WORKSHOP ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 31 ST MARCH 2006, GENEVA-SWITZERLAND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RELATED TO FISHERIES SECTOR EXPERIENCE FROM.

WORKSHOP ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT

31ST MARCH 2006, GENEVA-SWITZERLAND

 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RELATED TO

FISHERIES SECTOR

EXPERIENCE FROM THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

Prepared by G. F. Nanyaro

Tanzania fish landings:

• 350,000 to 400,000mt per annum and exports about 20%

• The Sector employs about 2 million people directly and indirectly

FISH EXPORT BANS

• Between 1996 and 1999 it suffered three major bans, the worst being in 1999, which lasted 11 months

• Non of the ban had a scientific justification

(First it was cholera scare in Mozambique, second cholera in East Africa and the third was suspicion of pesticide residues in fishery products in Uganda).

MAJOR EFFECTS OF THE BANS  Loss of Foreign exchange earnings (e.g. for the 1999 ban alone about US$ 90 million was lost;

• Around US$ 8 million was reinvested by the Government and the industry to address the perceived hygienic non compliances;

• Collapse of ancillary industries leading to massive unemployment

EFFECT OF BANS (continued)

 Collapse of stakeholders’ incomes resulting in high incidences of school dropouts, poor health, unemployment;

 Fall in price of fish from US$ 0.8 of a dollar to US$0.2;

 High incidences of social vices

 Total fishery products export fell by 40%;

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Since 1998 Tanzania has received Technical Assistance from; UNIDO, World Bank, FAO and EU.

1. UNIDO PROJECT (1)

• In 1998 UNIDO ran two training workshops on hygienic production of fish and fishery products .

• The main beneficiaries were the CA, fish processing industry and the supply chain. In total around 400 people were trained in 60 days.

UNIDO PROJECT 1 (continued)

Training was not successful mainly due to:

• Training needs assessment were not conducted prior to designing,

• Lecture materials were not appropriate to the situation at hand/environment,

• Project design was a cut and paste situation,

• The technical experts came with pre-conceived ideas as to what should be the solution to issues.

UNIDO PROJECT (2)

UNIDO intervened second time after the 1999 ban. Training and capacity building was conducted

This one was successful mainly because:

UNIDO collaborated with the Government and other main stake holders to identify priority areas, project design, implementation and even evaluation;

UNIDO approach was to listen to stakeholders concerns and suggestions. Way forward was formulated based on best and appropriate scientific or administrative practises.

RREASONS FOR SUCCESS (continued)

• Local experts implemented the project while UNIDO monitored and evaluated. The approach resulted into cost reduction by about 40% and increased coverage by about 50%.

• The recipient owned the project and through active participation, capacity for local staff was enhanced

2. THE EU SANITARY PROJECT TO ACP/OCT COUNTRIES

• The project was launched before the media in September 2003, with promises to support the artisanal fishers

• To-date only TORs, work plan and budget have been prepared despite the fact that consultants have been coming and going.

• Among the problems associated with such delays are:

TTHE EU project (problems)i- Inability to align our resources to address such issues because of the promiseL- Locking out assistance from other donors- Creates Government distrust by the public L- Long time lapse may result into reduced benefits in terms of increased prices and situational changes*- Net under development effect

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT

An EU-supported project aiming to improve the management of the Lake Victoria fisheries resources

Shortcomings:

The project design involved the donor and government agencies only

The project became effective in April 2004, but delayed due to lack of grass root involvement right from the start.

SShortcomings (continued):Political considerations taking precedence over technical/scientific consideration e.g. equal allocation of the resources to Kenya (6% -6 landing sites), Tanzania (51% -6 landing sites) and Uganda (43% -6 landing sites).

Inflexibility: e.g. too big monitoring and surveillance boats were specified during project design. According to the current situation the boats will be too expensive to run, but the donor is not willing to change to manageable boats.

4. FAO/COMESA/COMMON FUND FOR COMMODITIES PROJECT ON VALUE ADDED PRODUCTS

- This was a two year project starting early 2002. It was designed to add value to Nile perch fish and Sardines in Lake Victoria.

- Work done to-date is conduct studies on the stock status of target species and market for the envisaged value added products.

RReasons for non performance:

T- The project design did not allow contact between the donor and the recipients rather the contact is with the third party (COMESA Headquarters in Lusaka) who do not identify with the project results in any manner;Lack of clauses, which hold parties accountable for mistakes.

5. WORLD BANK/GEF LAKE VICTORIA

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The project was successful because of:

Participatory nature during design leading to ownership;

nvolvement of local experts during implementation

6. FAO Training of Trainers course

• FAO under the umbrella of COMESA provided in 1999 and January 2000 Technical Assistance on training of trainers on HACCP to local experts.

• This has been another successful story because of involvement of stakeholders from the beginning to end.

SUGGESTIONS

1. Most donor assistance is only available after a crisis has already occurred. It can be equated to post mortem tears! It is advised to be proactive

2. Enhanced Transparency will cut down cost of compliance/technical assistance. Bans versus Technical Assistance create a vicious circle of donor/recipient interdependence

3. Deploy Local experts in all project as much as practicable

SUGGESTIONS (continued) 

4. Fully involve Local stakeholders in project design and implementation;

5. offer more training to LCD countries to fully comply with the SPS Agreement requirements

6. Realistic timely funding and implementation of projects

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING