A.1.1.

Policy and legal drafting process (6 Criterion) Analyses the existence of a food safety and quality policy and legislation of
high quality, appropriate for its context, comprehensive and transparent. Two key areas are reviewed: first, an appropriate policy framework, where clearly
articulated food safety and quality policies exist and are implemented through strategic plans that spell out CAs actions; and second, the existence of formal
procedures for the policy and legal drafting processes and for the accessibility and publication of the legislation. The procedures should endorse comprehensive
and participatory drafting processes, ensuring that the resulting food control system is inclusive, appropriate for the national context and clear on rights and
responsibilities of CAs and on their technical independence and impartiality.
No. Evaluation criterion Source of Evidence Elements for assessing the performance of Gap Score Recommendations
(indicators) the criterion according to the FAO/WHO for strengthening
assessment tool (possible indicators) the national food
control system
1 A.1.1.1 Clear policy >>Policy document. > A clear policy document:  Farm-to fork 4.0 Ethiopia has make
guidance is available for >>Documented i. Outlining the national goals, overarching approach were a tremendous
food safety and quality. commitment to food objectives, priorities and activities to ensure stated but not effort by becoming
safety and quality (e.g. food safety and quality; Yes it is include in clearly address in the few African
Yes activity by CAs such the FNP a preventive countries who
as workshops, ii. Stating the commitment to achieve these approach developed a food
activities, records, goals; Yes safety policy as
recent legislation). iii. Giving precedence to consumer part of their FNP.
protection, in particular consumers’ health; However, a
Food and nutrition Yes separate and clear
policy of Ethiopia iv. Highlighting a preventative approach by FSP and/or FNS as
(2019) [1] FBOs and CAs, supported by adequate guidance for food
capacities of intervention and response. Yes safety and quality
> The document takes into account national should be
specificities (e.g. in areas such as food developed by also
production and consumption patterns, considering the
consumer concerns, stakeholder interests, FSMP that will be
existing and planned government structures). developed after
No completing this
> Evidence that there are resources assigned assessment tool.
to food control. Yes
2 A.1.1.2 Food control >>Documented plans. >Existence of one or several complementary There is enough no 4.0 There are
strategic plans are >>Implementation strategic plans for food control activities. consolidation food strategies
prepared by Competent reports. Yes control of results developed at
Authorities (CAs) and Food and nutrition from different CAs. national level
translate into action the strategy (2021) [2] > Consolidated results deriving from (FNS), ministry
overarching objectives EFDA and other food implementation plans documented and (MOA) and
 set out in the food safety agencies analyzed. No authority (EFDA)
and quality policy. proclamations [3] level but these all
Yes strategies are
scattered are not
well consolidated
and have not
common
understanding and
consensus among
stakeholders. FNS
addresses
nutrition, safety
and security all
together which is
not manageable
and mask food
safety issues
3 A.1.1.3 Food safety and >>Documented > Existence of written principles and Regulatory 1.0 Regulations are set
quality policy and principles and procedures guiding the process for drafting/ assessment of the and done as per
legislation are procedures for policy updating food safety and quality policy and policy or any legal principles but the
developed on the basis and legal writing and legislation and reflecting the elements cited options were not regulatory impact
of written principles and updates. above. Yes considered much. assessment is still
procedures that enable >> Texts of the > Inter-agency involvement and approvals, a gap to be
comprehensive and policies/legislation. perspectives and interests are taken into consolidated.
participatory processes >> Written or verbal account. Yes-see in in the policy
and ensure “fit for confirmation on how > Existence and practice of regulatory impact
purpose” results. the procedures were assessment: all major consequences of
followed in particular policy or legal options are
Yes development of food considered and, if necessary. No
policy and legislation. > Broad consultations are carried out and
>> Interviews with the stakeholders are involved in food safety and
groups/stakeholders quality policy and legal formulation,
consulted (including including in the field with people directly
central and local affected and not only in a distant capital city.
authorities, producers, Yes
consumers, scientific > Upon enactment of the law, such
and academic staff, the stakeholders have a formal role in the
tourism industry and institutional structures for policy and legal
 private sector formulation and review established (e.g. they
organizations). may be included among the members of the
EFDA and EAA/ other country’s food board or council). Yes
