phytosanitary capacity evaluation 20121120...with surpluses within the sadc region is hampered by...

FANRPAN

PHYTOSANITARY CAPACITY EVALUATION FOR THE HaSSP PILOT COUNTRIES AND THEIR STATUS TO HARMONIZE THEIR REGULATORY

FLAMEWORK FOR SEED

Misheck M.M Soko1 and Arundel Sakala2. September, 2011

1 Chief Agricultural Research Scientist, Bvumbwe Agricultural Research Station, P.O. Box 5748, Limbe, MALAWI

2 Principal Scientist and Head of NPPO, Mt. Makulu Central Research Station, P.O. Box 35099, Chilanga, ZAMBIA

Page | 3

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer The Evaluation team would like to express their sincere thanks to members of staff in the National Plant Protection Organizations, Seed Services Units the Ministry of Agriculture officials, members of the seed industry who dedicated their time to provide valuable information for compilation of this report. Special thanks also go to the heads of NPPO and FANRPAN support staff that provided the logistical arrangements for the missions. Their input directly contributed to the success of the missions. Dr Bellah Mpofu deserves special thanks for the guidance and logistical support, taking her precious time to edit the draft reports. Her comments were very valuable. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibility of the authors and the views expressed herein imply non-endorsement by the contributors of the information or any other party.

Page | 4

Acronyms and Abbreviations ASSMAG Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group CD Capacity Development COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa COPE Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence CPM Commission for Phytosanitary Measures DARS Department of Agricultural Research Services EAC East African Community FANRPAN Food, Agriculture and Natural Recourses Policy Analysis Network FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FUM Farmers Union of Malawi GART Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust HaSSP Harmonized Seed Security Project IPPC International Plant Protection Convention ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measure ISTA International Seed Testing Association MDG Millennium Development Goals MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives NAMBoard National Agriculture Marketing Board NASFAM National Association for Smallholder Farmers in Malawi NEPAD New Partnership for Agricultural Development NPPO National Plant Protection Organization PC Phytosanitary Certificate SADC Southern Africa Development Cooperation SOP Standard Operating Procedures SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures SSN Seed Security network TOT Training of Trainers PCE Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation PRA Pest Risk Analysis PQPS Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Services UN United Nations WI work Instructions WTO World Trade Organization

Page | 5

Executive summary 1. The economies of Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe are agricultural-based, with seed as the main

input. Seed therefore determines the level of production, productivity, and consequently determining food

security at household, national and regional level.

2. Trade in seed is usually restricted by different pieces of legislations, with phytosanitary measures being the

main ones. These measures are “justifiably” framed and imposed to prevent introduction and spread of pests

of quarantine importance but may act as non-tariff barriers to trade.

3. Literature and gathered information has shown the countries under review have a diverse range of constrains in

their phytosanitary capacities with some having advances more than others. However one aspect that is

common is that all the countries are taking strides to improve their legal frameworks (Acts) through reviews.

This is to update the regulations themselves and also to improve the performance of the NPPO.

4. All pilot countries use relevant documentations as prescribed by the SPS Annex to the SADC protocol on Trade

and the IPPC the international standard setting body for phytosanitary and quarantine measures.

5. Harmonization of national pest lists with the SADC list has not been fully implemented, and only Zambia has

started the process with Swaziland planning to adopt the full list. This could be attributed to the capacity the

Zambian NPPO has been conducting PRA which is facilitated by the regional resource person in PRA who is

currently heading the NPPO.

6. Approval systems for seed movement in all countries as shown by the AFSTA reports follow almost similar

trends. The phytosanitary inspection in seed remains a challenge because of lack of in-country coordination

and resource allocation systems in place, which is to the disadvantage of the farmers. The Seed certification

system in place in all countries except Swaziland provide for revolving of proceeds from inspection fees.

Swaziland does not charge anything for the services they offer to the clients, except registration fees which is

very insignificant, to support any activity. This makes provision of scheduled inspections very challenging for

the phytosanitary sector.

7. There is need however to objectively look at how these capacities can be built so that both the legislation and

the implementation in the pilot countries are harmonized and seen to be supporting the safe movement of seed.

This will however need the individual Governments’ commitment. If a provision can be made through this

project to

Page | 6

Table of contents

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer ....................................................................................................... 3

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 4

Executive summary ............................................................................................................................ 5

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 9

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 The SADC-Harmonized Seed Security Project ...................................................................................... 10

1.3 The SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seed ................................................................. 11

1.2 Basic “technical” Provisions in the SPS Annex to the SADC Protocol on Trade (2008) ................................ 12

1.5 Membership and obligations ............................................................................................................... 12

1.6 Documentation and Procedures .......................................................................................................... 12

1.7 Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) Tool ...................................................................................... 13

1.6 Objectives of the Harmonized Seed Security project (FANRPAN-HaSSP) ................................................. 14

2.0 TORs .............................................................................................................................................. 14

3.0 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Desk study ...................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Field visits ....................................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Reporting ........................................................................................................................................ 15

4.0 Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Malawi ............................................................................................................................................ 16

4.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 16

4.1.2 Legal Framework ......................................................................................................................... 16

4.1.3 Institutional Issues ....................................................................................................................... 17

4.1.3.1 Documentation and procedures ............................................................................................... 18

4.1.3.2 Border Capacities .................................................................................................................. 18

4.1.3.3 Diagnostic Capabilities ........................................................................................................... 19

4.1.4 Pest Risk Assessment and Surveillance .......................................................................................... 20

4.1.5 Exotic Pest Responses ................................................................................................................. 20

4.1.6 Conformity with SADC phytosanitary measures ................................................................................ 20

4.2 Zambia ........................................................................................................................................... 26

4.2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 26

4.2.2 Legal framework .......................................................................................................................... 26


4.2.3.1 Documentation and procedures................................................................................................... 27

4.2.3.2 Border Capabilities .................................................................................................................... 28

Page | 7

4.2.3.3 Diagnostic Capabilities ............................................................................................................... 28

4.2.4 Pest Risk Analysis and Surveillance ............................................................................................... 29


4.2.6 Conformity with SADC Phytosanitary Measures ............................................................................... 29

4.3 Zimbabwe ....................................................................................................................................... 35

4.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 35

4.3.2 Legal framework .......................................................................................................................... 35


4.3.3.1 Documentation procedures ......................................................................................................... 36



4.3.4 PRA and Surveillance ................................................................................................................... 38



4.4 Swaziland ........................................................................................................................................ 41

4.4.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 41

4.4.2 Legal framework .......................................................................................................................... 41


4.4.3.1 Documentation and procedures................................................................................................... 42



4.4.4 PRA and Surveillance ................................................................................................................... 44



5.0 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 48

5.1 The harmonization process ................................................................................................................ 48

5.2 Contact points and information exchange ............................................................................................. 48

5.3 Proposed new areas of intervention ..................................................................................................... 48

5.3.1 Capacity Development.................................................................................................................. 48

5.3.1.1 Seed pathology training ............................................................................................................. 49

5.3.1.2 Plant Inspectors Training ............................................................................................................ 49

5.3.1.3 Pest Risk Analysis training ............................................................................................................. 49

5.4 SADC wide permit management system .............................................................................................. 49

5.5 SADC Plant Protection Committee ...................................................................................................... 50

5.4 Transparency ................................................................................................................................... 50

5.7 General Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 50

Page | 8

6.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 52

7.0 Appendices...................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 54

Page | 9

List of Tables Table 1a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Malawi

Table 1b: Summary of the available Facilities for Phytosanitary diagnostic activities in Malawi

Table 2: Proposed list of pests to be checked during export and import of seed in SADC1 and Malawi2

Table 3a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Zambia

Table 3b: Summary of the available Facilities for Phytosanitary diagnostic activities in Zambia

Table 4: SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seeds: Harmonized list of pests that require control

when seeds of important crops are traded between SADC countries.

Table 5a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Zimbabwe

Table 5b: Summary of the available Facilities for Phytosanitary diagnostic activities in Zimbabwe

Table 6a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Swaziland

Table 6b: Summary of the available Facilities for Phytosanitary diagnostic activities in Swaziland

Table 7: Country and all pilot-county analysis

Page | 10

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

Agricultural trade is faced with non-tariff restrictions of which sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures may be the most constraining to developing and least developed countries (LDCs) in terms of exploiting trade opportunities. National phytosanitary capacities therefore determine to a greater extent the ability of a country to access new markets and to ensure safe agricultural imports into its territory. Developing and LDCs with inadequate phytosanitary capacity are increasingly faced with the challenges of protecting plants and the environment, participating and representing their interests and concerns in international standard-setting organizations (ISSO) and meeting their international obligations (WTO, 1994; IPPC, 2011). Seed is a key input for improving agricultural productivity and ensuring food security. Seed security is a precursor to food security because availability of high quality seed sets the limits to crop production and productivity. Movement of seed from one SADC member state to another continues to be a challenge because of various pieces of seed legislation that have not been reviewed to the current reality by taking on board the contemporary applications. As a result, sourcing of seed by countries with deficits from those with surpluses within the SADC region is hampered by the diverse and fragmented phytosanitary legislations. The pieces of legislation that directly impact on seed availability in the region relate to, 1) crop variety release, 2) seed certification and quality assurance and 3) phytosanitary and quarantine systems. SADC Seed Security Network was established in 2001 as a project within the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) Directorate, to address the above challenges. The goal of the project was to contribute to improved food security through increased seed security and better disaster preparedness in the SADC Region, addressing in particular the needs of resource-poor, small-scale farmers whose seed systems are usually affected by recurrent disasters (SADC Secretariat 2008). Among the objectives of the SADC SSN was to harmonize the seed regulations and policies for the promotion of seed movement and trade in the SADC region (Seed Update, 2007). The adoption of the document meant that countries will start reviewing their national regulations so that they are in conformity with those of SADC protocols. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) ministers also made a declaration to harmonize seed regulations and policies at its 19 Member States meeting in Seychelles in March 2008, in order to assist member states access seed that is in short supply locally. This initiative will further augment the SADC initiative as would also embrace non-SADC member state, thereby expanding further the seed market and reaching even more farmers with good quality seed of improved varieties.

1.2 The SADC-Harmonized Seed Security Project

Following meetings in Maputo, Mozambique, 7−8 December 2005 of Permanent Secretaries responsible for Agriculture and Food Security and the SADC ministers responsible for Agriculture and Food Security that met on the 5th of February 2010 in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the implementation of the SADC harmonized seed regulatory system. The signed MOU has the following core elements:

• The SADC Variety Release System

• The SADC Seed Certification and Quality Assurance System

• The SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seed.

Page | 11

The Harmonized Seed Security Project (FANRPAN-HaSSP) was developed through a consultative process and represents a direct response of the Member States of SADC to the low availability and limited access by farmers in the region, to key agricultural inputs. The second output of HaSSP is to ensure that the phytosanitary policies in the region are aligned with the SADC protocol on Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures for seed. A needs assessment will guide efforts by FANRPAN to strengthen the capacity of National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) in the region so they can domesticate the protocol. This process began with the four pilot countries. The SADC harmonized seed regulatory system aims at improving seed trade and increasing the availability of high quality seed to farmers and producers in the region. It is to facilitate easier movement of seed between SADC member countries and make varieties more available throughout the region. The system has as an output the integration of small isolated national seed markets into a single large SADC seed market. A similar intervention is being championed by the COMESA to harmonize seed regulation within its member states. This further broadens the area of coverage of the initiative since COMESA has a wider coverage (COMESA, 2011).

1.3 The SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seed

The purpose of the SADC harmonized quarantine and phytosanitary measures for seed are to reduce the cost of doing business as related to seed trade, and encourage quicker and safer movement of seed. This will be reached through (i) establishment of transparent and science-based common standards and procedures for seed movement in the SADC region, supported by documentation; and (ii) through the introduction of rationalized SADC pest lists for the movement of seed between Member States, and seed from outside countries into the SADC region. Two rationalized pest lists have been introduced: (i) a SADC list of pests which require control when seed is traded between SADC Member States, and (ii) a SADC list of pests which require control when seed is traded into a SADC country from outside the region. The lists only include pests that are of economic significance, are not common in the SADC region, and are seed borne. The advantages for seed movement between SADC Member States with the rationalized pest list include:

• Testing and quarantine measures for seed are only required for pests which are not common in all SADC Member States, are seed borne, and are of economic importance;

• Since all SADC Member States are testing for the same pests, retesting of seed consignments on arrival in the importing country may be reduced and eventually no longer be necessary − except in cases where there are concrete reasons to assume that a new pest may be introduced;

• The need for a country to test seed which is to be re-exported after a period in transit may be reduced; and

• Since fewer pests will need to be checked for at entry points, clearance and entry of consignments will be faster. In the case of seed movement from a country outside SADC to a SADC country, the advantage is that when it has been established by the importing SADC country that the consignment meets SADC requirements then the seed can be moved to any other SADC country without further testing.

Page | 12

1.2 Basic “technical” Provisions in the SPS Annex to the SADC Protocol on Trade (2008)

The SPS Annex to the Trade protocol is based on international standards as set by the IPPC and also in conformity with the WTO SPS Agreement. Technical aspects which are fundamental in the harmonization of the Seed Quarantine and Phytosanitary legislation include:

• ARTICLE 8: Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection,

• ARTICLE 9: Adaptation to Regional Conditions, Including Pest or Disease-Free Areas and Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence;

• Article 11: Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures with ARTICLE: 7 (Equivalence) instituting recognition of the availability of alternative measures that provide appropriate level protection and;

• ARTICLE 8 (Transparency) making provision for notifying laws, regulations, procedures, requirements, Enquiry Point and National Committee details to the SADC Secretariat. Procedures for achieving Transparency are appended as Appendix A and for Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures as Appendix B.

1.5 Membership and obligations

Malawi, Swaziland and Zambia are members of both WTO and the IPPC while Zimbabwe is only a member of the WTO (www.ippc.org and www.wto.org ). Zimbabwe is however processing its membership to the IPPC. Amongst other things, these multinational organizations acknowledge the sovereign right of member governments to protect plant health and life within their territories (WTO, 1994). Even so, the members are obliged to ensure that phytosanitary measures they implement to achieve their appropriate level of protection are technically justified, risk-based, nondiscriminatory and least restrictive to trade. The WTO- recognizes the IPPC as the international organization to draft and adopt International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) with the objective to harmonize the regulatory and risk management procedures and actions applied by trading partners regarding the international movement of plants and plant products (WTO, 1994). Apart from all the countries being original members of the WTO, most of them are also signatory and beneficiaries to a number of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. These include the SADC Trade Protocol, COMESA, the Cotonou Agreement between the EU and the ACP countries (with the exception of Swaziland), and the US-AGOA initiative for concessional exports to the US market (except Zimbabwe). Bilateral agreements between the countries and other countries within and without the region, do exist.

1.6 Documentation and Procedures

As a basic provision, movement of plant and plant products must be accompanied by important standard documents whose application is as follows:

• Plant Import Permit: is issued by importing country authorizing the import of seeds in accordance with specified phytosanitary requirements. The Permit must accompany the plant materials including seed lots and be presented to inspectors at exit and entry points.

Page | 13

• Phytosanitary Certificate: is issued by exporting country and serves to certify that requirements specified on the Import Permit have been met by the exporting country. Phytosanitary Certificate must also be presented to inspectors at exit and entry points.

• Non-compliance Notification: is issued by the importing country and forwarded to the NPPO of the exporting country in cases where consignments of plant materials including seeds, and/or the accompanying Phytosanitary Certificates, do not comply with conditions set in the Plant Import Permit, and/or where a quarantine pest has been intercepted.

• Re-export Phytosanitary Certificate: this document is issued when a consignment of plant materials or seeds, is being stored and/or repacked by the importing country for re-export under circumstances which may expose the consignment to infestation or if the consignment stayed longer in a transit country than determined by the NPPO.

1.7. SADC Quarantine Pest List Under the SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seed, two rationalized pest lists have been introduced:

1. A SADC list of pests which require control when seed is traded between SADC Member States (Appendix 3); and

2. A SADC list of pests that require control when seeds are traded into a SADC country from outside the region (Appendix 4).

The lists only include pests that are of economic significance, not known to occur in the SADC region, and which are seed borne. It is envisaged that harmonization and adherence to the pest list will ensure that as seeds move between SADC countries:

• Testing and quarantine measures for seeds are only required for pests which are not common to all SADC countries;

• Re-testing of seed consignments on arrival in the importing country may be reduced and eventually no longer necessary except in cases where there are justifiable reasons to assume that a new pest may be introduced.

• The need for a country to test seeds which is to be re-exported after a period in transit may be reduced;

1.7 Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) Tool

The PCE was one of the first SPS-related evaluation tools developed. With support from New Zealand, a paper version was developed in 1999 and pilot tested in six countries. Following this testing it was revised, updated and expanded and converted to a software version and distributed on CD-ROM. It subsequently became known as the PCE Tool and in 2001 the Interim CPM agreed that the IPPC Secretariat should be responsible for its updating and maintenance. The PCE Tool has undergone further revisions and it has been translated into French, Arabic and Spanish; a multilingual CD-ROM version was released in 2004. The PCE has been applied in more than 77 countries and has been used effectively to focus attention on gaps in phytosanitary capacity, communicate findings domestically and focus project inputs from FAO and donor agencies. It has been used extensively in FAO TCP Trust Fund and Government Cooperation Projects.

Page | 14

During the assessments of the four pilot countries, questions and the line of thought was obtained from the PCE tool. However, it was not applied in the conventional way of having a group of stakeholders to provide national information.

1.6 Objectives of the Harmonized Seed Security project (FANRPAN-HaSSP)

The Harmonized Seed Security Project (FANRPAN-HaSSP) was developed through a consultative process and represents a direct response of the Member States of SADC to the low availability and limited access by farmers in the Region, to key agricultural inputs. FANRPAN is piloting the project in four countries - Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The overall objective of the project is to contribute to improved food security and poverty reduction through increased seed security and better disaster preparedness in the SADC region. The project seeks to domesticate and implement at national level the three SADC approved protocols which were the outcome of the SADC Seed Security Network project. FANRPAN will leverage on its partnerships and scale up the project region-wide (SADC, COMESA and EAC) and continent-wide through the African Union-NEPAD. The second output of HaSSP is to ensure that the phytosanitary policies in the pilot countries are aligned with the SADC protocol on Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures for seed. This needs assessment will guide efforts by FANRPAN to strengthen the capacity of National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) in the four pilot countries to domesticate the SADC protocol.

2.0 TORs

The consultants were to undertake a system-wide evaluation of the phytosanitary services of the four pilot countries. The objective of the assignment is to take stock of the phytosanitary capacity of the four pilot countries in order to establish the strengths and weaknesses that may impact on the implementation of the SADC protocol on Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures for seed. More specifically the Consultants were to undertake the following tasks;

1. Review literature on the HaSSP ;

2. Conduct a system wide phytosanitary capacity evaluation of the National Plant Protection

Organizations (NPPOs) of Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe to cover the physical

auditing of the complete quarantine and phytosanitary system relating to seed, including

laboratory procedures, infrastructure evaluation, availability and status of manuals, as well as the

associated paper trail (i.e. the complete administration of the system).

3. Evaluate the readiness of the 4 pilot countries to implement the requirements of the SADC

protocol on Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for seed, and identify gaps and report on

the status in each country;

4. For each country report on the status regarding use of the two rationalized pest lists that were

developed in SSSN Phase I;

5. Conduct a field visit to at least one port of entry in each country to assess capacity to implement

the requirements of the SADC protocol on Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for seed

6. Hold consultations with key informants;

7. Identify institutional and human resource capacity/knowledge gaps and training needs i.e.

conduct a training needs assessment.

Page | 15

8. Prepare a consolidated report with recommendations for development of capacity to implement

the SADC protocol in each country, and recommend appropriate infrastructure to enable

implementation.

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Desk study

As a first outcome of the assignment, a literature review of the status of phytosanitary policies and practices

in comparison with the requirements of the SADC protocol on quarantine and phytosanitary measures for

seed and use of the quarantine pest lists developed in SSSN in Malawi, Swaziland Zambia and Zimbabwe

was conducted to get some baseline information. Information was obtained from both published papers

both from internet (websites) and hard copies.

3.2 Field visits

In order to get first hand information field visits were done to all pilot countries. Each country was allocated three days of field visitations. This study followed a comparative approach and used aspects of the PCE tool of the IPPC to evaluate the national phytosanitary capacity levels of the four pilot countries namely; Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Swaziland. The consultants held discussions with NPPO, Seed Services units and other relevant stakeholders in the seed supply chains. Data was collected through non-structured questions to get information on legal, institutional and practical aspects of quarantine and phytosanitary practices.

3.3 Reporting

The consultants shared responsibilities with one tackling issues related to technical capacity and the other

tackling administrative issues. The two reports were put together as three reports; (i) literature review, (ii)

Country audit reports and (iii) consolidated evaluation report.

Table1. Timetable for visits and concurrent activities

Activity Output/Outcomes Timeline

Literature review and, phytosanitary capacity evaluation report.

Report on a) the status of phytosanitary policy and practice in the 4 pilot countries in comparison with the requirements of the SADC protocol on Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seed, and b) status with regards to use of the Quarantine Pest Lists developed in SSSN I.

30/07 – Report based on Literature Review, informant consultations and survey due.

Conduct audits in Malawi,

Swaziland, Zambia and

Zimbabwe

Audit Reports • 1 – 4 /8 = Malawi;

• 8- 11/8 = Zimbabwe;

• 15– 18/8 – Zambia

• 29/8 – 01/9 - Swaziland

Preparation of final consolidated report with recommendations.

Consolidated report. 30th August 2011- 30th October, 2011

Page | 16

4.0 Findings

4.1 Malawi

4.1.1 Background

Malawi is an agricultural base economy and the agricultural sector of Malawi is considered key to the economic development agenda of the country and dominates local and export production (MEPD, 2005). Agriculture in Malawi contributes to about 40 percent of the country’s GDP and directly supports approximately 85 percent of the population. The sector mainly comprises of estate and smallholder farms where estate farms mainly produce tobacco, tea, sugar, coffee, rubber and macadamia nuts. Smallholder farms mainly produce cotton, rice, groundnuts and tobacco (USAID, 2002). Major exports comprise tobacco, tea, sugar, coffee and cotton in that order of importance and account for 98.1 percent of major exports. Other export commodities include cut flowers, paprika, garlic, macadamia and cashew nuts (USAID, 2002). The government established, with assistance from donors, crop authorities for tea, coffee, sugar and tree nuts to promote smallholder production of these cash crops. There has also been a new initiative called the “Green belt” which according to its vision, will lead to more effective utilization of the available water resources. This will in turn lead to both an increase in production land and productivity which will also result in another increase in demand for inputs. (http://www.sadcreview.com/country_profiles/malawi/malawi.htm). SADC, the USA, and some Asian markets are Malawi’s most important export markets. Trade with SADC countries concentrates mainly on primary products such as tobacco, sugar and tea. South Africa is a major trading partner for Malawi (USAID, 2002). Seed provision in Malawi is guided by the National Seed Policy of Malawi (NSPM) of 1993, complemented by the Plant Protection and the Pesticide Acts. Its specific objective is to establish, through appropriate policies and programmes, an environment conducive for the development of a sustainable seed industry. The seed policy focuses on variety research and development; pre-basic, basic and certified seed production; quality control; ensuring seed availability through buffer stock schemes; and strengthening stakeholder collaboration. The policy is supported by the Seed Act (1996).

4.1.2 Legal Framework

The regulatory activities of the NPPO of Malawi are mandated by the Plant Protection Act 1969, the Pesticides Act 2000 and the Seed Act 1988 (USAID, 2002). Malawi’s plant health legislation meets the international requirements of the IPPC. The executive officer of the Plant Protection Act is the Minister of Agriculture and Food Security and implemented by the Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS). The Act controls the importation of plants, plant products and other living organisms and aims to prevent the introduction of foreign pests and diseases. This is extremely important because agriculture is the main stay of the economy with tobacco, tea, sugar and cotton as key exports crop for Malawi. The NPPO of Malawi is arranged under the National Research Coordinator (NRC) for Plant Protection in DARS. Plant Health Inspectors are located at international airports and border posts and report to their respective Regional Plant Protection offices. The Act does not cover GMO, which means that importation of GMO seeds is not allowed into the country. Use of GMO based materials is however covered under the Biosafety Act (2002)

Page | 17

The legislation has one list of quarantine pests which upon being noticed on plant and plant parts renders them liable for immediate destruction. It also has a list of plant and plant parts whose importation is prohibited without the minister’s written authority (Malawi Govt., 1969). However the pest list which is unfortunately in the Act has not been harmonized with the SADC pest list. It would be wise to have it in the regulations so that it becomes easily amenable to revisions, since pests are dynamic and therefore the pest lists. Malawi is a member of WTO, IPPC, OIE, IAPSC, and within the region, it is also a member of SADC and COMESA. The regulation called Plant Protection Act, Chapter 64 was enacted in 1969 and these have not been reviewed ever since. The Act provides for subsidiary regulations (schedule) which have been used since. Some in-house preliminary reviews of the schedule were initiated three years ago but these did not use the PRA process to derive the justifications for the pests for phytosanitary measures. The new requirements on genetically modified crops and commodities including seeds are regulated as a Government moratorium. With the challenges of lack of training for NPPO staff and the limited human resource in the plant protection division, no plant pest assessments have been done. It therefore follows that the NPPO has not yet began to harmonize with the requirements of the SADC Seed protocol.

4.1.3 Institutional Issues

Activities of the NPPO are spearheaded by the Plant Protection Commodity Group in the Department of Agricultural research Services whose core function is generation of disease management technologies. This provides a challenge where the officers charged with the running of NPPO activities have to also run two equally demanding tasks. This has in most cases resulted in divided attention with NPPO activities being seriously undermined. There are no special laboratories and special equipment procured and utilized for NPPO activities. This did not provide for a clear demarcation on what should be regulatory and what are normal advisory services. The only staffing level that has some clear status of belonging to the NPPO is the technicians which constitute Plant Health Inspectors. At professional level nobody belongs to this section. Although Malawi has an SPS committee, this committee is not very active and meets on an adhoc-basis and as resources allow. It was noted that there was very low inter-Ministerial interaction with very limited information exchange. The NPPO has a total of eleven (11) members of staff strictly on phytosanitary inspection and most of them are based at selected borders, with professionals supervising regional phytosanitary activities stationed at the three major research stations, namely: Lunyangwa Research Station in the North, Chitedze Research Station in the center and Bvumbwe Research Station in the south. Bvumbwe Research Station where the IPPC contact person and the National Enquiry Point are located is 200 km from the Capital. Due to the importance of tea, coffee and timber and timber products and the specialist requirements the DARS sub contracted the Tea Research Foundation and Forestry Research Institute to conduct all all Phytosanitary work in these crops. As was mentioned by the stakeholders, the NPPO is not visible and has challenges of human resource, transport and more often, did not have basic provisions to enable them to conduct scheduled inspection activities. This is because of the NPPO’s total dependence on funs apportioned from the research programmes. Though a cost is charged as payment for PCs, Import permits and Re-exports these funds are not revolved, they go into the central account. This has got negative implications on the sustainability of NPPO activities.

Page | 18

The NPPO has had no clear training program for its staff, despite the obvious skills and knowledge shortfalls in its staff. A plan has however been drawn with no budget allocation. Its implementation therefore remains at the discretion of the responsible office. The Seed Certification Unit is able to effectively implement its functions in a timely and smooth manner because the section has authority to appropriate funds that it charges for the services they provide. The Plant Health Inspectorate team conducts inspections for most of the export bound seed. In most cases there have been challenges where Phytosanitary inspection is required during active growth.

4.1.3.1 Documentation and procedures

Movement of seed as governed by the Plant Protection Act (1969) involves four types of documentation; the import permit, the phytosanitary certificate, non-compliance notification and the Re-export certificate. This is in conformity with the SADC and IPPC standard. For seed import there are variations in terms of conditions. Freedom from pest and diseases is universal, though there are provisions for seed treatment against specific pests. In some crops and for specific diseases, there is a requirement for Phytosanitary inspection during active growth. Three parties are involved in the import and export of seed; these are Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Security (for authority to import or export – national interest), the Seed Services Section (quality control and

certification purposes) and the NPPO (phytosanitary certification).

Commodities for export are inspected and must comply with the standards stipulated in the import permit of the importing country. Plant Health Inspectors inspect and certify the seed if they are satisfied that the seed lot meets the conditions stipulated by the importing country. Inspections are also conducted during active growth, though not usually by NPPO staff, who issue PCs. These inspections are conducted by the Seed Inspectors based on their field inspection protocols. This however has had some negative impact in that some farmers/growers would find an export market for seed that was initially not destined for export, therefore did not subject it to phytosanitary inspection and the importing country’s phytosanitary requirements stipulate declaration that the seed crop was inspected during active growth and found free from a specific pest. It follows therefore that an inspector cannot certify an inspection he did not conduct and this puts the farmer in an awkward situation.

