
the beneficiary country? 
• How was the project managed?  What challenges were faced in this? 
 
Project Outputs 
 
3. What elements of good practice were there in the project outputs? 
• What were the expected outcomes of the pr oject?  How were these defined?  How were 
they monitored and/or assessed? 
• To what extent did the project deliver the expected outcomes?  How was this assessed? G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 46  
 
  • What factors influenced the delivery of these outcomes? 
• Were there any unexpected issues that constrai ned the ability of the project to deliver the 
defined outcomes? 
• Were there any unexpected outcom es, either positive or negative? 
 
Project Impact 
 4. What elements of good practice can be identified with respect to the impact of the project? 
• Did the project have the anticipated im pacts on the beneficiary country and/or 
stakeholders therein? 
• What was the project’s contribution to achievement of higher-order objectives: 
o  Improved market access 
o Enhanced animal/plant health status. 
o Income generation. 
o Poverty alleviation. 
o Reduced incidence of food-borne diseases. 
• Were any systematic evaluations undertaken of the impacts of the project? 
• What more circumstantial/informal evidence is there of the impacts of the project? 
• What factors beyond the project have influenced (positively or negatively) the impacts of 
the project? 
 
Good Practice 
 
5. Overall, what are the key lessons for good prac tices in SPS capacity building which emerge from 
this project?  
• To what extent do beneficiaries consider the project to be an example of good practice? 
• To what extent were particular aspects of the project design or implementation 
innovative? 
• To what extent did the project make a co st-effective contribution towards achieving the 
objectives set? 
• What experiences or lessons from the project  could be replicated by other technical 
assistance activities inside or outside the country? 
• Are there any examples of the project, or elem ents of it, being replicated elsewhere?  
What specific examples do you have? 
• If the project were to be done again, what  do you consider should be done differently?  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 47 
 
 
  ANNEX IV - PERSONS INTERVIEWED IN STUDY COUNTRIES 
NAME TITLE INSTITUTION 
TANZANIA 
Ms Analice Anatol 
Kamala Officer Tanzania Food Nutrition Centre 
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 
Mr Benny Gration 
Rushunju Officer Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security 
and Cooperatives 
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 
Mr Hosea Gonza 
Mbilinyi Deputy Director Ministry Of Natural Resources And 
Tourism, Fisheries Division 
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania 
Mr Didas Mutambingwa Manager, Quality 
Management Tanzania Food And Drugs Authority, 
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania 
Mr Faustine Masaga Chief Standards Offi cer Tanzania Bureau Of Standards, 
Dar Es Salaam Tanzania 
UGANDA 
Nsimbe Bulega Principal Fisheries 
Inspector Department Of Fisheries Resources 
Ministry Of Agriculture, Animal 
Industry And Fisheries, Entebbe 
Uganda 
Mr Michael Kawalya Export Quality And 
Production Manager Icemark Africa Ltd, Kampala Uganda 
Mr James Kanyije Managing Director Icemark Africa Ltd, Kampala Uganda 
Mr Musa Kuggudu 
Muwanga Coordinator National Organic Agricultural 
Movement Of Uganda, Kampala, 
Uganda 
Ms Irene Wanyenya Senior Certification 
Officer Uganda National Bureau Of Standards, 
Kampala, Uganda 
Ms Proscovia Nankya Director Agro-Consultants, Kampala Uganda 
Mr Umran Kaggwa Horticulture Advisor Agribusiness Management Associated 
Ltd, Kampala Uganda 
Mr Fred Ssango Rural Development 
Specialist Agribusiness Management Associated 
Ltd, Kampala Uganda 
Mr Abdulkarim Farid 
Karama Managing Director Sulma Foods Limited, Kampala 
Uganda 
Dr Francis Ejobi Professor And Head Of 
Department Department Of Preventive Medicine 
And Public Health, University Of 
Makerere, Kampala, Uganda 
Mr Patrick Mulabe Production Coordinato r Biofresh Uganda, Kampala Uganda 
Dr. Robert Karyeija Principal Agricultural 
Inspector Crop Protection Department, 
Ministry Of Agriculture, Animal 
Industry And Fisheries, Entebbe 
Uganda 
 KENYA  
Mrs Ruth Nyagah Managing Director Africert, Nairobi, Kenya 
Mr Kang’ethe Njuguma General Manager Ansa Horticultural Exports, Nairobi, 
Kenya 
Dr Kinyua Murimi Plant Pathologist Kenya Agriculture Research Institute, 
Nairobi, Kenya 
Mr Simon Maina Managing Director M yner Exports Ltd. Nairobi, Kenya G/SPS/GEN/871 
Page 48  
 