food agencies > There is a clear provision in
proclamations [3] legislation/regulations providing for periodic
review, and ex-ante and post-factum
regulatory impact assessments. No
4 A.1.1.4 Legislation >>Legislation. At national level: No protocol or 1.0 Key Issue
recognizes the >>Records of > Policies and legislation that expressly procedure for risk Risk
stakeholders’ right to notifications to the recognize and regulate the responsibility for communication Communication
have access to WTO (under the SPS governments and stakeholders to exist so far within Protocol or
information on food and TBT agreements), communicate potential food hazards and to and among the Procedure should
control measures WHO (INFOSAN) and have access to information, particularly in CAs. be developed by
(including sanitary and trade partners. case of emergency. Yes CAs to improve
quality requirements) >>Registry of > Clear procedures for publicizing food risk
and includes provisions information, records. safety measures, requirements and communication
on publicizing them. >> Educational legislation. Yes There is a within and
resources. > Conferences, workshops and publications procedure for food between CAs.
Yes  EFDA proclamation for professional groups. Yes-food safety day alert notification
no 1112/2019 Art 17 > Mechanism for stakeholders to request system but for
(2) and Regulation access to information regarding food control there is no enough
No. 531/2023 Art. 5 legislation (in preparation or enacted). Yes- procedure for
(9) [3] see EFDA website publicizing food
> Protocol/procedure for risk communication. safety measures
 Other food control No taken during EFDA
agencies like EAA At international level: day to day
proclamations) [4] > Clear procedure for notification to activities.
international partners and organizations,
including IHR and WTO. No Currently EFDA
 EFDA website [5] Mechanism for stakeholders to request access uses INFOSAN
to information. Yes, There are accesses such platform for food
as EFDA website, free call 8482, EFDA social safety alert
medias, and request by official letters, in- communication but
person and others. not for IHR and
WTO
5 A.1.1.5 Legislation is >>Primary and > Core obligations are easily found in 4.0 In the future
unambiguous and secondary legislation, legislation. Yes-Mandated of all CAs is legislations, CAS
allows for evolution administrative outlined in their respective proclamation. should make sure
 over time. decisions, inspection > Definitions in legislation are not mixed up legislations are
Yes reports. with substantive obligations. Yes unambiguous and
>> Appeals and court > Each article in food safety legislation has allows for
cases (to assess normative value (i.e. a reason to be there, not evolution over
difficulties in serving as filler). Yes time by
interpretation). > Terms defined in the main act are not considering the
>> Food inspectors` repeated and do not have divergent elements in the
views of the clarity of definitions in the regulations. Yes several elements to
the law (e.g. level of > There is good distribution between primary it.
understanding, and secondary legislation. Yes
consistency of > Basic legal provisions establishing
implementation). mandates and functions or relating to
>> Stakeholders` views fundamental rights are found in primary
regarding clarity, legislation. Yes
understanding and > Subsidiary instruments serve the purposes
implementation of the and objectives of the main act and do not
law. create powers or procedures. Yes
Mandated of all the > Style and form of legislation, as well as the
CAs [6]. drafting process, are consistent with the
Such as EFDA expectations of national stakeholders. Yes-
proclamation no MOJ format used
1112/2019, regulation > Resources are provided to enable
531/23 and other
implementation by CAs. Yes, The Ethiopian
directives and
government allocate the budget/ resource by
annual base
EAA Proclamation
> Number of court cases related to
discrepancies in interpretation of the
legislation is recorded. Yes
6 A.1.1.6 CAs make >>Policy document. > Food safety and quality policy statement Decision should be 4.0 CAs should
decisions in a consistent >> Documentation of anchoring CAs’ technical independence, as often should be develop a
and impartial manner CAs’ decision-making impartiality and integrity. Yes –EFDA and Risk based by mechanism so that
and are free of improper process. EAA proclamations following a risk they can make
or undue influence or >> Interviews with > CAs’ technical decisions supported by analysis decisions in a
conflicts of interest. staff. evidence and sound scientific information frameworks. consistent and
>> Records in the and, when appropriate, risk-based. Yes impartial manner
Yes media. > Statements or evidence of respect for CAs’ There are some and free of
technical decisions. Yes reversal of CAs improper undue
 EFDA and EAA > Mechanisms to ensure equal and impartial decisions influence and
proclamations behavior of bodies receiving delegation of sometimes due to Conflict of interest
tasks. Yes Conflict of interest from FBO and
> No reports of reversal of CAs’ decision for and illegitimate Government.
illegitimate reasons. No reasons

