Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


ANNEX 9 (Continue)

TABLE 2 - FOOD STANDARD SYSTEMS, INSPECTION MECHANISMS, LABORATORY SUPPORT SERVICES
AND CAPABILITIES OF THE FOOD INDUSTRIES TO PROVIDE SAFE FOODS

S/NCountryFood Standards SystemInspection MechanismLaboratory Support ServicesCapability of Food Industries to Provide Safe Food
1AlgeriaAlgerian Institute of Standardization establishes food standardsMinistry of Commerce oversees import, export and domestic food inspection.The Algerian Centre for the Control of Quality and Packaging oversees 19 laboratories covering the countryN/A
2AngolaN/AN/AN/AN/A
3BeninNo well-defined system for the elaboration of Food Standards. Codex Committee is not functional. No available information on SPS measuresRudimentary inspections carried out by agents of the Cotonou Abattoir. No well-established mechanism for food inspectionFood and Applied Nutrition Directorate provides basic lab support services. No labs currently have accreditation; however 3 labs are working towards accreditationNo established system for assisting companies to build capacity to provide safe food. Sea products industries partially encouraged to adopt QA practices to meet safety requirements of target markets.
4BotswanaNational standards prepared by Bureau of Standards in collaboration with other key stakeholders; mainly based on Codex standards.No well established systemRudimentary. Selected labs being assisted to build capacity. No lab accredited to ISO 17025Meat industry has been assisted to build capacity and capability to provide safe products for the export market.
5Burkina FasoDirectorate of Standardization and Quality Management is yet to establish a system for development/review of food standardsInspection at both inter-national and domestic level not well establishedLab support services are rudimentaryDirectorate of Standardization and Promotion of Quality is mandated to promote quality and safety in the food industry. Agency is in its infant stage and so unable to perform functions properly
6BurundiN/AN/AN/AN/A
7CameroonN/AN/AN/AN/A
8Cape VerdeEstablishing agency for control of pharmaceutical and food products to set standardsN/ALaboratory services are very weak except for fishery products and water analysis. New food control agency will serve as reference laboratory.N/A
9Cen. African RepublicNo system in placeNational Animal Husbandry Development Agency conducts some inspection at both domestic and international levelsLab support service is rudimentaryThe National Animal Husbandry Development Agency issues sanitary certificates and indirectly compels the relevant industry to focus on safety
10ChadWorking to harmonize national standards with Codex standards.N/AWorking to establish a food analysis and control laboratory in 2005N/A
11ComorosN/AN/AN/AN/A
12Congo, RepNo system in placeNo regulations on importsNo routine laboratory activitiesNo system in place
13Congo, Demo. Rep.N/AN/AN/AN/A
14Cote d'IvoireN/AN/AN/AN/A
15DjiboutiN/AN/AN/AN/A
16EgyptEgyptian Organization for Standardization coordinates food standards workGeneral Organization for Import and Export Control in Ministry of Trade coordinatesGood laboratories in Ministry of Health and Ministry of AgricultureN/A
17Eq. GuineaN/AN/AN/AN/A
18EritreaN/AN/AN/AN/A
19EthiopiaQuality and Standards Authority of Ethiopia is responsible for approving national standardsVarious regulatory bodies enforce regulations associated with food safety.N/AN/A
20GabonNo system in placeMinistry of Trade and Consumer Affairs partially involved in inspectionLab support service rudimentaryNo well-defined assistance to the food industry to build the capacity to provide safe food
21GambiaNo system in place. NCC established to initiate action on food standards developmentInspection mechanism for fish exports. Food imports not adequately inspectedRudimentary lab support. Capacity building for selected labsNo established system for building the capability to deliver safe food
22GhanaFairly good system in placeGSB/FDB PPRS involved in Food Inspection at both the domestic and international levelsGood lab support services. GSB lab is seeking accrediting for pesticide analysisNo on-going programme for assisting the food industry. Training in HACCP and other quality assurance practices provided on request
23GuineaTechnical Commission for Agricultural and Food Standards coordinates all actors involved in elaborating food standards.N/ARequires strengtheningN/A
24G. BissauN/AN/AN/AN/A
25KenyaFairly good system in place. Codex standards are used as reference documents in the development of food standards.A mechanism for food imports/export inspection. KEBS inspects food imports.Good lab support service. Accreditation for specific food tests securedNo on-going programme for building capability in the food industry in general. However, the milk, meat and fishery industries are adequately assisted to build capacity for the provision of safe food. Horticultural produce for exports also targeted for assistance
26LesothoNot well establishedNo well established system; mechanism for imports/exports of livestock availableA system in place for microbiological examination of food. No lab accredited to ISO 17025Capacity developed for export products
27LiberiaN/AN/AN/AN/A
28LibyaNational Centre for Standards and Codes develops food standards.National Centre for Food and Drug Control has authority for all inspectionsAdequate and competent laboratory support servicesN/A
29MadagascarN/AN/AN/AN/A
30MalawiFairly good system in placeNot well establishedNeeds improvement. No accreditationNo on-going programme to assist the food industry to build capacity
31MaliN/AN/AN/AN/A
32MauritaniaNational Centre for Food Hygiene which serves as the Codex Contact Point can initiate standards developmentNational Centre for Oceanographic and fisheries research inspects fish destined for export marketsNational Veterinary Lab provides rudimentary lab supportNo established system for assisting the food industry in general to build the capacity to provide safe food; received assistance to improve fish processing establishments, which has been successful.