  NAME TITLE INSTITUTION 
Kenya (continued) 
Dr Lloyd Garcia Regional Sps Advisor Us. Agency For International 
Development East Africa, Nairobi, 
Kenya 
Mr Francis Wario Agronomist Fresh Produce Association Of Kenya, 
Nairobi, Kenya 
Dr Washington Otieno General Manager, 
Phytosanitary Services Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate 
Service, Nairobi, Kenya 
Dr Esther Kimani Head, Phytosanitary 
Services Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate 
Service, Nairobi, Kenya 
Mr Ephraim Muriuki Managing Director Wamu Investments, Nairobi, Kenya 
Mrs Nancy Gitonga Consultant Fish Africa, Nairobi, Kenya 
Mr Robert Sanaya Assistant Research Officer Centre For Microbiology Research, 
Kemri, Nairobi Kenya 
Mr Jason Kamunya, Training Manager Homegrown, Nairobi Kenya 
Mrs Margaret Mutinda- Technical Administrator Homegrown, Nairobi Kenya 
Mrs Susan Wasike Regional Training 
Manager Homegrown, Nairobi Kenya 
Mr Christopher Nzuki Assistant Out Grower 
Manager Homegrown, Nairobi Kenya 
Mr John Simione Out Grower Mana ger Homegrown, Nairobi Kenya 
Mr Mathew Munyau Out Grower Ma nager Homegrown, Nairobi Kenya  G/SPS/GEN/871 
 Page 49 
 
 
  ANNEX V - LITERATURE CITED OR USED 
 
DeLong, S., and Carlson, V. (2007). Trainers’ Report: WHO Global Salm-Surv (WHO-GSS) Kenya 
Level 1 Microbiology Course , Nairobi Kenya, October 29-November 3. 
 
FAO/WHO (2005). Final Report. Regional Conference on Food Safety for Africa , Harare, 3–6 
October 2005 . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 
 FAO (2006). Assessment of Capacity Building Needs of th e Food Control System United Republic of 
Tanzania .  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 
 
FPEAK (2007). Horticultural Insight , Quarterly publication of the fr esh produce exporters of Kenya, 
Issue 6, September –December 2007.  Gascoigne, D. (2007). Identification of Parameters for Good Practice and Benchmarks for judging 
the Impact of SPS-Related Technical Assistance. R eport for the Standards and Trade Development 
Facility, Geneva.  Herikstad, H., Motarjemi, Y., and Tauxe, R.V. (2002) Salmonella surveillan ce: a global survey of 
public health serotyping, Epidemiology and  Infection.  129, 1–8. 
 
Molins, R., and Masaga, F. (2006). Assessment of  Capacity Building Needs of the Food Control 
System United Republic of Tanzania, Under Project  FNOP/INT/103/NOR B2 Objective 1: ‘Improved 
Food Safety and Quality at the National Le vel and Along the Food Chain’, July 2006. 
 National Task force on Horticulture (Kenya) (2008) . Brief on Pesticide Initiative Programme in 
Kenya.  
 
PIP (2005). Mid-Term Review of the Pesticides Initiative Programme .  COLEACP, Brussels. 
 SIDA (2008). Quality Infrastructure for Food Safety and Quality, http://www.sida.se/?d=160&language=en_US
. Accessed 27 August 2008. 
 
Suiter, K., Garcia, L. and Stinner, R. (2008). Building Sanitary/Phytosanitary (SPS) capacity in East 
Africa . PowerPoint presentation. 
 World Bank (2005). Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards: Challenges and Opportunities 
for Developing Country Exports.  World Bank, Washington DC. 
 WHO (2008). Global Salm-Surv key activities, http://www.who.int/salmsurv/activities/en/index.html
, 
Accessed 22 August 2008.   
__________