List of Source of Evidences Obtained from CAs

1. Policies- Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

 National Nutrition Program NNP I (2013-2015)
 National Nutrition Program NNP II (2016-2020)
  National Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture Strategy 2017
 Ethiopian Food and Nutrition Policy 2018
2. Strategic Plans-
 National Food and Nutrition Strategy 2021
 National Food Safety and Quality Strategy for Primary Agricultural Produce 2023
 Postharvest Management Strategy 2023
 The 5 years strategic pans in each CAs
3. Legislative Drafting Procedures-
 The Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Proclamation No. 1/1995
 Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Proclamation
No.1097/2018
 Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Proclamation No.
1263/2021
 Ethiopian Public Health (Amendment) Proclamation No. 200/2000)
 The legal notice No. 147/1950
 Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization Establishment (Amendment) Proclamation 382/2004
 Animal Diseases Prevention and Control Proclamation no. 267/12002
 Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration Commission Establishment Proclamation no. 238/2001
 Trade Competition and Consumer Protection Proclamation No. 813/2013
 Ethiopian Public Health Institute Establishment Council of Ministers Regulation No. 301/2013
 Ethiopian Food and Medicine Administration Proclamation No. 1112/2019.
 Ethiopian Agricultural Authority establishment proclamation No. 1263/2021
 The Addis Ababa City Government Executive Organs Re-Establishment. Proclamation No. 64/2019,
4. Stakeholder Consultation Reports-
 A Synthesis Report: Game Changing Solutions to Transform Ethiopia’s Food Systems 2022
 National food safety system assessment report 2022

List of Source of Evidences Obtained from CAs

5. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture (1976). Meat inspection Amendment. Proclamation No.81/1976.
6. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture (1992). Plant Quarantine Council of Ministers Regulation No. 4/1992.
 7. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1995). The Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Proclamation No. 1/1995.
8. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2009). Food Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control. Proclamation No. 661/2009.
9. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture (2011). Veterinary Drug and Feed Administration and Control.
Proclamation No. 728/2011.
10. Addis Ababa City Government (2012). Proclamation to Establish the Addis Ababa City Government Food, Medicine and Health Care
Administration and Control Authority. Proclamation No. 30/2012.
11. Ibid., Addis Ababa City Government, 2012.
12. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2013). National Nutrition Program NNP I (2013-2015).
13. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2016). National Nutrition Program NNP II (2016-2020).
14. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2017). National Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
15. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2018). Definition of Powers and Duties of the Executive Organs of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia. Proclamation No.1097/2018.
16. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2018). Food and Nutrition policy Ethiopia. November.
17. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2019). Food and Medicine Administration. Proclamation No. 1112/2019. (EFDA), E.F. and D.A.
(2019) ‘The food and medicine administration proclamation (No. 1112/2019)’
18. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2019). See Footnote #10.
19. Addis Ababa City Government (2019). The Addis Ababa City Government Executive Organs Re-Establishment. Proclamation No. 64/2019.
20. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2021). National Food and Nutrition Strategy.
21. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2022). A Synthesis Report: Game Changing Solutions to Transform Ethiopia’s Food Systems.
22. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture (2023). National Food Safety and Quality Strategy for Primary
Agricultural Produce.

Summary of Key Issues and Gaps Identified on the National Food Safety and Quality Policy and Legal Drafting Process

1.
A.1.2. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK (7 Criterion) Features the elements that contribute towards an effective and
efficient institutional framework for food control. A comprehensive, coherent and consistent distribution of mandates among CAs to ensure food
safety and quality throughout the whole food chain should be complemented by mechanisms that ensure relevant and timely communication to
exchange relevant information, as well as coordination among CAs to develop a common vision of food control. CAs, and their key staff, should
also have all the necessary powers and responsibilities to carry out their mandates, while sufficient safeguards and appeal mechanisms should be
in place to prevent abuse of power. (Food inspection)
No. Evaluation criterion Source of Evidence Elements for assessing the performance of the Gap Score Recommendations
(indicators) criterion according to the FAO/WHO for strengthening
assessment tool (possible indicators) the national food
control system
7 A.1.2.1. Mandates of >>Legislation (food > National legislation includes a clear allocation There are grey 1.0 Key Issue
CAs involved in food safety, pesticides, of the functions and responsibilities of CAs, areas in this Avoid duplication
control, at central and customs, local including: context where and mandate
decentralized levels, are authorities, i. Central and decentralized entities, including mandates are overlap that occurs
clearly defined in veterinary). regional/local authorities (subnational level); overlapped sometimes and
legislation and ensure >> Interviews with Yes make regional
an efficient distribution different ii. Domestic, import and export controls over At federal level authorities to have
of roles and government entities different types of production and processing there is a clear clear allocation of
responsibilities among at the central and (agriculture, livestock, fisheries, etc.). Yes allocation of roles and
CAs, over the entire decentralized levels. > The roles and responsibilities of each CA are functions and responsibilities be
food chain. formulated unambiguously to: responsibilities, minimized and
For example EFDA i. Prevent gaps; Yes should be taken as
while most of
Yes and EAA semi- ii. Minimize overlaps and duplication of a collaborative
regions don’t
processed mandate functions and resources (e.g. multiple agencies juncture rather
have clear
overlap in the inspecting an FBO); Yes/No
allocation of
proclamations []. iii. Avoid duplicative bureaucracies (e.g.
functions and
application to multiple agencies required for
responsibilities
obtaining a license or permit). No
Where local (subnational) authorities contribute of CAs
to food safety, they have clear roles and
.Even though,
procedures to implement legislation and clear
there are
reporting channels. No
subnational
authorities still
there is no clear
roles and
procedures to
implement
legislations
8 A.1.2.2. A formal >>Documents, > Track record of information officially shared There is no clear 0.0 Key Issue
communication reports, documented through one mechanism that allows different communication A formal
 mechanism is in place communication stakeholders in the food control system to share mechanism or communication
between CAs and other exchanges. information they generate as useful input for platform b/n and mechanism should
stakeholders involved other stakeholders. No form the CAs. in place between
in food control, to > List of stakeholders involved in this CAs and other
exchange relevant information-sharing mechanism. No There is no written stakeholders
information over the > Documented agreement on: communication involved in food
entire food chain, from i. Which information should be shared; No plan as well. control,
primary production to ii. When the information should be shared; No
human health. iii. Who needs to report the information; No Miscommunication
> Evidence that this mechanism is in operation and lack of
No (e.g. written communication plans, reports from communication
an outbreak debrief about how the teams will has been a huge
work better together, etc.). No challenge to
complete this tool
itself.
9 A.1.2.3. Legislation >>Legislation (food > MoUs, inter-ministerial working groups, The coordination 1.0 Key Issue
includes coordination safety, pesticides, specific bodies or entities, or other coordination and collaboration Coordination and
mechanisms that enable customs, local mechanisms that involve: between CAs is not Collaboration
CAs to develop a authorities, i. Authorities in charge of agricultural inputs, enough between CAs to
common vision of food veterinary). customs, trade, human health and other areas. promote common
control, to facilitate >>MoUs or other Yes, There is a MoU between EFDA, EPHI, vision of food
multi-sectoral planning legal mechanisms MoTRI, Customs office and others and also control,
and implementation of that facilitate there are inter-ministerial working groups for multisector
food control measures, coordination. specific food safety related activities but still planning and
and to promote >>Focal points for there is a gap. implementation
communication. communication ii. Decentralized functions; Yes that promotes
between CAs. iii. Delegated functions; Yes communication.
Yes >>Interviews with iv. Distribution of functions and duties among The
different all these institutions. Yes communication
government entities > Regulated procedures for the collection and needs to be
at central and sharing of information. No strengthened.
decentralized levels. > Inspection procedures and manuals that
>>Instruments include provisions on the flow of information.
related to the food No
safety and quality > Institution with the responsibility to monitor We propose
policy (such as food food safety across the food chain. No In National food