33MauritiusN/AN/AN/AN/A
34MoroccoN/AN/AN/AN/A
35MozambiqueNo well-established system in placeInspection of fish for exports well establishedRudimentary laboratory support service. No accreditationCapacity of the fishing industry adequately developed to provide safe fish for the export market
36NamibiaNo well established system in place. NSI yet to be establishedNo well established system in placeSouth Africa Bureau of Standards labs in Walvis Bay provide supportNo on-going programme to assist the food industry to build capacity. The fishing industry is assisted to provide safe fish for the export market
37NigerMinistry of Trade developed national standards based on Codex textsBasic inspection & examination programme for imports; Sanitary inspection of meat for exportNational Public Health Lab & the Food Tech Lab of the National Institute for Agronomic Research, as well as at Adbou Moumouni University provide basic analysisNo formal assistance to build the capacity to provide safe food. A few companies are in the process of installing quality systems to assure safety and quality in outputs
38NigeriaN/AN/AN/AN/A
39RwandaN/AN/AN/AN/A
40SenegalSenegal Standardization Institute has elaborated more than 50 food-related standards.N/AN/AN/A
41SeychellesN/AN/AN/AN/A
42Sierra LeoneEstablished NCC is to handle standards development in connection with the SLBS. Adopting Codex standards as national food standards.Standards Bureau to start import and export and certification procedures in February 2005.Rudimentary laboratory support service by the Public Health Laboratory. No AccreditationNo established system for building capacity
43SomaliaN/AN/AN/AN/A
44South AfricaGood system in placeWell established inspection mechanism at both domestic and international levelsAdequate and competent laboratory support servicesAssistance is provided to the food industry to build capacity to provide safe food. Emphasis, as usual, is on the export food industry
45SudanSudanese Standards and Metrology Organization establishes food standardsSudanese Standards and Metrology Organization conducts food inspectionsN/AGovernment committee formed to deal with industrial establishment safety issues.