4.1.3.2 Border Capacities

Of the 30 entry/exit points only six with active commercial activities are manned. This poses a very serious challenge when it comes to prevention of introduction and spread of pests. Most of the border staff have not had effective training as such their capabilities are limited. This is further complicated by serious shortfall in diagnostic equipment. Boarder connectivity is very poor since there is no boarder with internet connectivity. In any case there is strong reliance of phone communication. This however has its own challenges because allocation of airtime is at the discretion of management. Some stations make provision while others do not. Due to the limited human capacity and non-existence of a coherent training plan, the boarder inspection may not be very professional. Only two border posts have offices which belong to the department and only 3 have housing for staff. Only one border post has lab space though there are no examination benches and basic diagnostic tools, like dissecting microscopes, hand lens, sampling bags, just to mention a few.

Page | 19

4.1.3.3 Diagnostic Capabilities

The challenge of having the NPPO imbedded within the research does not provide a clear picture of where the diagnostic capabilities lie, and where the regulatory functions begin. However, it was noted that there was a shortfall in diagnostic equipment in the department and the same was the situation with number of diagnosticians (Table 1a and b). Some specialist such as entomology, virologist, bacteriologist are not readily available in the NPPO, hence assistance is usually obtained from Bunda College of Agriculture and Chancellor College of the University of Malawi. It must be mentioned that the level of activity related to Quarantine is not very high in some parts of the year and also depends on how good the season was in terms of crop production. The team was informed that there was a glass house at Bvumbwe Research Station which is normally utilized for post entry observations of sugar cane planting material and is supported by the sugar cane industry. The major challenge however is lack of space for other crops because sugarcane usually occupies all the cubicle space.

Table 1a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Malawi

Specialists

Number of persons

NPPO Research

• Mycologists 2 (MSc)

• Bacteologists -

• Virologists

1 (MSc)

• Weed scientists

-

• Aflatoxins specialist 1 (BSc)

• Entomologists 4 (PhD and MSc)

• Biotechnologists 2 (MSc)

• Nematologist

1 (MSc)

Table 1b: Summary of the available Facilities for the Phytosanitary diagnostic activities

Facilities NPPO Research Boarder Post

• Pathology (mycology, bacteology, nematology, virology) lab

2 -

• Biotechnology lab

1 -

• Closed Quarantine structures 1 1 -

• Virology lab

1 -

• Entomology Lab

1 -

Equipment

• Dissecting microscope/ hand lenses

<4 2

• Stereo Microscope

3 -

• Stereo Microscope Camera mounted

0 -

• Lamina flow hood

2 -

• ELISA Reader

2 -

• PCR machines

3 -

• GMO detection kits

- -

Page | 20

• Autoclaves

3

• Incinerators 1 -

• Sampling kit

Limited

Limited

• Sieves

2

• Grinders

2

• Reference materials

o Entomology

1

o Pathology

1

4.1.4 Pest Risk Assessment and Surveillance

Malawi has so far not conducted any formal PRA training for its staff hence PRAs have never been conducted. In addition to that, pest surveillances have never been on their schedule mainly because of lack of financial resources. Some members of staff at professional level have been exposed to elements of PRA but have not been able to impart that knowledge to its staff. It was obvious that training in PRA is priority. This would complement and strengthen the basis for drawing the quarantine pest list for the country. Some specially designed surveillance surveys have however been conducted benefiting from external programs. These include Banana bunchy top disease Bactrocera invendens (BI) and the Prostephenus trunchatus (PT or lager grain borer, (LGB) surveys. This poses a big challenge in the long run as justification for quarantine pests and Phytosanitary measures without the two elements may not be in tandem with both the regional and international Phytosanitary protocols.

4.1.5 Exotic Pest Responses

Due to the lack of an institutionalized surveillance system, Malawi has had no opportunity to record the presence of new pests let alone report presence of new pests. With the absence of the surveillance, response would not be achieved. It was also noted that Malawi is also a beneficially of the International Red Locust Control Organization of Southern Africa which is based in Zambia. The program covers Red Locust and other migratory pests, like army worms and queerer birds. For locusts surveillances are carried out every year in established breeding places. This program however is under the Department of Crop Development, despite the local officer being based at the NPPO.

4.1.6 Conformity with SADC phytosanitary measures

The lists of quarantine pests and diseases vary substantially between Malawi and the region. This is partly because Pest Risk Assessments have never been conducted over a long period of time due to costs involved and inadequate expertise. Thus apart from the Act and regulations being outdated, Malawi has not monitored changes in pest status over time (Mloza-Banda, et. al., 2010 and Soko M., 2011). As a result, the national quarantine pest lists include pests and diseases that are either regionally endemic, or of little economic significance. Some obvious shortfall in the Act relate to:

Page | 21

� Quarantine pest list and categories – Malawi has one based on pests and another based on

plant species and both are outdated.

� Definitions – SADC based on slightly newer version of ISPM 5 while Malawi is very old and

outdated.

� Elements of Equivalence not properly embedded in the Plant Protection Act of Malawi.

An analysis of the Phytosanitary capacity of Malawi by Korsten et al., (2006) also revealed that there are serious shortfalls in the capacity of the NPPO. Issues raised in the report included lack of poor equipment at the entry points and the central labs, limited human capacity and lack of visibility of the NPPO. Malawi has designated the National Enquiry Point (NEP) for Plant Protection and an IPPC contact point. Both of these are based at Bvumbwe Research Station. The National Notification Authority is Ministry of Industry and trade. Table 2: Proposed list of pests to be checked during export and import of seed in SADC1 and Malawi2

CROP PEST/Pathogen (SADC) Malawi

Zea mays L. (maize) Peronosclerospora phillipensis Cochliobolus heterostrophus

Sclerospora sacchari,

Xanthomonas stewartii

Drechslera maydis race T.

Cephalosporium maydis and Kabatiella.

Clavibacter michiganensis pv nebra

S. phillipinensis

S. Spontaneum

Brassica (cabbage) Tobacco rattle virus None

Triticum spp. (wheat) Tilletia indica Urocystis agropyri, Anguina tritici Khapra beetle,

Canal Bunt disease

Wheat streak virus.

Allium spp. (onion) Tomato black ring virus Urocystis cepulae

Ditylenchus dipsaci Onion yellow dwarf virus.

Tobacco rattle virus Ditylenchus destructor Ditylenchus dipsaci.

Phaseolus spp. (bean) Bean mosaic virus Viral diseases

Tomato black ring virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Corybebacteriaum flaccumfaciens

Vigna spp. (cowpea) Peanut stripe virus Corybebacteriaum flaccumfaciens

Helianthus spp. (sunflower) Tobacco ringspot virus Pseudomonas helianthi, P. chichori

Plasmopara halstedii

Capsicum spp. (pepper) Pepper mild mottle virus Xanthomonas vesicatoria.

Phytophthora capsici

Lycopersicum esculentum (tomato)

Tobacco ringspot virus Tomato big virus

Tomato black ring virus Potato spindle tuber virus,

Corynebacterium michiganense

Cucumber mosaic virus, Tomato spotted virus,

Page | 22

Tomato bunchy top virus

Nicotiana spp. (tobacco) Tobacco ringspot virus

Peronospora tabacina

Ralstonia solanacearum

Pisum spp. (pea) Pea seed borne mosaic virus Pseudomonos pisi

Phoma pinodella Pea mosaic virus

Ditylenchus dipsaci Alfalfa mosaic virus

Potato spotted wilt virus

Manihot esculenta (cassava) Mononychellus tanajoa

East African cassava mosaic virus

Cassava brown streak virus

African cassava mosaic virus

Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 4

Aphelenchoides besseyi

Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi

Ditylenchus destructor

Radopholus similis

Oryzae sativa (rice) Aphelenchoides besseyi Aphelenchoides besseyi

Balansia oryzea-sativae Sclerophtora macrospora

Ditylenchus angustu.

Tilletia barclayana

Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae

Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae Xanthomonas campestris pv. Oryzicola

Solanum tuberosum (potato) Potato spindle tuber viroid Andean Potato latent virus Andean potato mottle virus Globodera rostochiensis Ralstonia solanacearum Clavibacter michiganensis subsp michiganensis

Globodella rostochiensis

Globodera rostochiensis Synchytrium endobioticum

Ditylenchus destructor

Arachis spp. (groundnut) None Carydon gonogra

Khapra beetle Trogoderma granarium.

Glycine spp. (soybean) None Bacillus subtilis

Heterodera glycines

Septoria glycine, , ,

Corynebacterium flaccumfaciens

C. truncatum

Soybean stunt virus,

Tobacco ringspot virus,

Cercospora sepira

Page | 23

C. kikuchii

Peronospora manchurica

Gossypium spp. (cotton) None None

Sorghum spp. (sorghum) None Pseudomonas andropogonis

Sclerospora sorghi

Claviceps spp

Maize dwarf mosaic virus

Periconia circinata

Source: 1SADC Seed Network Booklet, 2005. 2Plant Quarantine Regulations, 1969

A summary of some aspects that are indicative if the Phytosanitary capacity of Malawi is tabulated below:

Page | 24

Aspect Observation Recommendation Score

Legal framework The Plant Protection Act (1969) is outdated in that in some aspects it is not in conformity with the IPPC and WTO-SPS Agreement, therefore the SADC Protocol on Trade. The Regulations are also outdated. Review of the Act initiated but not Regulations and pest list

The regulations to be reviewed including the pest list, using the available resources. Currently use other sources of information including CABI.

3

Institutional issues NPPO is within Plant Protection Commodity group in the Department of Agricultural research Services. Gets its resources form the Plant Protection Research Commodity allocation as such accorded little priority in terms of resource allocation. NPPO does not revolve the funds it generates, therefore not efficient at timely provision of services

Urgent need for re-structuring and also encourage joint implementation of activities. NPPO to incorporate some the issues in the Act to provide guidelines

2

NPPO set up There is no clear set up of the NPPO, but individuals involved in the day to day activities related to NPPO can be depicted, headed by a National Research Coordinator. The ethics of running the NPPO however are not instilled in the system.

Requires review and re-modeling 2

• Interaction with other players Interaction between the NPPO and Seed services is only at issuance of certification documents. There is however a lot more interaction with the produce exporters because of phytosanitary certification.

Requires vigorous awareness campaigns 3

• Visibility The NPPO is not very visible as such phytosanitary issues are only known by very few individuals.

Requires vigorous awareness campaigns 2

Resource allocation 2

• Financial There is no allocation specifically for NPPO activities. The allocation is embedded in the Plant Protection research allocation every month. Priority given to research activities.

Dedicated allocation of funds for NPPO core activities and appropriation of funds

2

• Human resources There is no human resource that is specifically for Phytosanitary activities apart from the Plant Health inspectors at the border posts and at the central offices. At professional level there is none.

Recruit or re-allocation of staff, and train them 2

o Technical New staff has just been recruited, posting to boarder post not yet fully implemented because of facilities and resources at the respective sites. 95% of this category of staff has not been formerly trained in phytosanitary work.

Re-allocation of staff to continue but plausible facilities to be put in place at the boarders.

2

o Professional Inadequate. Need to develop the NPPO with its own specialist with very clear vision of how an NPPO should be run including pest identification.

Recruit or re-allocation of staff and training 3

Diagnostic capabilities Depended on Plant protection staff and equipment NPPO capacity development program to be institutionalized 2

• Equipment Most of the equipment is old. Reagents are also very hard to come by. The NPPO has got good and functional Quarantine facilities.

Procurement of new equipment 3

• Diagnosticians Since the NPPO activities are carried out by research staff, its capacity depend solely on the capacity of the Plant Protection unit specialists, despite their limited availability for Phytosanitary activities. Specialist in some fields are not available

Recruit and train especially mycologists, entomologists and taxonomists.

2

Boarder/inspection capacity

Page | 25

• Skills Very few old inspectors have the necessary skills to conduct most of the professional Phytosanitary work. These however can retire anytime and therefore create a very big gap.

Put in place plans for an intensive training program, while also developing some project proposals that would focus on capacity building in this area. Regional expertise or Centers of Excellency like COPE can provide this type raining.

2

• Communication No computers and internet connectivity, but communicate through personal Cell phones, except in very few exceptions (2 boarders). No consistency in airtime allocation. The amount allocated is also insignificant.

Head office to facilitate provision of this basic good through procurement of computers and installation of internet

2

• Front line diagnosis Not effective system in place, because of lack of skills, equipment and space for diagnostic work (lab).

Procurement of frontline equipment and training 2

• Availability of inspectors The inspectors are always available at the head offices, Auction Floors, and at some border posts. Serious shortfall in warehouse/facility inspections because of transport problems, mainly fuel.

Recruit or re-allocation of staff and train 3

Conformity with SADC Protocol No conformity for pest listing though most of the pests to be guarded against are also on the pest list for SADC. The country has an Enquiry Point for plant Protection and a Notification Authority. There is however a deficiency in PRA knowledge and skills, which remains a big challenge in drawing the pest list.

To speed up the process may require external assistance to review and align

3

Scale: 1.: Compliant/ nothing in place; 2.: Urgent attention needed ; 3.: Improvement required; 4.: Adequate but needs refinement; 5.: Fully compliant

Page | 26

4.2 Zambia

4.2.1 Background

Zambia has a strong agricultural sector which is key to the development of the economy. It generates between 18 - 20% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and provides livelihood for more that 70% of the population. It also absorbs about 67% of the labor force and remains the main source of income and employment for rural communities especially women who constitute 65% of the total rural population (Gov. of Zambia, 2004). The Government has developed an overall Agriculture Policy for the period beginning 2004 – 2015 to support the development of a sustainable and competitive agricultural sector that assures food security at national and household levels and maximizes the sector's contribution to Gross Domestic Product (MACO, 2004). The policy encompasses all facets of the agricultural sector namely; food and cash crop production, inputs, agro-processing, agricultural marketing including exports, sustainable resource use, livestock and fisheries development, irrigation, agricultural research and extension services, institutional and legislative arrangements, co-operatives and farmer organizations, biodiversity, emergency preparedness and crosscutting issues i.e. HIV/AIDS, gender and the environment. (MACO, 2004) In the recent past, the seed industry has exponentially developed with the direct participation of the private sector, while Government has been playing a facilitation and regulatory role through government instruments which are enacted in parliament and reviewed with changing times. The Phytosanitary Certification of plant and plant products and regulated articles is a public activity and is conducted by the Plant Protection and Quarantine Services (PQPS), which is the NPPO of Zambia. Movement of plant, plant products and regulated articled in Zambia is governed by the Plant Pest and Disease Act (Cap. 231) 1964, and was last reviewed in 1994. Presently the Act is being reviewed. The Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI) is a government department in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO). It is responsible for seed quality control. It does the testing of varieties, inspection of seed fields and seed trade, sampling, testing and certification of seed lots and facilitation of seed import and exports (Miti, F. 2010). The institute also issues ISTA seed analysis certificate if required or just a national seed certificate, or whichever is applicable. The SSCI works hand in hand with the PQPS in facilitating imports and exports of seed.