safety strategy, food Ethiopia, food control system is multi-agency safety steering
safety inspection system which makes it difficult to monitor each committee and
 plan). CAs across the food chain. technical working
>>Documented > Legislation referring to a common document group who can
coordinated food that explains how food safety will be monitored look after the CAs
control measures and controlled in a coordinated manner in all
carried out in the stages of the food chain (food safety
past. strategy/control plan). No, There are national
There is a MoU food and nutrition strategy, final national food
between EFDA, safety strategy (independently developed by
EPHI, MoTRI, EFDA and MOA), these all are not properly
Customs office and implemented, not commonly understood
others and also there among stakeholders so far.
are inter-ministerial > Local authorities having clear procedures to
working groups for report back the information. No , Even-though,
specific food safety there are assumptions among EFDA and
related activities regional regulatory authorities to have common
understanding on planning and reporting still
there is a gap to report back the information
> Good communication between CAs in the There are
areas of food production and human and communications
animal health. No but not satisfactory
> Evidence of communication exchanges among There are
CAs during the implementation of food control communication
measures. No, Not much. exchange among
some of CAs but
not with all and
not satisfactory
10 A.1.2.4. Legislation >>Legislation. > Legislation includes the power of the CAs to Even though, there 4.0
provides the CAs with >> Information and implement the list of tasks described in para 39 are some local food
all the necessary powers feedback received of CAC/GL 82-2013 (also indicated in the control authorities
and responsibilities to from the guidance above). Yes such as A.A, Dire-
implement the law, government, > Legislation clarifies the powers and dawa, Somali have
within their mandate. different agencies, responsibilities of local food control authorities legislation which
Yes local authorities and and how these are coordinated with the food tries to clarify the
public and private control authorities at the central level. Yes powers and
stakeholders responsibilities but
most of local
Refer to EFDA administrations
Proclamation no doesn’t have
 1112/2019, regulation legislations of their
531/2023 and others own and refer the
like EAA federal legislation
proclamation. for food control
system. The
coordination issues
are not well
clarified
11 A.1.2.5. If appropriate, >>Legislation. > Legislation on delegation of specific functions Delegation is not 1.0 Key Issue
legislation allows the >> Information and (e.g. inspection, audit, certification, clearly outlined in Legislation should
CAs to delegate some feedback received accreditation, risk assessment and other CAs legislations clearly state
functions to other from the scientific work), clearly designating who can be delegations related
public or private government, commissioned to do what, the timeframe and to food control
entities. different agencies, purpose of the delegation, and reporting activities like
local authorities and obligations. No, inspection, testing,
Yes public and private > Legislation conferring on the CAs the power audit, certification
stakeholders. to authorize public or private laboratories to etc.,
carry out official analyses on their behalf. No,
. Even-though, delegation of functions to other
public or private are not clearly delegated in the
legislations but there are practices where EFDA
delegate some functions to public and private
entities (for examples: laboratory testing,
regulatory requirement assessment, and others)
12 A.1.2.6. Legislation >> Legislation. > Clear provision exists on the designation of 4.0
provides designated >> Inspection food inspectors. Yes, see CAs mandates
officials with the reports, complaint > Clear provision exists on recognition of the
necessary authority to and investigation powers of food inspectors in primary legislation
carry out their reports. (as indicated in points (i) to (x) in the above
mandates, and sets >> Appeals, court guidance). Yes
sufficient safeguards to cases. > Powers are accompanied by the necessary
prevent abuse of power. safeguards to help prevent abuses of power and
Refer proclamation corrupt practices. Yes
Yes 1112/2019 > Inspectors must hold a valid identification
>> Discussions with card and identify themselves prior to an
stakeholders, inspection. Yes see EFDA and EAA, ECAE
inspectors. inspectors IDs.
> An FBO’s right and obligation to accompany
 See sample the authorized inspector during an inspection is
inspection reports recognized. Yes
of from EFDA, > Inspectors must send a written report,
ECAE or EAA including any justification, for a required
corrective action, providing notice to operators
Refer draft food in case of adverse findings or actions. Yes, see
GMP sample inspection reports of EFDA, ECAE or
implementation EAA
directive and e-RIS
I-license system
13 A.1.2.7. Legislation >> Legislation. > There is a clear provision in There is lack of 4.0
provides an array of Refer to EFDA legislation/regulations listing: more appeal a per
effective enforcement Proclamation no i. Enforcement provisions. Yes the enforcement
provisions as well as the 1112/2019, regulation ii. Offences. Yes provision
right to appeal decisions 531/2023 and other iii. Penalties for non-compliance. Yes, see sub
made by the CAs. like EAA section of EFDA, ECAE, EAA and other CAs
proclamation. There is a provision stating that any person
Yes aggrieved by an action or decision of an
authorized officer or an official analyst may
appeal to a designated entity within the
prescribed time frame. Yes see EFDA appeal
clause