46SwazilandNo well established systemEstablished mechanism for food exports and importsLab support available in City Council and Vet Med labs (Ministry of Agriculture). No accredited labs at this time.Export food industry (meat) is assisted to build capability to provide safe meat for export market
47TanzaniaA fairly good system in place. Tanzania food safety standards are based on Codex standards where they exist.Not well establishedBasic lab support service, without accreditation. No capacity or ability to quantify pesticide residues in food and foodstuffsTrade & Industry Associations, in collaboration with National Food Control Agencies have just started instituting measures for educating their members on QA practices
48TogoNational Standards Board established in 1983 as part of the Ministry of IndustryN/ALaboratory equipment has been provided through UEMOA project. Three laboratories will be assisted for accreditation.N/A
49Tunisia80% of national standards are in compliance with international standards and working towards 100% complianceWell established inspection mechanism at both domestic and international levelsMultiple laboratories operating in multiple industries. Many labs are accredited.Technical Centre for Food Industries provides capacity building for food industry, including training in HACCP
50UgandaA fairly good system in placeEstablished system for imports clearance, including foodFood laboratories of UNBS provide basic lab support. The Microbiology Lab is accredited for selected tests.As a result of the ban on fish exports to EU in 1997&2000, the fishing industry has been assisted to develop the capacity to meet the safety requirements of the market
52ZambiaZambia Bureau of Standards establishes voluntary standards while the Min of Health establishes mandatory standards.Established mechanism for imports. Inspection of fruits/vegetable exports is satisfactoryLab support service is quite satisfactory. No accreditation for any of tests conductedHorticultural industry has been assisted by the Zambia Export Growers Association to develop their capability to meet the safety requirements of the export markets
53ZimbabweFood Standards Advisory Board established in 1996.No documented policies and procedures for imported food inspection. Port health food inspection manual has been developedFood control activities supported by laboratory services of the Ministry of Health Government Analyst Laboratory and others.N/A
Source of Information / DataFAO Background paper for Global Forum, Status of Food Safety Management Systems in African Countries with Recommendations for the way forward by L. E. Yankey, FAO Consultant, Nov. 2004
Report of Sixteenth Session of the Codex Committee for Africa, Rome, Italy, 25–28 January 2005

TABLE 3 - TRAINING PROGRAMMES, CREATION OF SAFETY CONSCIOUSNESS, INFORMATION NETWORK
AND COORDINATION OF FOOD SAFETY ACTIVITIES

S/NCountryCreation of Food Safety Consciousness among ConsumersInformation Network on Food SafetyCoordination of Food Safety Activities at the National Level
1AlgeriaN/AN/AMinistry of Commerce plays a central role, along with other relevant ministries
2AngolaN/AN/AN/A
3BeninConsumer associations are very active in food control activities and training, but require additional funding.No Network existsNational Technical Committee for food control is mandated to coordinate food control activities.
4BotswanaMany consumer organizations exist and are very involved in NCC, but no national umbrella consumers organization exists, making further activities difficult.No network existsThe food control unit of the National Food Control Board acts as the lead agency. No established coordination mechanism.
5Burkina FasoNo system for consumer educationNo Network existsNo established coordination mechanism.
6BurundiN/AN/AN/A
7CameroonN/AN/AN/A
8Cape VerdeTwo main consumer organizations exist and are very active in awareness raising, etc.N/AEstablishing agency for control of pharmaceutical and food products to control food.
9Cen. African Rep.No system for consumer education.No Network existsNo established coordination mechanism.
10ChadAn association for the protection of consumer rights exists, but suffers from lack of funds and inexperience.N/AN/A
11ComorosN/AN/AN/A
12Congo, RepTwo consumer organizations exist but their activities are hampered by a lack of funds.No system existsOnly national food safety programme is in the Special Programme for Food Security.
13Congo, DRN/AN/AN/A
14Cote d'IvoireNational Association of Consumers a member of NCC, but participation is limited by lack of funds.N/ACODINORM, under the Ministry of Industry, includes all agencies involved with food safety and is in charge of all texts related to Codex.
15DjiboutiN/AN/AN/A
16EgyptN/AN/ACoordination carried out by Ministry of Health through the Food Safety Supreme Committee.
17Eq. GuineaN/AN/AN/A
18EritreaN/AN/AN/A
19EthiopiaLow level of awareness among consumers. A consumer rights protection organization is currently involved in food safety activities, but not the NCC and requires strengthening.N/AFood control activities are scattered among various regulatory bodies and not well coordinated.
20GabonNo system for consumer educationNo Network existsNo established coordination mechanism
21GambiaNo system for consumer educationNo Network existsOne agency (NaNA) is mandated to coordinate food control activities
22GhanaTwo consumers associations are active in NCC, but with only ad hoc consumer training activities.No Network existsOn-going review to re-align the functions and responsibilities of the 12 agencies involved in food safety to overcome overlapping areas.
23GuineaTwo consumer associations, ALCO and HYCOV are active in NCC.N/AA National Food Safety Commission has existed since 2003 but is not yet functional because of a lack of funds. Activities are poorly coordinated.
24G. BissauN/AN/AN/A
25KenyaConsumers Information Network is active in NCC and all food control activities in country, including consumer advocacy.No system existsNational Codex Committee links all stakeholders involved in food safety, but need further coordination.
26LesothoCollaboration between government and consumer organisations hampered by fragmentations and weakness of consumer organizations.No system existsWorking to develop policy instruments and implement a representative Governing Board to ensure wider participation by stakeholders.
27LiberiaN/AN/AN/A
28LibyaN/AN/AN/A
29MadagascarN/AN/AN/A
30MalawiNo system for consumer educationNo Network existsNo established coordination mechanism. Malawi Bureau of Standards acts as a lead agency in food control activities
31MaliN/AN/AN/A
32MauritaniaFood safety awareness is high among all consumers after a dioxin scare in imported poultry was well advertised by the media.No Network existsGovernment identified the key agency in food control as the National Research Institute
33MauritiusN/AN/AN/A
34MoroccoMore than 20 consumer organizations exist in two different federations and are involved in the NCC.N/ACoordination carried out within consultative bodies such as the Permanent Interministerial Committee for Food Control or the National Codex Alimentarius Committee.
35MozambiqueNo system for consumer educationNo Network existsNo coordinating mechanism
36NamibiaNo system for consumer educationNo Network existsNo established coordination mechanism
37NigerNo system for consumer educationNo Network existsCoordination carried out through active NCC.
38NigeriaConsumer Protection Council is an active member of the NCC and educates consumers.N/AN/A
39RwandaN/AN/AN/A
40SenegalN/AN/AN/A
41SeychellesN/AN/AN/A
42Sierra LeoneThe Consumer Protection Agency of Sierra Leone has designed on-going national education programmes on food safety.No Network existsSierra Leone Standards Bureau coordinates work with other concerned agencies.
43SomaliaN/AN/AN/A
44South AfricaSouth African National Consumer Union is active in NCC and national food control activitiesNo Network existsEstablished mechanism in place
45SudanN/AN/AAll relevant committees include stakeholders from government, industry, and NGO groups.
46SwazilandConsumer associations were formerly quite active, but currently require strengthening.No Network existsNo established mechanism in place
47TanzaniaConsumer organizations are represented in NCC, but need further support to be more active in food safety awareness raising.No Network existsNational Food Control Commission coordinates national food safety activities. Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority established in 2003 to coordinate food control activities
48TogoConsumers organization is represented on NCC and active in food control matters.N/ACoordination through National Codex Committee must be strengthened.
49TunisiaNational Board of Consumer Protection existsN/ANational Agency for Health and Environment Control coordinates food safety activities
50UgandaTwo consumer associations are active in NCC and undertake some consumer training and advocacy.No Network existsNational Food Safety Strategic Plan has been drafted to support the stakeholders in implementing the proposed Food Safety Law.
52ZambiaThe Consumer Welfare and Protection Directorate of the Zambia Competition Commission has embarked on an elaborate quality/ safety awareness programme.No Network existsNational Food Safety Committee established in Ministry of Trade, but needs strengthening. National SPS committee (Min of Ag) addresses food safety of exports, but needs strengthening.
53ZimbabweConsumer Council of Zimbabwe involved in food control activities, but needs additional assistance in technical trainingN/AFood Standards Advisory Board established in 1996; proposed to form a Food Safety Control Authority. National Codex Committee not yet established.