4.2.2 Legal framework

The seed sub-sector is controlled by the following legislation: the Plant Variety and Seeds Act, Cap. 236 and other related Acts such as the Cotton Act, Cap. 227, Coffee Act, Cap. 288 and the Plant Pests and Diseases Act, Cap. 233. These acts according to the policy paper may be amended as need arises. It has so far undergone two reviews in the last ten years. In each of these reviews, there was closer alignment being made to the IPPC. The aim of the Act is to prevent the introduction and spread of foreign pests and diseases into the country. It is enforced by the Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Services as an NPPO of Zambia. While it effectively executing activities as defined for an NPPO by the IPPC, its existence and operations are not covered by the Act. There is no provision in the Act for appropriation of funds, and depends on the irregular and inconsistent resource allocations from central Government. Zambia is member WTO, IPPC, OIE, CAC, IAPSC, and within the region, it is a member of GLR, SADC and COMESA. Being a member of SADC, it therefore means that it has ratified to the SADC Protocol on trade and its respective Annexes. Zambia having the capacity and capabilities to conduct pest risk analysis has managed to review the SADC pest list and has aligned the requirements through this process.

Page | 27


Although the Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Service (PQPS) which is the NPPO for Zambia, evolved from the research institution, the mission observed that there was clear demarcation between the regulatory function of the PQPS and the activities of the plant protection division. The PQPS has as its core functions regulatory issues, development of national regulatory positions and facilitation of movement of plants, plant parts and plant products and regulated articles. Zambia has had in place an aggressive training program for staff over a period of over ten years. This yearly training program was conducted for plant health inspectors to make them familiar with the functioning of an NPPO and in the use of the IPPC’s ISPMs. The training program also covered the use and application of PRA. Discussions with Plant health Inspectors at the border and at the newly constructed point of exit inspection facility at the airport showed a good knowledge of in their roles and functions as inspectors. The setup of the Zambia NPPO has made building capacity in Quarantine staff much more sustainable because there is proper designation of staff to the section. It has about 108 inspectors, who are specifically designated to do Phytosanitary work. The NPPO works hand in hand with the Plant Protection Research unit, therefore has readily available additional expertise in their day to day work. This is very important in times when surveillances and PRA are to be conducted. The table below shows the staffing status of the NPPO. While the NPPO is short of some professionals the Research team complements where and when need arises.


Movement of seed as governed by the Plant Pests and Diseases Act, Cap. 233 involve four types of documentations; the import permit, the PC, non-compliance notification and the Re-export certificate which is in conformity with the SADC and IPPC standard. Zambia issues all the stipulated documents. For seed import there are variations in terms of conditions. Freedom from pest and diseases is universal, though there are provisions for seed treatment. In some crops and for specific diseases, there is a requirement for inspection during active growth. Three institutions are responsible for processing of seed imports. The requests are initially handled by Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI) before the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI) and the Department of Marketing at MACO headquarters play their roles too. The Act provides for establishment of control measures for crop specific pests and disease causing pathogens that

should be avoided when plant or plant product are imported into Zambia. The individual, who wishes to import seeds

(applicant), first secures the Notice to Import Seed from SCCI and requests for a Plant Import Permit from the NPPO

of Zambia. Equipped with these two documents, the applicant may secure an Import Permit from the Department of

Marketing at MACO headquarters. The applicant then sends the three documents to the exporting country. The

exporting country ensures that phytosanitary requirements for Zambia are met and this is declared so by a competent

authority in the respective country prior to exportation of the seeds. Upon arrival of the seeds in Zambia, plant health

inspectors check for conformity with the requirements which were specified on the Plant Import Permit. The imported

goods are cleared when the requirements are found to have been met.

For Export, an applicant may obtain an ISTA seed analysis certificate that declares the quality of seeds to be

exported. Where the importing country does not specify the need for an ISTA certificate, some applicants skip this

step and a national seed certificate is used instead. The applicant then applies for a Phytosanitary Certificate from

ZARI. Using control requirements for pests and diseases by the importing country, an applicant ensures that the seed

lot to be exported is free of the specified pests and diseases. This is declared so on a Phytosanitary Certificate. In

Page | 28

Zambia, Plant Health Inspectors also inspect seed crops for pests and diseases during active growth. This enables

the NPPO to certify accordingly.

4.2.3.2 Border Capabilities

Zambia has got a number of 21 border post with four being the most commercially active. Almost all the borders are manned. The border post visited gave the impression of a well equipped entity which is run by well grilled staff. The intensive training program which was all inclusive has made a very big difference in instilling knowledge and skills in staff. There was also an impressive array of important literature on pests and SOPs. This was also reflected at the ZEGA facility at Lusaka International Airport. Both Chilundu and the airport facility have basic frontline diagnostic tools/equipment. The border posts do not have internet connectivity, but officers have got cell phones which they utilize for communication with headquarters. Transport is also another problem. Incineration facility is installed at Chilundu but awaits commissioning.


The human capacity for the Zambia NPPO is depicted in Table 3a. The PQPS has within its building a small laboratory that is used for urgent and direct concerns for import or export. The close proximity with the Plant Protection Division provides for handy access to specialists where the PQPS does not have. It was noted that there was new equipment recently procured that included PCR, ELISA reader, HPLC etc. in the Research unit, while there was an indication of urgent need for equipment in the Entomology laboratory of the Plant Protection Unit. An inventory of some of the basic facilities and equipment an NPPO is supposed to have is shown in Table 3b. As was the case with Malawi, recruitment of Taxonomists in Entomology is a priority. The quarantine facilities at the NPPO looked abandoned. However it was mentioned that the facilities will be rehabilitated.

Table 3a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Zambia

Specialists

Number of persons

NPPO Research

• Mycologists 1 1

• Bacteologists 1 • Virologists

1

• Weed scientists

1

• Aflatoxins specialist

1

• Entomologists

2 (PhD and MSc)

• Biotechnologists

• Nematologist

1 MSc

Table 3b: Summary of the available Facilities for Phytosanitary diagnostic activities in Zambia

Facilities NPPO Border Posts

• Pathology (mycology, bacteology, nematology, virology) lab 1 1


• Closed Quarantine structures 1 • Pathology (mycology, bacteology,

nematology, virology) lab

Page | 29


• Entomology Lab 1 1

Equipment • Dissecting microscope/ hand lenses 4

• Stereo Microscope 2

• Stereo Microscope Camera mounted

• Lamina flow hood 1

• ELISA Reader 1

• PCR machines 2

• GMO detection kits 1

• Autoclaves 1 1 – Airport

Incinerators 1 - Chilundu • Sampling kit 3

• Sieves >5

• Grinders

• Reference materials

o Entomology Sizable

o Pathology Limited

4.2.4 Pest Risk Analysis and Surveillance

A strong PRA unit is available and does conduct assessments of new application to provide condition for imports. However, resource limitation has also limited initiation of formal or scheduled surveillance programs. Mostly sponsored surveillance programs have been conducted in the recent past. These included Banana bunchy top disease, Larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatum), Fruit fly (Bactrocera invadens) and Golden cyst nematode.


Pest response preparedness was depended on available financial resources. With the low funding, such extra activities may not be conducted if financial resources were not available at the time. There is no special fund to cater for emergencies. Zambia, however hosts the ILCOCSA which caters for surveillance for migratory pests.

4.2.6 Conformity with SADC Phytosanitary Measures

Details on conformity and differences on the SADC pest list from that enforced in Zambia are provided in Table 5. The pest lists for Zambia differs in some cases to that of SADC. Zambia needs to include the SADC pest list in her Regulations to CAP 231 through a Statutory Instrument. The country did not have a specific pest list for countries beyond SADC. The pest lists enforced were country specific and differed from one country to another. (Miti, F. 2010). The harmonized list of pests that require control when seeds of important crops are moved to a SADC country from a country outside the SADC region is not in the protocol for Zambia but the pests do appear in Regulations and not as SADC. It is based on country by country.

Zambia has NEP and IPPC contact point. It also utilizes the standard documents for seed certification.

Table 4: SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seeds: Harmonized list of pests that require control when seeds of important crops are traded between SADC countries.

Page | 30

CROP PEST/PATHOGEN (SADC) ZAMBIA

Zea mays L. (maize) Peronosclerospora phillipensis Cochliobolus heterostrophus

a) Peronosclerospora phillipinensis (b) Peronosclerospora sachari (c) Pseudomonas syringae pv. Coronafaciens (d) Clavibacter michiganensis sp. Nebraskensis (e) Sclerophthora macrospora (f) Claviceps gigantean (g) Sugarcane mosaic virus (h) Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus

Brassica (cabbage) Tobacco rattle virus None

Triticum spp. (wheat) Tilletia indica

(a) Tilletia indica (b) Tilletia laevis (c) Tilletia tritici (d) Ditylenchus africanus (e) Ditylenchus dipsaci (f) Heterodera avenae

Allium spp. (onion) Tomato black ring virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Tobacco rattle virus

None

Phaseolus spp. (bean)

Bean mosaic virus Tomato black ring virus Ditylenchus dipsaci

(a) Chalara elegans (b) Gibberella avenacea (c) Rhodococcus fascians (d) Ditylenchus dipsaci (e) Cirsium arvense (f) Papaver rhoeas (g) Tomato black ring nepovirus

Vigna spp. (cowpea) Peanut stripe virus

a) Chalara elegans (b) Choanephora cucurbitarum (c) Cirsium arvense (d) Papaver rhoeas

Helianthus spp. (sunflower) Tobacco ringspot virus None

Capsicum spp. (pepper) Pepper mild mottle virus None

Lycopersicum esculentum (tomato)

Tobacco ringspot virus Tomato black ring virus

None

Nicotiana spp. (tobacco) Tobacco ringspot virus Ralstonia solanacearum

(a) Chalara elegans (b) Gibberella avenacea (c) Raphanus raphanistrum (d) Rhodococcus fascians (e) Peronospora tabacina (f) Digitaria sanguinalis (g) Lepidium draba

Pisum spp. (pea) Pea seed borne mosaic virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Phoma pinodella

None

Manihot esculenta (cassava)

Mononychellus tanajoa East African cassava mosaic virus Cassava brown streak virus African cassava mosaic virus Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 4 Sweet potato mild mottle virus Sweet potato feathery mottle virus Aphelenchoides besseyi Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi Ditylenchus destructor Radopholus similis

None

Page | 31

Oryzae sativa (rice)

Aphelenchoides besseyi Balansia oryzea-sativae Sclerophtora macrospora Tilletia barclayana Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae Xanthomonas campestris pv. Oryzicola

Acidovorax avenae subsp. Avenae

Solanum tuberosum (potato)

Potato spindle tuber viroid Andean potato latent virus Andean potato mottle virus Globodera rostochiensis Ralstonia solanacearum Clavibacter michiganensis subsp michiganensis Globodera rostochiensis Synchytrium endobioticum

None

Arachis spp. (groundnut) None (a) Glomerella cinguilata (b) Didymosphaeria arachidicola

Glycine spp. (soybean) None

(a) Chalara elegans (b) Colletotrichum cocodes (c) Peronospora mashurica (d) Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus

Gossypium spp. (cotton) None None

Sorghum spp. (sorghum) None

a) Parthenium hysterophorus (Parthenium weed) (b) Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Annual ragweed) (c) Polygonum aviculare (Hogweed) (d) Sorghum halepense (Aleppo grass)

NB: The shaded denotes similar pest lists between SADC and Zambia

Source : Miti, F. 2010

Page | 32

A summary of the some aspects that are indicative if the Phytosanitary capacity of Zambia is tabulated below:


Legal framework The Plant Pest Control Act has just gone through a revision to be in conformity with the IPPC and WTO – SPS Agreement. The Regulations are being timely reviewed

Need to continue with the review so that Regulations are also effectively reviewed

3

Institutional issues Currently the NPPO is still under the Research Department, therefore has binding allocation to receive every month.

Requires more autonomy so that it can plan and implement activities independently

3

NPPO set up The NPPO is part of ZARI and therefore operates within the administrative and financial status of the institution, with its operations being at the mercy of the Director of Research

Independence would further strengthen its potential and effectiveness

3

• Interaction with other players Good interaction with the private sector and Seed Services Unit. Interaction with other service providers like the university not very evident

Require more awareness campaigns 3

• Visibility The private sector especially sectors involved in export crop is very much aware of the presence and activities of the NPPO.

More awareness campaigns 4

Resource allocation 3

• Financial There is no allocation specifically for NPPO activities. The allocation is embedded in the Plant Protection Research allocation every month. Priority given to research activities. The border post allocation not stable and also very small. No special provision for overtime. The severance allowance given to some is insignificant

Direct allocation of funds for core NPPO activities and provide for revolving of funds.

3

• Human resources

o Technical Number of technical staff is sufficient but there is staff which joined later after the training programs were concluded. They require formal induction to further enhance their skills.

Will require training 2

o Professional There is professional staff within the NPPO though there are still some deficiencies in some disciplines. This is however taken care of by the collaboration with the university.

There is need to recruit and train in areas like taxonomy, mycology, biotechnology.

3

Diagnostic capabilities Has all relevant laboratory structures but the closed quarantine facilities are in very poor shape.

Need to continue with the renovations of the facilities but to also take to consideration of the fact that the climatic change is real

3

• Equipment Some good equipment available in the research labs though some of it is very old and non-functional. Basic diagnostic tools in place ant the central office. Some entry points are very well equipped, like Chilundu and the Airport – ZEGA village. Also have incinerator, but green house are in poor shape. Incineration facility available at one of the entry points but well overdue for commissioning.

Review and indentify those to be procured 3

• Diagnosticians Specialists are also limited, but the unit boosts aIot of support from the core research team.

Recruit of re-allocation of staff 2

Boarder/inspection capacity Some entry points are properly equipped and have enough staff to effectively implement the phytosanitary work.


• Skills Most of the inspectors have adequate skills to carry out phytosanitary work, but Requires training 3

Page | 34

Scale: 1. : Compliant/ nothing in place; 2.: Urgent attention needed ; 3.: Improvement required; 4.: Adequate but needs refinement; 5.: Fully compliant

the skills need to be reviewed regularly. The entry/exit points also have got important guidelines and SOPs.