List of Source of Evidences Obtained from CAs

1. Ethiopian Food and Medicine Administration proclamation 1112/2019

2. MOUs sign between EFDA and stakeholders
3.

List of Source of Evidences Obtained from CAs

4. Any Overarching Food Control Legislation-

 Meat inspection (Amendment) Proclamation No.81/1976
 Plant Quarantine Council of Ministers Regulation No. 4/1992
  Pesticide Registration and Control Proclamation No. 674/2010
 Veterinary Drug and Feed Administration and Control Proclamation No.728/2011
 ES 929:2021
 Public health proclamation of Ethiopia, No. 26/1947
 The legal notice No. 147/1950
 Public health proclamation No. 200/2000
 Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Council of Ministers Regulation No. 299/2013
 The Trade Competition and Consumer Protection Proclamation No. 813/2013
5. List of CA Committees, Membership, Terms of References and any Minutes-
 Food Safety Working Group
 Food Safety Project Steering Committee
 National Codex Committee (NCC)

A.1.3. ELEMENTS OF FOOD CONTROL LEGISLATION (12 Criterion) Ensures that the legislation includes all
the technical provisions necessary to implement food control activities and achieve the overarching objectives set in the food safety and quality
policy. For this to happen, the food control legislation should apply to all steps of the food chain in a coherent manner. FBOs should have the
primary responsibility for food safety and should be registered to enable proper oversight by CAs. The principle of risk analysis should be used as
a basis for establishing food safety measures, while CAs should be legally empowered to provide regulatory oversight both on food production
and on food imports, and to adjust their controls according to the level of risk. CAs should also be legally responsible for setting up efficient rapid
alert, emergency preparedness and response systems, in line with international commitments and for surveillance of priority FBDs. National
legislation recognizes the primary responsibility of food business operators (FBOs) for food safety and quality and lays out their specific
obligations, including placing only safe foods on the market and recalling products that do not meet the prescribed standards. (Food Legislation).

No. Evaluation criterion
14 A.1.3.1. National
legislation recognizes the
primary responsibility of
food business operators
(FBOs) for food safety and
quality and lays out their
specific obligations,
including placing only safe
foods on the market and
recalling products that do
not meet the prescribed
standards.
Yes
Source of Evidence Elements for assessing the performance of the Gap Score Recommendations
(indicators) criterion according to the FAO/WHO for strengthening
assessment tool (possible indicators) the national food
control system
>> Legislation. > Food control legislation expressly recognizes Implementation 4.0
 Refer the primary responsibility of FBOs for food as outlined in
proclamation safety and quality. Yes the legislation
1112/2019 article > Food control legislation expressly prohibits by FBOs is very
5(1) of EFDA FBOs and other actors in the food chain from poor to deliver
and others like putting unsafe food on the market for safe food only.
EAA consumption. Yes
> Food control legislation recognizes the
 refer obligations of food operators to:
proclamation i. Notify regarding potential food safety
1112/2019 article hazards, keep records, introduce self-control
9(10 schemes, etc. Yes
ii. Recall from the market products that do not
 refer meet the standards (and provides CAs with the
proclamation power to mandate recalls). Yes
1112/2019 > Legislation includes a reference to
article17(2) mechanisms for the government to "control"
FBOs, starting with identifying and recording
 refer them, using registration or other licensing
proclamation schemes. Yes
1112/2019 article
6, respectively.

A.1.3.2. Food control >> Legislation. > Evidence that the legal texts (one or several) As the country 1.0 Key Issue
15 legislation applies to all cover all aspects and stages of the food follow multi
steps of the food chain in a Federal and regional production chain. Yes sectoral food Food control
coherent and coordinated legislations > Evidence of coherence in the legal provisions regulatory legislations should
 manner. applying to the food chain. Yes approach the be drafted in a way
EFDA and EAA > Legislation is “user-friendly” in terms of legislations are that avoids
Yes mandate overlaps accessibility. Yes fragmented. ambiguity and
> No evidence (e.g. stakeholder, FBO reports) of Primary duplication/overlap
gaps, duplication, contradictions or outdated agricultural of mandates and
measures. No, there is duplication at times product functions.
> Food control legislation is not in conflict with regulation
any other legislation relevant to food safety and under the MOA There should be a
quality and does not result in duplication or and semi- way to alignment
ambiguity in the functions of relevant processed and (harmonization) of
institutions. No, there is at times ambiguity and processed foods legislation between
duplication under the federal and
mandate of regional (sub
EFDA national states)
There are some legislation to food
overlaps and control.
duplication on
the mandate of
CAs.

Moreover,
between federal
and regional
(sub national)
authorities
A.1.3.3. The definitions >> Legislation. > The definitions in the law cover the key 4.0
16 used in food control terms. Yes
legislation are clear, See all CAs > The definitions correspond to key Codex
unambiguous and proclamation definitions when they exist (e.g. food, hazard,
consistent with risk). Yes
internationally recognized > Definitions do not include terms with different
standards (e.g. Codex interpretations. Yes
Alimentarius).

