OVERVIEW OF GOOD
PRACTICE IN EAST AFRICA
Spencer Henson & Oliver Masakure
International Food Economy Research Group
Department of Food, Agricultural & Resource
Economics
University of Guelph
OVERVIEW
‘Good practice’ benchmarks
The projects
Examples of ‘good practice’ across projects
General principles of ‘good practice’
Conclusions
‘GOOD PRACTICE’ BENCHMARKS
Challenges:
Timeframe – interventions verses impacts
Attribution:
Multiple interventions
Natural evolution of capacity
Multi-factorial impacts
Partial capacity-building
Differing scope of interventions
Metrics:
Process
Impacts:
SPS-related managerial capacity
Higher-order objectives
n t -
u D
o t e
HIERARCHY
f i mOF SPS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
o a
b n n
a a d
s l i
i n
c S g
t
A ‘ r R
wg u i
a o c s
r o t k
e d u
n r M
e p e a
s r s n
s a a
c &g
&t e
i R m
r c o e
e e l n
c ’ e
HIGHER-ORDER IMPACTS
Metrics:
Enhancement of SPS status
Enhancement of trade performance:
Value/volume of exports
Unit value of exports
Access to new markets
Impacts on livelihoods/poverty
Differential impacts:
Gender
Vulnerable groups/regions
Large versus small firms/farms
CASE STUDY PROJECTS
Pesticide Initiative Programme (PIP) (EU)
East Africa Phytosanitary Information
Committee (USAID)
Food Control Capacity-Building Needs
assessments (FAO)
Advanced Training Programme on Quality
Infrastructure for Food Safety (SWEDAC/SIDA)
Global Salm-Surv Training Programme on
Laboratory-Based Surveillance of Food-Borne
Diseases for Anglophone Central and Eastern
Africa (WHO)
Study on Costs of Agri-Food Safety and SPS
PESTICIDE INITIATIVE PROGRAMME
Extended duration
Basic awareness raising/information provision
Flexible work programme
Multi-tiered approach:
Public/Private
Regulatory measures/Private standards
Individual/Collective
Levels of SPS capacity
Engagement with private sector:
Demand-driven
Cost-sharing
Local capacity-building for service provision:
Individuals
Materials
EAST AFRICA PHYTOSANITARY INFORMATION
COMMITTEE
Recipient role in project genesis
Significant degree of local control/ownership
Ability to evolve
Local capacity linked to regional capacity
Regional cooperation & coordination
Flexibility across countries:
Basic capacity
Higher-level capacity
Critical capacity developed to attract other
donors
FOOD CONTROL CAPACITY-BUILDING NEEDS
ASSESSMENTS
Standard framework
Project team:
Local consultant
International consultant
Stakeholder engagement
Efforts towards political ‘buy-in’
On-going engagement
ADVANCED TRAINING PROGRAMME ON QUALITY
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FOOD SAFETY
Needs assessment
Scheduling & organization
Extended engagement:
Length of training programme
Follow-up
Practical elements
Two-way engagement between participants
and instructors
Project work
Nature of participants
GLOBAL SALM-SURV TRAINING PROGRAMME ON
LABORATORY-BASED SURVEILLANCE
Adaptation to local context
Combination of theoretical & practical training
Extended training programme
Mixture of participants
Establishment of informal network of
practitioners
Use of local facilities
STUDY ON COSTS OF AGRI-FOOD SAFETY AND SPS
COMPLIANCE IN TANZANIA
Standard methodology
Local consultants
National dissemination workshop
Public & private sectors
n t -
u D
o t e
HIERARCHY
f i mOF SPS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
o a
b n n
a a d
s l i
i n
c S g
t
A ‘ r R
wg u i
a o c s
r o t k
e d u
n r M
e p e a
s r s n
s a a
c &g
&t e
i R m
r c o e
e e l n
c ’ e
EVIDENCE OF HIGHER-ORDER IMPACTS
SPS status
Trade flows
Livelihoods/Poverty
COMMON AREAS OF LESS ‘GOOD PRACTICE’
Supply-driven model still often prevails:
Needs identified externally
Broader external priorities
Local engagement in capacity-building can be
limited
Often limited attention to ‘capacity to build
capacity’
Rigorous assessments remain the exception
Much assistance remains fragmented & partial:
Multiple interventions
Failure to address fundamental constraints
Predominant focus on public sector
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ‘GOOD PRACTICE’
Demand versus supply-driven technical
cooperation
Needs assessment
Flexibility
Practitioner networks
Active learning
Linking skills development to practice
Selection of beneficiaries
Establishing local capacity-building capacity
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ‘GOOD PRACTICE’
Taking account of prevailing local capacity &
needs
Sequencing and connectivity of capacity-
building efforts
Assessing and monitoring progress
Role as ‘honest broker’
Market distortions
Political support
CONCLUSIONS
Can identify areas of ‘good practice’ across the six
case studies
Key role of project design in context of donor policies
Can identify some general principles of ‘good
practice’
Some ‘traditional’ modes of assistance remain.
Challenge is to employ ‘good practice’ more
generally
Biggest challenge relates to higher-order impacts:
Bringing about real change
Identifying & measuring that change
Key role of coincidence of interest