• Communication Some posts have computers but no internet facility - they instead relay on personal cell phones. No airtime provision.

Provision of modern equipment and internet facilities 1

Front line diagnosis Some entry/exit points have the capacity to do frontline diagnosis. Provision of equipment and training 2

Availability of inspectors Almost all border posts are manned therefore available for inspections. There is however need to beef up staff in some posts.


Conformity with SADC Protocol The Act and Regulations plus the pest list are being reviewed for conformity to IPPC and WTO – SPS Agreement to which it is a party.

Align aspects to SADC protocols 4

4.3 Zimbabwe

4.3.1 Background

Agriculture is the backbone of Zimbabwe’s economy. It provides employment and income for 70% of the population, 60% of the raw materials required by the industrial sector and contributes 40% of the total export earnings. The sector directly contributes between 15% and 19% to annual GDP depending on the rainfall pattern. It contributes more than 40% of the total foreign earnings annually (Gov. of Zimbabwe, 1995). Zimbabwe pursued a controlled agricultural marketing system for key agricultural goods, which was later modernized to a liberalized system as part of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) with the support of the Bretton Woods Institutions in 1991. This trade liberalization in agriculture sector has mainly involved reduction in government’s direct involvement in the production, distribution and marketing of agricultural inputs and commodities; removal of price subsidies, changing from single channel to multi-channel marketing of agricultural products; privatization of agricultural marketing and transformation of some marketing boards into private entities where government has a limited shareholding; and liberalization of some import and export trade on some commodities. Zimbabwe is a member of the WTO, the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement, regional trade arrangements (SADC, COMESA and CBI) as well as bilateral trade agreements with neighboring countries, i.e. the Trade Agreement Group, which includes Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Zambia and South Africa. All the arrangements provide frameworks for further liberalization of trade, and Zimbabwe has made commitments within each of these arrangements towards that objective (Makamure et al. 2001 and WTO, 2002).


The Plant Quarantine Service of Zimbabwe is governed by the Plant Pest and Disease Act (Chapter 19.08). This Act gives Plant Health Inspectors regulatory power to inspect, disinfect and eradicate pest and diseases on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development (MAMID). Seed Services is an institute in the Department of Agricultural Research and Specialist Services (DR&SS), responsible for administration of the Seeds Act [Chapter 19:13] of 1971, Seeds Regulations and Seeds (Certification Scheme) Notice 2000. The legislation basically governs production, processing, labeling and marketing of certified seed in Zimbabwe. This legal mechanism was put in place with the main objective of promoting ‘production and use’ of high quality seed of proven performance for the protection of farmers. Within the institute is the Official Seed Testing Laboratory that is accredited to the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) and conducts purity, germination and moisture tests on agricultural products, vegetable, tree and flower seed. In Zimbabwe, seed certification is mandatory for eight crops that are of commercial importance, namely maize, soybean, tobacco, cotton, wheat, barley, oats and potatoes. For these crops, it is illegal to sell standard grade seed. Zimbabwe is a member of WTO, CODEX, OIE, and at regional level, it belong to, SADC and COMESA. Zimbabwe Government had reviewed the Plant Protection Act and will be replacing it with a new regulation. The new regulation to come into place is currently under review and awaiting enactment. In the new regulations, the component of SADC harmonization is high lightened.


The Plant Protection Division is under the Research Services Division of which one of the unit is the Plant Quarantine section that operates as the NPPO. In the years before the sanctions, Zimbabwe was one of major exporters of fresh products, grains and other agricultural products. During that period, the NPPO was up to the challenge of meeting the demand of the producers and growers. However, the current situation was that due to lack of resources and insufficient incentives, the NPPO has lost the experienced staff to industry and private sector. There is a drive to recruit and train new staff. In the situation, there was a knowledge gap from those who know and are in high positions

Page | 36

to the new staff just beginning their carriers. There is need to rebuild the capabilities including the provision of manuals and guidelines or SOPs to the new staff. Due to serious staff attrition especially at professional level, the NPPO utilizes specialists in the main stream Plant Protection Research sections. The quarantine facility is situated at Mazowe which is situated about 30km from Harare, where the head office for Plant Protection is situated. It somehow operates as an entity with independent programming, but reports to Director at the Head office.

4.3.3.1 Documentation procedures

The parties involved in the facilitation of export and import of seed in Zimbabwe are the Seed Certifying Authority and the National Plant Protection Organization, as well as the Economics and Marketing Department in the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development (AMID). If a company or individual wants to export seed, the crop must be subjected to Plant Quarantine Services for phytosanitary inspection during active growth. Zimbabwe issues Orange International Certificates (OIC’s) to the exporters. This then enables the exporter to apply for a Phytosanitary certificate at PQS. The certificate confirms freedom from pests and diseases of quarantine importance for the importing country. Once this is issued, the exporter proceeds to AMID, for the issuance of an export permit. If seed is to be imported, the applicant provides information related to variety, quantity and lot number of seed to be imported. The variety to be imported should be registered in Zimbabwe. After verification and approval of documents by Seed Services, the application is forwarded to PQS, for the issuance of Import Permits, which highlight pests and diseases prohibited in Zimbabwe. Once the Import permit is issued, importer proceeds to the Department of Economics and Marketing for the issuance of an import permit. In all cases the Ministry of Agriculture has the final say on whether the seed can be exported or imported or not.

Plant Quarantine Services (P.Q.S) does not have documented protocols for carrying out field and pre-shipment

inspections of seed crops either during active growth or in storage (Mujaju, C. 2010). Zimbabwe does not have a set out re-export permit but the format is said to be available.

Zimbabwe has a NEP and a NNA, which is in conformity with both SADC protocol on Trade and IPPC.


The Plant Inspectors at the border are also involved in field inspection, especially in areas closer to the border posts. They also issue numbered phytosanitary certificates. The major challenge is availability of transport to allow them to conduct farm and field inspections. Visual examination is the main mode of inspections of samples. Our observation witnessed consignment owner bringing sample to the inspector in the office for inspection, which is basically wrong. This needs to be corrected because it undermines the principle of representative sampling therefore very prone to challenged. Equipment and human resources are very important if the capabilities of the borders are to be strengthened. This observation was also noted at the Chilundu border post which gives a clear reflection of the boarder inspection capacities of the country. Min lab for frontline diagnostic purposes is imperative. There is no internet connectivity at almost all border post but phones are used instead. Inspectors are provided with airtime.


It was observed that equipment status was not very impressive due to lack of resources for replacement of old and broken equipment. The status of the diagnostic capabilities was also low due to limited numbers of experienced professional staff. Equipment at the quarantine station is sufficient enough for some basic work, however indications were that is was sparingly utilized. The facilities associated with the establishment are also very good though they

Page | 37

are wasting away because of lack of utilization. Human capacity is biggest challenge for the NPPO. Human and equipment capacity is shown in Tables 5a and 5b respectively. It would be important to note that most of its professional expertise is drawn from the research team.

Table 5a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Zimbabwe

Specialists NPPO (#s) Qualifications

• Mycologists 2* MSc, BSc

• Bacteriologists 4* PhD, MSc, BSc

• Virologists 0

• Weed scientists 1 BSc

• Aflatoxins specialist 1 MSc

• Entomologists 5 PhD, MSc, BSc

• Biotechnologists 1 MSc

• Nematologist 1 MSc

Table 5b: Summary of the available Facilities for Phytosanitary diagnostic activities in Zimbabwe

Facilities NPPO (#s) Border Posts (#)

• Pathology (mycology, bacteology, nematology, virology) lab Present Not present

• Closed Quarantine structures Present Not present

• Biotechnology lab Not present Not present

• Entomology Lab Present Not present

Equipment • Dissecting microscope/ hand

lenses Not Present Not present

• Stereo Microscope Present Not present

• Stereo Microscope Camera mounted Not present Not present

• Lamina flow hood Present Not present

• ELISA Reader Not present Not present

• PCR machines Present Not present

• Computers/scanners/printers Present Not present

• GMO detection kits Not present Not present

• Autoclaves Present Not present

• Incinerators Present Not present

• Sampling kit Present Not present

• Reference materials o Entomology Present Not present

o Pathology Present Not present &&&&Requested for further consultation for more accurate information

Page | 38

4.3.4 PRA and Surveillance

The NPPO basically conducted what was called partial PRAs in deriving the conditions for commodities entering their territory. However, for a number of commodities the old regulations still apply and were being used selectively with modifications. The partial PRAs were conducted for specific new threats and commodities. Citrus is still a major export crop and organized surveillance programs done by the Citrus Board go a long way in ensuring that exotic threat to the industry are managed early and the industry retains the pest freedom. This has ensured Zimbabwe’s capabilities to sustain its export potential. Of current concern was the Sirex woodwasp on timber which has been diagnosed before on some samples. There is need to build numbers and capabilities in this area, since those that attended such courses are out of physical involvement in NPPO activities.


Due to the said limited resources within the Division, response programs are only done for BI and LGB. It was clear that any incursions to the country would cause undue panic and havoc.


The Zimbabwean list of plant diseases include a wide array of diseases occurring on plants and seed important for food and agriculture. As a country, there isn’t any established list of pests to monitor on seed although pre-shipments inspections are done to check on infestations/infections. Checking for pests is done as a matter of common knowledge through visual assessments. The team was informed that Zimbabwe has published a book of 179 pages on the List of Plant Diseases in

Zimbabwe, which can be accessed from the responsible body but the list does not exist electronically. This impinges

on the transparency.

A summary of the some aspects that are indicative if the Phytosanitary capacity of Zimbabwe is tabulated below:


Legal framework The Plant Pest and Disease Act of Zimbabwe is currently under review to be in conformity with the IPPC and the WTO-SPS Agreement.

This is an opportunity to include issues related to operation of the NPPO

3

Institutional issues The Plant Protection Division is under the Research Services Division of which one of the unit is the Plant Quarantine section that operates as the NPPO. It is headed by a Quarantine officer who reports directly to the Director. The Director is the IPPC contact point

The structure Make the structure more visible 2

NPPO set up The NPPO is part and parcel of the Research Institute; therefore all staff in the Plant Protection Unit comprises the NPPO.

There is need to have a separate unit with a clear mandate in order to provide professional advice and also be visible

3

• Interaction with other players Staff in this section is specifically assigned to Quarantine work. It was however noted that interaction with the Seeds unit is a bit limited, this puts the phytosanitary activities fully reliant on government funding, since whatever monies are realized from the services they render goes to the government coffers as opposed to Seeds unit which is given a provision to revolve whatever they realize.

The review of the Act should make provision for this in order to enhance the operational capabilities of both sectors and provide a level ground for effective interaction. The private sector

3

• Visibility The NPPO is visible, but this visibility must be augmented with quality and timely service provision.

There is need however to beef up staff so that there is adequate and detailed concentration on specific concerns.

3

Resource allocation

• Financial The NPPO gets its allocation through the Plant protection unit of the Research Department.

There is need for direct allocation of funds to the NPPO. With its location it requires a little bit more resources to cater for sub-item like communication facilities.

3

• Human resources Staff is specifically allocated to Quarantine activities though not sufficient. There is need to beef up staff 3

o Technical All key border posts are manned but there is limited resource allocation. Requires recruitment and training. Where there is a serious shortfall involvement of other partners like customs and immigration would

3

o Professional This category of staff is limited, with only three stationed at the quarantine facility due to high level of attrition.

Recruit or re-allocation of staff and training 2

Diagnostic capabilities Technical human resource is available in the country though outside the NPPO Needs develop to mobilized specialists services through effective interaction with other institutions

2

• Equipment The NPPO has two labs within its structures, which has some good basic equipment. It also has some equipment which is old more especially in the main stream labs at the research institute. This where most of the diagnosis at present is done. The lab at the quarantine station is not intensively used due to lack of staff. It also has very elaborate closed quarantine structures which are going to waste.

Procure new equipment 2

• Diagnosticians The NPPO as an entity has limited number of specialists, but the main Plant Protection section has some specialists who work directly with the quarantine unit. The university also rich in specialist and are available for backup work. The assumption though is that it has the necessary facilities.

If recruitment is not possible strengthening collaboration with the University and Food and Nutrition Unit would assist in achieving the diagnosis of pests for which the department does not have specialist.

2

Page | 40


• Skills Most staff have just had on-the job training and formal training in the basics of phytosanitary and quarantine

Requires training 2

• Communication Only means of communication is cell phone. No internet connectivity. Connectivity is very crucial and there is need to source and make available ITC equipment.

2

• Front line diagnosis Most boarders have some offices with relatively poor basic frontline diagnostic equipment. However this was also appreciated by the dedicated inspectors, who were lamenting over poor equipment. It was observed that some borders were connected with a land line and were allocated some airtime on a monthly basis.

Procurement of new equipment and training them in its usage, and also on diagnostic techniques.

2

Availability of inspectors Adequate Requires capacity building in inspection process and diagnosis 3

Conformity with SADC Protocol The NPPO uses the standard documents in its transactions, but does not have a transparent pest list. It has not yet started harmonizing its pest list with the SADC list. It however has drawn a list of pests is not yet published. They also National Enquiry Point and the National notification Authority.

Review to align with SADC protocols 2


Page | 41

4.4 Swaziland

4.4.1 Background

Agriculture is the largest source of employment for rural households, with 70% of the population depending on this sector as a source of income. Government’s responsibility for the agricultural sector lies primarily with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO). The mission statement of MACO is: “To ensure household food security and increased sustainable agricultural productivity through diversification and enhancement of commercial agricultural activities, formation of appropriate technologies and efficient extension services while ensuring stakeholder participation and sustainable development and management of natural resources in Swaziland.” MACO formulates policy and administers all legislation related to agriculture and organization and management of cooperative societies (CASP, 2004). The Swaziland economy is export oriented and markets most of its produce to South Africa, Europe, United States of America and Asia. The agricultural sector contributes about 10% of GDP and its rapid growing population will continue to depend on agriculture (Government of Swaziland, 1983). However, in recent years, the contribution of the agricultural sector has dwindled mainly due to the effects of droughts which have significantly reduced the volume of output from this sector (FANRPAN, 2003). Also, the collapse of the rural development area programme, has contributed to the decline of the agricultural sector (Government of Swaziland, 1983). Swaziland demographic figures indicate that females comprise a bigger proportion of the population than males, which means that most of those involved in agricultural activities are females. This is further augmented by the general trend of males going to South Africa to look for employment, leaving women to do all the farming. Swaziland imports almost all the improved seed distributed in the country. These include; maize, sorghum, beans, cowpeas and groundnuts with only maize being the main export. This maize is imported and then processed in Swaziland and exported to South Africa. This is done because SeedCo which is the main seed dealer in the country invested in a seed processing plant some few years ago after initiating seed production in the country. However the project did not work to the expectation so the company abandoned seed production in the country instead opted to be importing from its other establishments within the region. The Seeds and Plant Varieties Act of 2000 was introduced to provide for the control, sale, importation and exportation of seeds and matters incidental thereto. Under section 15(2), it prohibits the sale of certain plant varieties not on the variety list established under the Act. The Division of Agricultural Research hosts the Plant Protection Unit which hosts the NPPO. The main function of the Plant Protection unit is to conduct research in pest management. This unit is also responsible for implementing Phytosanitary measures in accordance with the Plant Control Act of 1981. Swaziland also has an initiative that consolidates private operational capabilities, through establishment of public-private partnerships. One of such establishment is the Swaziland Water and Agriculture Development Enterprise (SWADE). This is an initiative to utilize water in marginalized communities to change their economic status through irrigation agriculture initiatives. SWADE is interested in the development of the seed sector as one component in trying to bring economic change in communities. COMRAP which is COMESA project is also implementing smallholder seed production initiatives.