Yes
17 A.1.3.4. Legislation >> Legislation. > Legislation expressly refers to the principle of Risk Analysis 1.0 Key Issue
introduces the principle of >> Feedback from risk analysis. Yes, but not understood well by knowledge and Risk analysis
risk analysis and this is government officials. the CAs. skill in limited principles capacity
 used as a basis for >> Communications > Legislation includes a mechanism for among CAs building in CAs.
establishing food safety commissioning risk incorporating Codex guidance on risk even if
measures. assessment from risk assessment and management. Yes legislation
assessors. > Food control and inspection legislation introduce the
Yes >> Risk assessment introduce approaches based on risk analysis. principle of risk
reports. Yes analysis.
> Evidence exists that risk assessment or
Refer proclamation scientific advice has influenced operational Address this in
1112/2019 article 5(2) approach, supporting decisions on the choice of dimension B
risk management options and the expenditure (control
Refer proclamation of resources (money, staff time). No, there is no function) and D
1112/2019 article 5(4) much risk assessment report and this should be (science base)
of EFDA addressed as part of dimension D as well.

Refer proclamation
1112/2019 article 5(2)
of EFDA

A.1.3.5. Legislation Refer proclamation > Risk-based controls (e.g. inspection, audit, Risk based skill 4.0 Risk based
18 includes provision for 1112/2019 Part three verification); sampling and analysis explicitly and knowledge implementation in
inspection, monitoring and and seven of EFDA mentioned in legislation, providing powers for is lacking and the control
control of the food supply and also EAA… food inspection and implementing monitoring should be functions
for hazards. programmes (A.1.2.3). Yes implemented as
> Legislation authorizing CAs to perform public outlined in the
Yes health functions, including surveillance legislations.
(A.1.3.12), and including the authority to take
and analyse samples as part of food-borne Address this in
outbreak and incident investigations. Yes dimension B
(control
function) and D
(science base)
A.1.3.6. Legislation >> Legislation. > Clear provision in legislation/regulations 4.0
19 includes provisions for refer proclamation stating that no article of food shall be imported
setting import 1112/2019 Article 10 unless it meets the import requirements, is
requirements. of EFDA accompanied by the prescribed documents, and
is offered up for inspection by the CA at the
Yes Refer import and port of entry. Yes, EFFDA and EAA
export directive of proclamation about import requirements