Swaziland is a contracting party to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and signatory to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures. Her Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures are governed by the Plant Control Act of 1981. The main purpose of the Act is to minimize the introduction and spread of plant pests in Swaziland. The Act however does not separate commodities but gives general regulations that apply to all plants including seed. (Anonymous, 2010) This Act is

Page | 42

currently under review and the drafting process of the Plant Health Protection Bill is at an advanced stage. Once it passes into law it will repeal the Plant Control Act, 1981. The new Law will come with new regulations that will reflect the latest development at national, regional and international levels. The Ministry is however also in the process of realigning its departments. It has been proposed that the quarantine and phytosanitary services should stand alone as a specialist service and services charged and proceeds appropriated. This is to facilitated sustainable provision of service to producers. The Act covered some aspects which are not necessarily plant-related; the model certificate was also not in conformity with IPPC standards and did not also cater for re-export documentation. In current Act also lacks clear provision for the establishment of an NPPO. Seed certification is governed by the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act, 2000. The Act provides for the office of the Registrar who is mandated to make transactions related to seed, production, exports and imports. It covers both botanical and vegetative seeds. Import and export control of seed is also the responsibility of the Registrar. The country is a net importer of hybrid seed of maize and only produces a sizable amount of composite seed of the same and legumes. Maize is the staple crop for Swaziland. Swaziland is also a member of WTO, CODEX, IPPC, OIE, and at regional level, it belong to SACU, SADC COMESA.


As is the case with most of the region, the NPPO is housed within the Plant Protection Service of the Research Department. It therefore follows that the functioning of the NPPO is hampered by the constraints of human capacity. Swaziland is seriously challenged by having limited human resource within the plant protection. Table …. Gives an indication of what the capacity is like. Basically there are only two members of staff with tertiary education. This is not enough to effectively articulate the contemporary phytosanitary requirements. The Ministry of Agriculture has an Extension Division or Department, which deals with farmers’ plant protection issues through its subject matter specialist that are located in the different regions. There activities are however inclined towards migratory pest preparedness. Somehow this helps in the NPPO activities.


Any person or company that intends to import seed into Swaziland is expected to obtain an import permit from the NPPO. Any person or company intending to export seed from Swaziland is expected to comply with the conditions of the importing country. Having ensured that the consignment does comply with the conditions set in the import permit, the exporter then applies for a phytosanitary certificate. The NPPO inspects the consignment and issues the phytosanitary certificate as appropriate. Swaziland has two major documents used by the Quarantine and Phytosanitary certification purposes. These are the Plant Import Permit and the Phytosanitary Certificate. These two documents are currently under review. There is no provision for the Re-export Phytosanitary certificate. In the reviewed documentations both certificates are based on the models provided in the IPPC text. There are no SOPs to provide guidelines for the inspection process, as they were not stipulated in the Act. Some aspects related to types of inspections are covered under the regulations. These include inspection of a seed crop during active group for specific pests on specific crops.


The country has got seven important entry/exits border posts with South Africa and Mozambique. All these border posts are not manned by designated Plant Health Inspectors. Initially they were relying on the Customs officers but

Page | 43

now the NPPO is relying on officers from the Department of Veterinary Services with a minimum certificate education, National Agricultural Marketing Board and Swaziland Dairy Board who are there to take care of scheduled goods. These have been co-opted to assist with plant quarantine activities at the border post. They have received some basic briefing on sampling procedures but have no equipment for both sampling and diagnostics. Office space for plant health inspectorate is not available at any of the boarders, let alone front line diagnostic labs. There is a very serious shortage of staff to deal with issues and make decisions there and then at all the border posts. This is a very serious challenge in the there is a lot of trade with South Africa and this shortfall can be used to the disadvantage of the country. The project which led to the setting up of the Quarantine unit also procured very modern basic laboratory equipment for the labs and also for the entry/exit points which has not been distributed due to lack of staff and secure office/lab space.


The NPPO has challenges of human resource. The NPPO has only one pathologists and one entomologist at its immediate disposal that are also from the research team. A summary of the diagnostician and the available facilities is shown in Tables 6a and b. Essentially there is nobody in the NPPO. As a way of making sure that the facility is not put to waste, the Entomologist, who is currently preparing to go on study leave of two years, has been positioned there. He has however attained some skills in surveillance for Bactrocera invadens through a project initiated by the USDA-FAS based in South Africa.

Table 6a: Summary of Numbers of specialists that directly service the NPPO of Swaziland

Specialists NPPO Research

• Mycologists

1 (MSc)

• Bacteologists

-

• Virologists

-

• Weed scientists

1 (PhD)

• Aflatoxins specialist

-

• Entomologists

1 (BSc)

• Biotechnologists

-

• Nematologist

-

Table 6b: Summary of the available Facilities for Phytosanitary diagnostic activities in Swaziland

Facilities NPPO Border Posts

• Pathology (mycology, bacteology, nematology, virology) lab 1 -

• Biotechnology lab - -

• Closed Quarantine structures 1 -

• Pathology (mycology, bacteology, nematology, virology) lab - -

• Biotechnology lab - -

• Entomology Lab 1 -

Equipment

-

Page | 44

Possible collaborators include University of Swaziland and Food Science and Technology Unit

4.4.4 PRA and Surveillance

In the same vein, there are insufficient human resource numbers and capacities to conduct these very important activities within the NPPO. However, a small group exist that meet every so often to deal with critical emergencies and threatening situations. The Plant Protection Division has been given the authority to recruit five (5) new staff but it is envisaged that these will be deployed in the provinces to provide services.


The NPPO in Swaziland does not show possible capabilities to deal with any pest introductions due to limited human and financial resources. However, a possibility may lie in the joint focus with the plant protection unit in the Extension division assuming it had resources for pest emergency preparedness responses. This also assumes that good cooperation and collaboration exists between the two units in dealing with emergency situations.


Swaziland has a national pest list including seed borne pests. This list was last modified in 2006. The NPPO is currently working on the compilation of a new list of regulated pests. This activity calls for an intensive surveillance system and good database management skills. Swaziland has a good pest database system but needs regular updating. The NPPO should collaborate with the National Seeds Office in developing a national list of regulated pests that will be strictly for seed. The NPPO has approved the SADC list of pests to be controlled when seed is imported from outside the region it is now in the process of incorporating it into the national list.

• Dissecting microscope/ hand lenses 2 -

• Stereo Microscope 2 -

• Stereo Microscope Camera mounted - -

• Lamina flow hood 2 -

• ELISA Reader 1 -

• PCR machines 1 -

• Computers/scanners/printers 5 -

• GMO detection kits - -

• Autoclaves 3 -

• Incinerators - -

• Sampling kit 10 -

• Sieves 1 set -

• Grinders - -

• Reference materials - -

o Entomology 1 -

o Pathology - -

Page | 45

Swaziland has a national plant health enquiry point as well as the notification point. They are based in the NPPO and the Principal Secretary’s office in the Ministry of Agriculture, respectively. These offices are specifically designated to avail information on Swaziland’s Quarantine and Phytosanitary measures respond to issues related to compliance Lack of effective surveillance system and PRAs has resulted in the pest list not being revised. A summary of some aspects that are indicative if the Phytosanitary capacity of Swaziland is tabulated below:


Legal framework The Plant Control Act (1981) which governs Phytosanitary and Quarantine measures is currently under review to be in conformity with the IPPC and the WTO-SPS Agreement. This will in make it also in conformity with the SADC Trade Protocol SPS Annex.

The process should be completed and they should make sure that it makes the NPPO prominent with necessary statutes that will make it effective and self sustaining

3

Institutional issues The Plant Protection Research unit acts as the NPPO and has no personnel of its own. There is serious human capacity challenge. There are only two scientists, one with MSc and another with BSc at professional level dealing with NPPO issues. These have to sort out pest related problems in the country. There is a freeze of recruitment, which means the situation will remain like this until this is lifted.

There is need to seek for special consideration in order to boost the potential and capacity of the NPPO. The NPPO should be a separate unit with specific mandate and also its own staff so that activities of the NPPO are not diluted. This is important if viewed in the context of South Africa as the main Trading partner and also some Developed countries which may be imposing some very strict measures on their exports.

2

NPPO set up

• Interaction with other players

There is very good interface with Ministry of Trade, the Seed Services unit which is under Extension Department and some horticultural crop producers/exporters. Other institutions involved at the border posts interact well with the NPPO, as demonstrated by their assistance in inspections where there are no or insufficient personnel to conduct phytosanitary inspection.

NPPO setup to be de-centralized 3

• Visibility Not very visible because of shortage of staff. However efforts are being as demonstrated by the Unit showcasing their activities at an Agricultural fair which was taking place at the time of the assignment.

More awareness campaigns 3

Resource allocation Not specifically allocated for the NPPO, but gets a share from the Research allocation. Benefits from some projects which complements Government efforts.

Dedicated allocation of funds to NPPO core activities 2

• Human resources Inadequate Recruit or re-allocation of staff 2

o Technical Almost unavailable, such that most border posts are not manned. At the NPPO office there is also limited Technical staff

Recruit or re-allocation of staff 2

o Professional Inadequate Recruit or re-allocation of staff 2

Diagnostic capabilities

• Equipment Recently available through the FAO/TCP with minimum utilization due to limited staff.

Review equipment and procure the missing ones 4

• Diagnosticians The NPPO has only three professional staff available from the Research Unit. This is limited to Mycology, Entomology (Trainee) and Weed Science

If recruitment is not possible strengthening collaboration with the University and Food and Nutrition Unit would assist in achieving the diagnosis of pests for which the department does not have specialist.

2

Boarder/inspection capacity Available but inadequate Recruit of re-allocation of staff

• Skills Low Training program require as a matter of urgency 2

• Communication Not available Provision of dedicated phone and internet 1

Page | 47

• Front line diagnosis Not available Provision of staff and training in front line diagnosis 1

Availability of inspectors Inadequate Recruit or re-allocation of staff 2

Conformity with SADC Protocol

Review is ongoing but have inadequate staff May require external support to hasten review 2


Page | 48

5.0 Discussion

5.1 The harmonization process

In order to effectively apply the harmonization process for quarantine and phytosanitary measures for seeds, some structured (targeted and general) surveillance programs need to be instituted for the countries to positively know what type of pests they have in their territories. From this information, that can be applied into the pest risk analysis, a good basis for regulating seed borne pathogens including contaminants can be generated. This information will provide for the ever necessary pest lists relevant to seeds and crops. It is envisaged that at the SADC level, there should be some advocacy for the NPPOs to appropriate the resources that they generate to sustain these programs. It is also proposed that some good phytosanitary practices be advocated to ensure that at the SADC wide level, practices are common and agreed upon. This would be, for example, methods of collecting sample in the field or the best sampling methods for commodities (as stipulated in the ISPMs 31 (2005)) on trucks. Such standardized best practices, will increase the level of confidence in the region and will provide the credibility of the inspection services from the region. The above should provide for the need of having standard operating procedures (SOP) and work instructions (WI) which were not readily available in the pilot countries. However, some SOPs are available at the Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence (COPE) that is based in Nairobi, which can be borrowed for modification to the local relevant conditions. At the same time, there is a great opportunity for the region to use the SADC Plant Protection Committee to develop these and have them adopted at these meetings, as regional SOPs and/or WI.

5.2 Contact points and information exchange

A number of developing countries participated during the 2008 March WTO SPS Committee meeting where best practices for operating an enquiry point were conducted. One of the critical requirements was to have an operational contact/enquiry point that will facilitate information flow from clients to NPPO and from NPPO to the relevant units in the plant protection or other relevant enquiry points. This will include activities like document control and filling documents for trace back purposes. All the above should necessitate rapid information flow and information exchange in order to be responsive to the ever changing trading climate worldwide.

5.3 Proposed new areas of intervention

5.3.1 Capacity Development

Considerable assistance is being provided in the area of capacity development by a number of donors and partners. It is also noted that this assistance is frequently geared towards gaining access to foreign markets and meeting importing country plant health standards. The current thinking is to ensure that such capacity development (CD) programs should also be directed at enhancing the ability of recipient countries to protect their domestic plant health and natural resource for sustainable agricultural development. Strong phytosanitary capabilities contribute directly to archiving a number of goals established under the United Nations (UN) millennium development goals (MDGs). The ability for a country to protect plant health is vital to increasing agricultural output, reduce hunger and generate incomes among the resource-challenged small scale farmers. It is equally important to protect biological biodiversity on which the agriculture industry sorely depends. It is important to note that resource allocation towards the NPPOs in the national budgets is relatively low and hence the activities may not be achieved without the necessary capacity development. With this situation, allowing resources generated by the NPPOs, can adequately deal with the national requirements of the core NPPO activities.

Page | 49

The concepts and programs of CD could be mirrored with those being done at the Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence (COPE) in Nairobi and make reference to the National Phytosanitary Capacity Development Strategy under the IPPC. The pilot countries have all gone through the freeze on staff recruitments hence a deficit in the human resource that is critical to the NPPOs. This creates a situation where there is staff attrition but there is no staff recruitment. This has created an unbalance in terms of information flow and capabilities of doing NPPO activities such as PRA. This should also be understood in the context that in almost all countries the NPPO activities are not like stand alone with specialists designated solely for NPPO activities. Under these circumstances it is the NPPO work that suffers, despite all the challenges it is intended to provide for. This brings in the need for continuous capacity development using staff sourced from within the SADC region in addition to beefing up numbers.