20 A.1.3.7. Legislation
includes a mechanism that
enables CAs to identify all
FBOs throughout the food
chain.
Yes
21 A.1.3.8. National food
EFDA > Legislation including provisions for
collaboration with other border agencies to
Refer consignment ensure the efficacy and efficiency of import
test guideline of controls. Yes, such as customs, MOTRI, MOH
EFDA etc.
> Import requirements and monitoring
Refer import and designed on the basis of risk. Yes
export directive and > Legal provision enabling controls in countries
food registration of origin, equivalence and trade agreements.
directive Yes, MOTRI trade agreements
> Legislation enabling the CA to require
>> Legislation. relabeling or reconditioning prior to import, as
well as to destroy, detain or re-ship items that
Of EAA about do not comply with their import requirements.
primary agricultural Yes,
input and produce?? > Requirement that importers apply for the
relevant permits from the appropriate authority.
>> Trade agreements Yes,
MOTRI ???? of
COMESA, AcFTAE
etc
>> Legislation. > Specific provision in legislation regarding FBOs are 4.0 Key Issue
>> Information authorization/registration/licensing of FBOs. registered when It would be better if
collected from the Yes, EFDA and EAA legislation and directive they apply and there is one single
CAs and from other > Legislation including one single registration or there a lot registration and
entities (trade, licensing scheme for all FBOs or different unregistered licensing scheme
business license schemes for different types of FBOs. FBOs in the for all FBOs by the
registration). Yes, different license schemes for primary and country. same CAs “farm to
processed FBOs. fork” and at federal
Ex, the Information > Mechanisms allowing CAs to obtain and sub national
exchange b/n EFDA information about FBOs from other entities such states.
& MOTRI on process as authorities issuing business/trade licenses,
(integration of trade customs or the census. Yes, registration and
portal and e-RIS) certificate of competence is for example a
prerequisite to get trade license for FBOs by the
trade offices.
>> Legislation. > Standards are based on Codex standards. Yes Standards are 4.0 Key Issue (ESI)
 standards, regulations and
guidelines provide an
appropriate foundation for
food control, and these are
based on Codex or other
international reference
standards.
Yes
22 A.1.3.9. Legislation
includes an obligation to
ensure food traceability
from farm to fork.
Yes
23 A.1.3.10. Legislation
includes a provision for a
rapid alert system,
emergency preparedness
and response.
Yes
>> Guidelines. > Standards are adapted in language and not developed Standards should
content to the national legal drafting style, and taking into be developed with
Refer all food create clear obligations and responsibilities. Yes account of the the consideration
standards in ESI > Standards are developed taking into account countries of the country
website or see the the needs of the country (diversity of food testing and needs and
catalogue of produced and offered to consumers, including resource enforcement/
standards developed imported products). Yes availability. implementation
> Standards are consistent with national capacities.
so far.
enforcement and implementation capacities
For example, only (technical capacity and resource availability, for
40% of the standards CAs and other personnel). No
as enforced in the
country. ESI.
>> Legislation, > Clear provision in legislation requiring the Traceability in 1.0 Traceability system
subsidiary establishment of a system for traceability (e.g. practice is 0.0 ?? not yet established
legislation. obligation for FBOs to establish and implement minimal. It is in food supply
a system enabling them to identify any person only on paper. chain.
who supplied or to whom they supplied a food-
producing animal, food or substance intended
to be or expected to be incorporated into a
food). Yes/No ??
> Subsidiary legislation that sets out the features
of the traceability system (e.g. type of
information to be kept as records, allocation of
batch/lot numbers, and labelling requirements
relevant to traceability). Yes/ No ??
>> Legislation and > CAs are required by legislation to approve Rapid alert 4.0 Key Issue
regulations. and implement a food safety emergency plan system, Beyond legislation,
>> Food safety that sets out a system to respond to food safety emergency a rapid alert
emergency plan. events and outbreaks of FBD, which involves a preparedness system, emergency
multidisciplinary response team and and response and preparedness
EPHI, public health coordination among CAs. Yes, but not much are there in and response plan
emergency magt plan pratical some ways in with coordinated
(2009). > Legal provisions exist to require FBOs, where the country but effort should be
appropriate, to notify CAs of food safety issues are not fully implanted in the
EFDA Food alert and implement preventive measures. Yes, EPHI implemented to country.
system guideline legislation and directives all food safety
> Legal provision is made for communication of diseases.
 food safety events between the public health
authorities and other CAs in charge of food
safety. Yes, but not fully implemented to all
food diseases.
> Legislation includes clear responsibilities for
accurate risk communication with the public in
case of food emergency, and with trading
partners if the emergency is of potential
international nature. Yes,
24 A.1.3.11. Legislation >> Legislation. > Clear provisions in legislation Beyond 4.0 But it needs a good
contains requirements for >> Advertisements, i. Stating that every package of food intended legislation is follow-up for
food packaging, labelling labels and packages. for sale in the country shall bear a label which missing here packaging and
and advertising. >> Feedback collected sets out such particulars as may be prescribed also in terms of labelling.
from (at the minimum: name of the food, ingredients strict
Yes list and quality indications, weight or volume, implementation. A good control of
CES 99, Labeling name and address of the manufacturer, country advertising.
requirement of origin, instructions for use, storage and date
marking). Yes
Refer proclamation ii. Stating that these particulars should be
1112/2019 Article indicated in a language easily understood by
53,54 and 55 and CES the consumer. Yes
73 and also refer food iii. Containing food safety requirements for
registration directive. material intended to come into contact with
food products, including food packaging. Yes
Refer proclamation iv. Regarding nutritional labelling. Yes, CES 99
1112/2019 article 58 v. Regarding basic requirements for food
and food advertising to protect the consumer (e.g. rules
advertisement prohibiting false health claims, rules prohibiting
directive No. and penalizing the marketing of unhealthy
foods – particularly those high in saturated fat,
salt and free sugars, to children – with
misleading claims and allegations). Yes,
25 A.1.3.12. Legislation >> Legislation. > A priority list of FBDs or syndromes for 1.0
includes provisions for EPHI legislation mandatory surveillance, including reporting.
surveillance of priority >> List of priority No, there is cholera only. Priority are not listed
FBDs, guided by the food diseases. except for a trial by TARTARE risk
safety and quality policy. TARTRE list only, prioritization workshop and research done
Yes, >> Procedures for > Procedures for surveillance and reporting.
surveillance and Yes, evidence??EPHI
reporting.
Not much, except
guideline for foods
not FBPs Market
surveillance

List of Source of Evidences Obtained from CAs

1.

List of Source of Evidences Obtained from CAs

1. Ethiopian Food and Medicine Administration proclamation 1112/2019

2. EFDA e-RIS system
3. Post Market Surveillance guideline EFDA
4. Food Advertisement Directive No. …EFDA

List of Source of Evidences Obtained from CAs

2. List of Legislation (Laws, Regulations and Standards)-

 Meat Inspection Proclamation No 81/1976
 Plant Quarantine Regulation No. 4/1992
 Veterinary Drug and Feed Administration and Control Proclamation No. 728/2011
 Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Council of Ministers Regulation No. 299/2013
 Ethiopian Revenues and Customs Authority 2017- Customs Guide