5.3.1.1 Seed pathology training

There was a clear deficit of seed pathologist in the pilot countries. Staff trained in this field would assist in documenting the pests found on seed to assist in the phytosanitary harmonization of seed movement. Seed borne pathogens that would be put into the same data base for the NPPO would categories the specific pest of concern that would move on plants for planting. One possible avenue was to consider developing a course to be conducted at the Seed Pathology Laboratory based at Sokoine University in Tanzania. The concept is that the centre would once again become more viable and the field of seed pathology would have an impetus to have more candidates that would work in this field. It is envisaged that local seed pathologist can be galvanized to develop and conduct the training course.

5.3.1.2 Plant Inspectors Training

The structure and building at the Mazoe Plant Quarantine Station is currently going to waste. At the inception time, the intentions were good but the final implementation has not been as earlier anticipation. A possible intervention would be to have this centre resuscitated so that it can provide training programs for the region. These training programs would directly cover SADC wide concerns such as border inspections, sampling, risk mitigation, front line testing, basic knowledge in pest identification, etc. In the same vain the new structure also at Malkerns in Swaziland could be utilized in the same way. It has very good modern facilities as well.

5.3.1.3 Pest Risk Analysis training Noting that Zambia has advanced in the use and application of the pests risks analysis and pest mitigation measures, it is proposed that the NPPO of Zambia be used to assist other countries in the use of pest risk analysis (PRA) as a method to justify national regulatory positions. A number of approaches could be looked into that may include a group training of trainers (TOT) in Lusaka or in country training to the responded countries.

5.4 SADC wide permit management system A number of countries have singly tried the permit management systems for issuance of permits and documentation. These include Zambia and Zimbabwe. A number of advantages would accrue if this was done in a harmonized fashion. In other words, if a template was developed that would be used at SADC wide, it would hasten the harmonization process and ensure that all countries are entering similar data in a common data base. The system would also facilitate sharing of information and countries would know what commodities are actually moving in the region. The other advantage would be that the NPPOs would at a click of a button provide information to its seniors on the actual total volumes of commodities that have actually moved as these can, on a daily basis be compiled, collated from the borders and compared with Customs data sheets. This can be workable in such a way that the

Page | 50

system can interfaces with the Customs ASYQUDA system to facilitate early clearance of commodities, risk mitigation system well before the commodity reaches the importing countries border.

5.5 SADC Plant Protection Committee

Within the SADC whelm, the position of the Plant Protection Committee as a recognized SADC committee, should provide an avenue for articulating issues directly relating to the importance of the NPPOs. It has been proposed in the past to have a Sub-Regional RPPO covering the SADC region as they poses common pest and regional problems. Among FANRPAN, FAO and the SADC Secretariat, should articulate the importance of raising the profile of this committee, so that it can serve the common interests; facilitate harmonization SADC wide programs to cover all countries. This is seen as the vehicle for easy harmonization for the region in the phytosanitary arena as these

issues relate directly to the IPPC and the WTO SPS Committee. The committee would be good fora to facilitate in information sharing, facilitate transparency, and be a vehicle to position SADC for international debates, common positions in standards setting and to further the interest of the region. It is also envisaged that Governments would readily provide funds to this Committee as it is already recognized under SADC structures.

5.4 Transparency

It was mentioned to the mission that the sudden changes of import requirements has tended to create the un-predictability of doing business. Some companies interviewed mentioned about the sudden changes in requirements when consignments were moving and may be at a border. This has caused a lot of unprecedented lot of business. The basic requirement is that trading partners be transparent. It is an obligation for countries that are a party to the WTO with its SPS agreement and under basic principles of the IPPC, that countries must be transparent. The WTO has put up a number of training sessions providing to countries the best practice to become compliant as a national obligation. The first avenue is the requirement to notify for any upcoming changes to the national legislation and for countries to consider placing these national requirements on a ready to read website. The publication of national requirements provides for information to clients and allows for fore planning and predictable scenario for conducting business with known requirements for plant health. Unfortunately from the WTO website it was noted that the four countries are very dormant in notification. The basic notices like Acts have not been notified by any of the countries.

5.7 General Conclusions

The impetus to increase access and use of good quality seed of improved varieties is the one major way crop productivity can be increased and consequently lead to food security at household, national and regional level. With the current trends of unpredictable weather (rainfall) patterns seed availability will remain the core factor in determining food security. Thus there could be areas/countries with seed deficits and countries with surplus within the same region. With each country having its own pieces of legislation to protect its territories from introduction and spread of pest of quarantine importance, movement of seed to cater for eventualities such as shortfall of seed in a country, will require harmonized processes and procedures. The HaSSP project which is being piloted in the four countries is trying to close these gaps in the policy framework through rationalization. This study shows that there are differences between countries in their legislation, implementation of phytosanitary activity and human, institutional and infrastructural capacities. There are also some serious institutional issues that need to be addressed if the system is to be developed, sustained and poised to achieve its objectives. There is also need to restructure the Plant Protection Division in some countries and have independent NPPOs for professional provision of NPPO services. The human resource should be developed and capacitated to professionally run the contemporary phytosanitary activities that include PRA, surveillance and

Page | 51

national pest listing. This calls for availing of resources either from within individual state or develop joint regional programmes. The later has a place where the problem is common to all or to a few countries, for example skills in boarder inspections and front line diagnostic at the border posts. This can easily be sorted out by having a joint/regional training workshop where all countries will send some inspectors and these will be trained under a similar environment and by the same resource person(s). This will ensure uniformity and consistency in their day to day operations.

Table 7: Country and all pilot-county analysis

Aspect Country scores

Malawi Zambia Zimbabwe Swaziland %

Legal framework 3 3 3 3 60

Out o

f a to

tal score of 20

Institutional issues 2 3 2 2 45

NPPO set up

• Interaction with other players 3 3 3 3 60

• Visibility 2 4 3 3 60

Resource allocation

• Human resources 2 4 3 2 55

o Technical 2 3 3 2 50

o Professional 3 3 2 2 50

Diagnostic capabilities

• Equipment 3 3 2 4 60

• Diagnosticians 2 3 2 2 45


• Skills 2 3 2 2 45

• Communication 2 3 2 1 40

• Front line diagnosis 2 3 2 1 40

• Availability of inspectors 3 3 3 2 55

Conformity with SADC Protocol 3 4 2 2 55

Country total 34 45 34 31

Score from 1 – 5 out of 90

The above summary gives an indication of the across country performance in identified/selected

important phytosanitary indicators (horizontal) and also a reflection of the aggregate country

performance based on the same (vertical).

All Countries together

• Cross country analysis shows that there are serious weaknesses in boarder post inspection

capacities. This is in aspects like Frontline diagnostics, Communication and Inspection skills.

{Interventions: Training in pest identification and inspection skills , procurement of ITC

equipment and provision of necessary resources to operationalize the facilities}

• There is also a general shortfall in the numbers of diagnosticians in almost all the countries.

{Interventions: This could be considered as a national responsibility but sometimes a regional

approach would be more plausible. Possible approach to this problem could be a regional-

wide training program or the strengthening of satellite laboratories with specific specialties to

cater for regional sample analysis. What it takes to move sample across countries should also

be put to perspective. SADC or any regional body with stake in the project should give special

attention to this area for intervention. This is very crucial because surveillance without proper

identification is as good as no surveillance}.

Page | 52

• Institutional setup, which include the lack of independent resource allocation (human and

finance). {Interventions: Propose to each country through SADC to establish NPPOs as

independent entities in all member countries through a legal process. If there is a way this

could be influence at regional level the probability that it can be implemented is very high}.

Individual countries

• Swaziland, Malawi and Zimbabwe are below average in their capacities while Zambia is average

when all aspects are aggregated. Of course the strengths and weakness are not consistently in

the same aspects. This means that individual country considerations are also relevant in sorting

out the shortfall/weaknesses. {Interventions: Countries to prioritize problems and sort them

out based on available resources and also the impact of each one of them on trade is seed}

6.0 References

1. Mujaju, C. 2010. A baseline study/survey report on Zimbabwe seed sector for use in the rationalization and harmonization of the seed regulations and policies in the COMESA Member States

2. IPPC (1997). New Revised Text of the International Plant Protection Convention 3. (IPPC). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 4. MEPD (2005). Development projects in Malawi: Progress assessment. Ministry of Economic Planning and

Development, Lilongwe, Malawi. 5. NEPAD (2001). New Partnership for Africa’s Development. [Online] Available: [http://www.nepad.org –

January 2008] 6. SADC Review for Malawi September 2008

(http://www.sadcreview.com/country_profiles/malawi/mal_agriculture.htm). 7. USAID (2002). Inventory of harmonization of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in SADC Member States:

Draft Report Republic of Malawi. USAID, Gaborone, Botswana 8. WTO (1994). WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. World Trade

Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 9. WTO. 2002. Trade policy review: Malawi. WT/TRP/S/96. Geneva, WTO. 10. Government of Zimbabwe. 2001. The agricultural sector of Zimbabwe, statistical bulletin. Harare. 11. WTO Secretariat, 2011. Activities of the SPS Committee and other relevant WTO activities in 2010. 12. IPPC Secretariat, 2011. A report on Options for enhancing developing country participation in CODEX and

IPPC activities by Stuart Alexander Slorach, Chagema John Kedera, Modibo Touré and Valdir Roberto Welte. 13. Anonymous, 2010. Report on Baseline Sty of the Swaziland Seed Sector. 14. Government of Zambia, 2004. National Agricultural Policy (2004 – 2015) 15. SADC Secretariat. Seed updates 16. Miti, F., 2010. Baseline study/survey on the seed sector of Zambia 17. Korsten, L. Theyse, M. and Keetch, D., 2008. A study of the National Phytosanitary Capacity of Malawi. A

study commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat. 18. Mloza-Banda, H., Kaudzu, G and Benesi, I. 2010. Evaluation of the Malawi seed Sector for the Common

market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Harmonized Seed Regulations and Policies. 19. Soko, M.M., 2011. Annual Report for Plant Quarantine services in Malawi. 20. Makamure, J., Jova, J. and Muzuva, H., 2002. Liberalization of Agricultural Markets. 21. Government of Swaziland, 2005. National Food Security Policy of Swaziland. 22. FARNPAN, 2003. 23. Government of Swaziland (1983). Review of the rural development areas programme: Interim Report. The

Hunting Technical Services Limited, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Mbabane, Swaziland. 24. Government of Swaziland (1999). National development strategy (NDS). Vision 2022 : Macro and sectoral

strategies. Mbabane, Swaziland, pp 21-2

Page | 53

25. FANRPAN, 2010. Harmonized Seed Security Project (HaSSP) Newsletter 01. 26. FANRPAN SADC Seed Harmonization Project Document, 2008, 27. FAO, 2009, report 28. http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/77FFEF892A3B1326852567F5

005D6550?opendocument 29. http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/ADF-BD-IF-99-120-EN-

MALAWI-PCR-AGRICULTURAL-SECTOR-ADJUSTMENT-PROGRAMME.PDF 30. http://www.mapsofworld.com/zambia/economy/agriculture.html 31. Ministers Communiqué, DRC, 2010 32. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Rising to The Global Challenge:

Partnership for Reducing World Poverty; Policy Statement by the DAC High Level Meeting upon endorsement of the DAC Guidelines on Poverty Reduction, Paris, 25-26 April 2001

33. SADC SEED Update. A Monthly Electronic Publication of the SADC Seed Security Network Issue No. 3. March 2003

34. WTO, Good practice in sps-related technical assistance 35. An overview and synthesis of the findings of STDF/OECD research ( Committee on SPS), G/SPS/GEN/875,

24 September 2008

Page | 54

7.0 Appendices

Appendix A

Transparency of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations Publications of regulations 1. Member States shall ensure that all sanitary and phytosanitary regulations are published promptly in such a manner

as to enable interested Member States to become acquainted with them.

2. 2. Except in urgent circumstances, Member States shall allow a reasonable interval between the publication of a sanitary or phytosanitary regulation and its entry into force to allow time for producers in exporting Member States, to adapt their products and methods of production to the requirements of the importing Member State.

Enquiry points 3. Each Member State shall ensure that an enquiry point exists which is responsible for the provision of answers to all

questions from interested Member States as well as for the provision of relevant documents regarding: a) any sanitary or phytosanitary regulations adopted or proposed within its territory; b) any control and inspection procedures, production and quarantine treatment, pesticide tolerance and food additive

approval procedures, which are operated within its territory; c) risk assessment procedures, factors taken into consideration, as well as the determination of the appropriate level of

sanitary or phytosanitary protection; d) the membership and participation of the Member State, or of relevant bodies within its territory, in international and

regional sanitary and phytosanitary organizations and systems, as well as in bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements within the scope of this Annex, and the texts of such agreements and arrangements.

4. Member States shall ensure that where copies of documents are requested by interested Member States, they are supplied at the same price (if any), apart from the cost of delivery, as to the nationals of the Member State concerned.

Notification procedures

5. Whenever an international standard, guideline or recommendation does not exist or the content of a proposed sanitary or phytosanitary regulation is not substantially the same as the content of an international standard, guideline or recommendation, and if the regulation may have a significant effect on trade of other Member States, Member States shall:

a) publish a notice at an early stage in such a manner as to enable interested Member States to become acquainted with the proposal to introduce a particular regulation;

b) notify other Member States, through the SADC Secretariat, of the products to be covered by the regulation together with a brief indication of the objective and rationale of the proposed regulation. Such notifications shall take place at an early stage, when amendments can still be introduced and comments taken into account;

c) provide upon request of other Member States copies of the proposed regulation and, whenever possible, identify the parts which in substance deviate from international standards, guidelines or recommendations;

d) without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other Member States to make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take the comments and the results of the discussions into account.

6. However, where urgent problems of health protection arise or threaten to arise for a Member State, that Member State may omit such steps enumerated in paragraph 5 of this Appendix as it finds necessary, provided that the Member State:

a) immediately notifies other Member States, through the SADC Secretariat of the particular regulation and the products covered, with a brief indication of the objective and the rationale of the regulation, including the nature of the urgent problem(s);

b) provides, upon request, copies of the regulation to other Member States; c) allows other Member States to make comments in writing, discusses these comments upon request, and takes the

comments and the results of the discussions into account. 7. Notifications to the SADC Secretariat shall be in English, Portuguese or French. 8. The SADC Secretariat shall promptly circulate copies of the notifications to all Member States and interested international

organizations. 9. Each Member State’s National Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, in cooperation with its national enquiry

point(s), shall be responsible for the implementation at the national level of the provisions concerning notification procedures according to this Appendix.

General reservations

Page | 55

10. Nothing in this Annex shall be construed as requiring Member States to disclose confidential information which would

impede enforcement of sanitary or phytosanitary legislation or which would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises.

Page | 56

Appendix B Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures 1. Member States shall ensure, with respect to any procedure to check and ensure the fulfillment of sanitary or phytosanitary

measures, that: a) such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay and in no less favorable manner for

imported products than for like domestic products; b) the standard processing period of each procedure is published or that the anticipated processing period is

communicated to the applicant upon request; when receiving an application, the competent body promptly examines the completeness of the documentation and informs the applicant in a precise and complete manner of all deficiencies; the competent body transits as soon as possible the results of the procedure in a precise and complete manner to the applicant so that corrective action may be taken if necessary; even when the applicant has deficiencies, the competent body proceeds as far as practicable with the procedure if the applicant so requests; and that upon request the applicant is informed of the stage of the procedure, with any delay being explained;

c) information requirements are limited to what is necessary for appropriate control, inspection and approval procedures, including for approval of the use of additives or for the establishment of tolerances levels for contaminants in food, beverages or feedstuffs;

d) the confidentiality of information about imported products arising from or supplied in connection with control, inspection and approval is respected in a way no less favorable than for domestic products and in such a manner that legitimate commercial interests are protected;

e) any requirements for control, inspection and approval of individual specimens of a product are limited to what is reasonable and necessary;

f) any fees imposed for the procedures on imported products are equitable in relation to any fees charged on like domestic products or products originating in any other Member State and should not be higher than the actual cost of the service;

g) the same criteria should be used in the setting up of facilities used in the procedures and the selection of samples of imported products as for domestic products so as to minimize the inconvenience to applicants, importers, exporters or their agents;

h) whenever specifications of a product are changed subsequent to its control and inspection in light of the applicable regulations, the procedure for the modified product is limited to what is necessary to determine whether adequate confidence exists that the product still meets the regulations concerned; and

i) a procedure exists to review complaints concerning the operation of such procedures and to take corrective action when a complaint is justified. Where an importing Member State operates a system for the approval of the use of food additives or for the establishment of tolerances for contaminants to food, beverages or feedstuffs, which prohibits or restricts access to its domestic markets for products based on the absence of an approval, the importing Member State shall consider the use of a relevant international standard as the basis for access until a final determination is made.

2. Where a sanitary or phytosanitary measure specifies control at the level of production, the Member State in whose territory the production takes place shall provide the necessary assistance to facilitate such control and the work of the controlling authorities.

3. Nothing in this Annex shall prevent Member States from carrying out reasonable inspection within their own territories.

Page | 57

Appendix 3 SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seeds: Harmonized list of pests that require control when seeds of important

crops are traded among SADC countries.

CROP PEST/pathogen Zea mays L. (maize) Peronosclerospora phillipensis Cochliobolus heterostrophus Brassica (cabbage) Tobacco rattle virus Triticum spp. (wheat) Tilletia indica Allium spp. (onion) Tomato black ring virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Tobacco rattle virus Phaseolus spp. (bean) Bean mosaic virus Tomato black ring virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Vigna spp. (cowpea) Peanut stripe virus Helianthus spp. (sunflower) Tobacco ringspot virus Capsicum spp. (pepper) Pepper mild mottle virus Lycopersicum esculentum (tomato) Tobacco ringspot virus Tomato black ring virus Nicotiana spp. (tobacco) Tobacco ringspot virus Ralstonia solanacearum Pisum spp. (pea) Pea seed borne mosaic virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Phoma pinodella Manihot esculenta (cassava) Mononychellus tanajoa East African cassava mosaic virus Cassava brown streak virus African cassava mosaic virus Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 4 Sweet potato mild mottle virus Sweet potato feathery mottle virus Aphelenchoides besseyi Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi Ditylenchus destructor Radopholus similis Oryzae sativa (rice) Aphelenchoides besseyi Balansia oryzea-sativae Sclerophtora macrospora Tilletia barclayana Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzicola Solanum tuberosum (potato) Potato spindle tuber viroid Andean potato latent virus Andean potato mottle virus Globodera rostochiensis Ralstonia solanacearum Clavibacter michiganensis sub.sp michiganensis Globodera rostochiensis Synchytrium endobioticum Arachis spp. (groundnut) None Glycine spp. (soybean) None Gossypium spp. (cotton) None Sorghum spp. (sorghum) None

Page | 58

Appendix 4 SADC Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures for Seeds: Harmonized list of pests that require control when seeds of important

crops are moved to a SADC country from a country outside the SADC region.

CROP Pest/Pathogen Zea mays L. (maize) Cephalosporium maydis Peronosclerospora phillipensis Erwinia stewartii Cochliobolus heterostrophus Brassica (cabbage) Tobacco rattle virus Triticum spp. (wheat) Tilletia indica Tilletia controversa Anguina tritici Allium spp. (onion) Tomato black ring virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Tobacco rattle virus Phaseolus spp. (bean) Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens f.sp. Bean mosaic virus Pea early browning virus Ditylenchus dipsaci Tomato black ring virus Cowpea severe mosaic virus Arachis spp. (groundnut) Aphelenchoides arachidis Peanut clump virus Peanut mottle virus Vigna spp. (cowpea) Southern bean mosaic virus (Sobemo virus) Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens f.sp. Urd Bean leaf crinkle virus Peanut stripe potyvirus Helianthus spp. (sunflower) Tobacco ringspot virus Diaporthe helianthi (Phomopsis) Capsicum spp. (pepper) Tomato bushy stunt virus Tomato ringspot virus Pepper mild mottle virus Lycopersicum esculentum (tomato) Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. Licopersici race 3 Tomato ringspot virus Potato spindle tuber viroid Tobacco ringspot virus Tomato black ring virus Lolium spp. (ryegrass) Tilletia controversa Nicotiana spp. (tobacco) Peronospora hyoscyami f. sp. Tabacina Tobacco ringspot virus Ralstonia solanacearum

Tomato ringspot virus

Page | 59

Annex 1. Persons met and discussed with in the four countries Malawi

Name Designation Address Contacts (email and phone)

Dr. M.H.P. Banda

Deputy Director of Agricultural Research Services (Technology Development)

Chitedze Research station P.O. Box Lilongwe

[email protected]

Mr. Fransis Maideni Station Manager and Seeds Pathologist

Chitedze Agric. Res. Station P.O. Box 158 Lilongwe

D. Kamangira

Assistant Director of Agricultural Research Services (Technology Management & Agricultural Regulatory Services)


e) [email protected] c)265 888 342 712 c)265 999 122 199

Mrs. G. Kaudzu

Commodity Team Leader Seed Services Unit


e)[email protected] c)265 (0) 707087/188

G.J.S. Kambale

Crop Storage Officer


E-mail [email protected] Phone : +265 (0) 999 946 608

E.D.L. Mazuma

Assistant Director National Research Coordinator

Plant Protection Commodity Group Chitedze Agric. Res. Station P.O. Box 158 Lilongwe

E-mail [email protected] Phone: +265 (0) 999 978 255

G.A. Timeyo Phiri

Plant Health Inspector


E-mail [email protected] Phone: +265 (0) 707145/360

M.M. Soko

Chief Scientist - Pathologist

Bvumbwe Agricultural Research Station P.O. Box 5748 Limbe

E-mail : m.soko.bvumbweresearch.com Phone: +265 (0) 999 958 122

Mrs. Kavala AARO Plant Pathology Chitedze Agric. Res. Station P.O. Box 158 Lilongwe

e-mail: [email protected]

Mr. D. Mbalangwe AARO Plant Pathology Chitedze Agric. Res. Station P.O. Box 158 Lilongwe

[email protected]

Mrs. Cecilia Mumba AARO Food storage Chitedze Agric. Res. Station P.O. Box 158 Lilongwe

[email protected] 0992005156 01707222/225

Mrs. Emmie Butao AARO Chitedze Agric. Res. Station P.O. Box 158 Lilongwe

c)0999367900 o)01707222/225

Mr. Jumbe Chairman,

Farmers Union of Malawi

Mr. Nassimu Nyama Marketing chairman (Desk Officer for

Ass. Of Small Holder Seed Multiplication Action Group

e)[email protected] c)0999580854

Page | 60

HaSSP) (ASSMAG) o)01755650

Mr. D. Kibonga Managing Director NASFAM House, City Centre, P.O. 30716, Lilongwe 3.

[email protected]

Mr. A. Chikapula Commercial Manager NASFAM House, City Centre, P.O. 30716, Lilongwe 3

[email protected]

Mr. J. Maruwo Quality Control Officer NASFAM House, City Centre, P.O. 30716, Lilongwe 3

[email protected]

Mr. Musopole Board Chairman,

Civil Society Agriculture Network

Ms. Irina Kireeva Advocate NCTM association d’avocats Avenue de la joyeuse Entrée I B 1040 Brussels

o)+32 2 2854685 f) + 32 2 2854690 [email protected]

Persons met in Zambia


Dr. Catherine Mugona

Director Seed Control and Certification Institute, P.O. Box 351099, Chilanga

[email protected]

Dr. F. Miti Chief Seeds Officer Seed Control and Certification Institute, P.O. Box 351099, Chilanga

[email protected]

Mrs. Mable Simwaza

Seed Control and Certification Institute, P.O. Box 351099, Chilanga

[email protected]

Mr. Zulu Seed Control and Certification Institute, P.O. Box 351099, Chilanga

[email protected]

Monde Zulu Chief Agric. Res. Officer

Zambia Agric. Research station Mt. Makulu Research Station Private Bag 7, Chilanga

[email protected]

Vincent Simwinga Research Officer-Entomology


[email protected] +260962 170505

Mukolo C. Taguma

Entomologist Zambia Agric. Research station Mt. Makulu Research Station Private Bag 7, Chilanga


Rabson Mulenga Research Officer Zambia Agric. Research station Mt. Makulu Research Station Private Bag 7, Chilanga


Isaah Ntenga Agric. Res. Officer Zambia Agric. Research station Mt. Makulu Research Station Private Bag 7, Chilanga


Sylvia M. Tembo Principle Tech. Research Officer



Mathias Tembo ARO Zambia Agric. Research station Mt. Makulu Research Station Private Bag 7, Chilanga

[email protected] +260 966 957408

Maimouna Abass ARO Zambia Agric. Research station Mt. Makulu Research Station Private Bag 7, Chilanga


Mooya Nzila TRA Zambia Agric. Research station PQPS LIA Office


Brenda Mweemba TRA Zambia Agric. Research station [email protected]

Page | 61

Mt. Makulu Research station Private Bag 7, Chilanga

+260977 256902

Mr. D. Moono Manager, Research and Development

Great Valley Agriculture Trust Research (GART), P.O. Bo RW. 50834, Lusaka, Zambia

[email protected] +260 979004917 +260 211-213739

Mr. S. Simunji Agronomist Great Valley Agriculture Trust Research (GART), P.O. Bo RW. 50834, Lusaka, Zambia

[email protected] +260 977670129 +260 211 213739

Persons met in Zimbabwe


Dr. C. Nguni Director, Research Service Division

5th Street Extensionanger P.O. Box CY 550 Causeway, Harare

[email protected] [email protected] c)+263772229537 o)+2634704531 - 9

Dr. G. P. Chikwenhere

Deputy Director, Research Service Division

5th Street Extension P.O. Box CY 550 Causeway, Harare

[email protected] [email protected] c)+263712415348 f)+263712415348

C. Mujaju Head, Seed Services 5th Street Extension P.O. Box CY 550 Causeway, Harare

ngbz@[email protected] +263712611765 f)+2634731133

Mr. W. Chigodora Managing Director Agriseed (Pvt) Ltd 5 Wimbledon Drive, P.O. Box 6766, Harare

[email protected] [email protected] (263 40 912416439

Mr. E. Nyamusa Production Executive Agriseed (Pvt) Ltd 5 Wimbledon Drive, P.O. Box 6766, Harare

[email protected] (263 4) 913254978 (263 4) 700655

S. Nyamutukwa A/Head, Plant Quarantine Service

Private Bag 2007 Mazowe, Zimbabwe

[email protected] O)+236 275 2633 (Mazoe) O)+263 4 700339 Hre c)+263 772 868 804

T. Nwata Plant health Inspector – In Charge

P.O. Box 2130 Mutare

+263 4 2062620 +263 772584 048

I. Duri Plant health Inspector P.O. Box 2130 Mutare


Y. Chisanhu Plant Health Inspector P.O. Box 2130 Mutare

Norman Chabota Ass. Plant Inspector P.O. Box 2130 Mutare

0714 058145

Walter Chigodora Managing Director, Agriseeds (Pvt) Ltd

5 Wimbledon Drive P.O. Box 6766 Eastlea, Harare

[email protected] o)+263 4 700655 c)+263912416439

Emmanuel Nyamusa Production Executive 5 Wimbledon Drive P.O. Box 6766 Eastlea, Harare

[email protected] o)+263 4701846 c) +263913 254978

Persons met in Swaziland


Dr. Robert S. Thwala Principal Secretary Ministry of Agriculture P.O. Box 162, Mbabane

[email protected] [email protected]

Page | 62

o)+268 2 2404273 Sec)+268 2 4042746 c)+268 76062601

Mr. Similo Mabvimbela

Pathologist and IPPC contact point

Malkerns Research Station, P.O. Box 4 Malkerns

[email protected] 09268 5274071 09268 76050780

Mr.Sipho Simelane Registrar of Seeds Malkerns Research Station, P.O. Box 4 Malkerns

[email protected] 09268 5274054 09268 76037140

Mr. R. Mkhombe Agri-business Diversification Manager

Lower Usutu Smallholder Irrigation Project (LUSIP), P.O. Box 198 Siphofeni

[email protected]

Ronnie V. F. Mkhombe

Agri-Business Diversification Manager

Swaziland Water and Agriculture Development Enterprise (SWADE) Lower Usuthu Smallholder Irrigation Project P.O. Box 198, Siphofaneni

[email protected] c) +268 7602 0004 o) +268 2344 1671 /2/4 f) +268 23344 1665

Robert Mabundza Horticulturist Swaziland Water and Agriculture Development Enterprise (SWADE) Lower Usuthu Smallholder Irrigation Project P.O. Box 198, Siphofaneni

[email protected] c)+268 7617 5002 o) +268 2344 1617 f) +268 2344 1665 www.swade.co.sz

Sidney Mhango Director – Physical Operations

African Christian College