Source of Information /DataFAO Background paper for Global Forum, Status of Food Safety Management Systems in African Countries with
Recommendations for the way forward by L. E. Yankey, FAO Consultant, Nov. 2004
Report of Sixteenth Session of the Codex Committee for Africa, Rome, Italy, 25–28 January 2005
N/A - Not Available

TABLE 4 - MEMBERSHIP IN CODEX: NOTIFIABLE FOOD-BORNE DISEASES IN THE AFRICAN REGION

S/NCountryMembership in Codex and establishment of National Codex Committees (NCC) and National Codex Contact Points (NCCP)Notifiable food-borne diseases in the African Region
Food-borne diseasesIncidence of diseases
1AlgeriaMember of CCNEA. NCC and NCCP currently under developmentN/AN/A
2AngolaMember - The NCC comprises Min of Agriculture & Rural Dev, Health, Industry, Trade, Fisheries & Environment Affairs. NCCP in Ministry of Agriculture.N/AN/A
3BeninMember - NCC established in 1990. NCCP located in the Min of Rural Dev. in the Department of Food and Applied Nutrition (DANA). NCC is being strengthened in terms of membership, technical activities, sensitization and communication.N/AN/A
4BotswanaMember - Food Control Unit of the Ministry of Health serves as the NCCP.Cholera, diseases caused by SalmonellaNo data
5Burkina FasoMember- NCCP in Ministry of AgricultureN/AN/A
6BurundiMember- NCCP in Standards BureauN/AN/A
7CameroonMember - Codex Contact Point located in Ministry of Trade & IndustryN/AN/A
8Cape VerdeMember. Establishing agency for control of food products which will serve as NCCP. Min of Agriculture currently serving as NCCP.N/AN/A
9Cen. African Rep.Member- Ministry of Agriculture serving as NCCP.N/AN/A
10ChadMember- Hygiene division serves as NCCPN/AN/A
11ComorosNot a memberN/AN/A
12Congo, RepMember. Ministry of Industry serves as NCCP.CholeraNo data
13Congo, DR.Member. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
14Cote d'IvoireMember. CODINORM, the national organ in charge of Codex, includes all agencies working in food safety and is represented within the NCC. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
15DjiboutiNot a memberN/AN/A
16EgyptMember of CCNEA. Ministry of Health coordinates the NCC through the Food Safety Supreme Committee. Egyptian Organization for Standardization and Quality serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
17Eq. GuineaMember. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
18EritreaMember. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
19EthiopiaMember. NCCP located in the Quality and Standards Authority of Ethiopia which is also the secretariat of the NCC. Needs further strengtheningDiseases caused by Staph. aureus, Salmonella, Shigella & Bacillus cereus38 notified cases for 2001
20GabonMember. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
21GambiaMember. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
22GhanaMember for over 30 years - NCCP located in the Ghana Standards Board. The National Codex Committee has 22 members and is actively involved in matters of food standards and safety.N/AN/A
23GuineaMember. The National Standardization and Metrology Institute (INNM), serves as the NCCP. Requests assistance in establishing a NCC.Diseases caused by Staph. aureus, Salmonella, Shigella & Bacillus cereusCholera:44%;
24G. BissauMember. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
25KenyaMember - NCCP and NCC chair is the Kenyan Bureau of Standards; the NCC comprises government ministries, universities, the private sector, and consumer organizations. Functions need further coordination and strengthening.N/AN/A
26LesothoMember - Contact Point is located in the Food and Nutrition Coordinating OfficeN/AN/A
27LiberiaMember- Ministry of Commerce serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
28LibyaMember of CCNEA. National Centre for Standards serves as NCCP. NCC recently formed.N/AN/A
29MadagascarMember - NCC membership comprise Govt. Ministries, Private Labs, Private Sector, Consumer and Producers Associations. Ministry of Commerce serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
30MalawiMember - NCC involves all relevant ministries, industries and consumers. Bureau of Standards serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
31MaliMember. Ministry of Health serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
32MauritaniaMember. National Center of Hygiene serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
33MauritiusMember. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.Food poisoning (bacteria etc), Cholera & diarrhea due to SalmonellaCholera:44%; Diarrhoea:21%
34MoroccoMember. The NCCP is located in the Fraud Repression Division of the Min of Agriculture. This Division serves as the secretariat to the NCC, established in 1997.N/AN/A
35MozambiqueMember. NCCP is in the Min of Health and is responsible for distributing Codex texts, coordinating the activities of Codex within the country, and supporting the National Institute of Standardization and Quality in their work. NCC comprises Ministries of Agriculture, Trade, Fisheries & consumer organizations.Diseases caused by Shigella, RotavirusNo data
36NamibiaMember. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
37NigerMember - NCC formed in 1998; comprised of all concerned parties. NCCP located in the Ministry of Public Health and Reproduction. It encourages decision-makers to rely on and adopt Codex standardsN/AN/A
38NigeriaMember. NCC was re-activated in August 2000, with representation of all identifiable stakeholders. Technical sub-committees have been established, and plans are being made to strengthen and empower the NCC and the NCCP. The Standards Organization of Nigeria is the NCCP and also the Secretariat of the NCC, chaired by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control.Diseases caused by Salmonella, Botulinum, Shigella, Listeria, pesticides and natural toxinsNo data
39RwandaMember. Ministry of Commerce serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
40SenegalMember - NCC is located in the Food and Applied Nutrition Unit of the Ministry of Health and serves as technical support to the Senegal Standardization Institute (ISN). To date, it has elaborated more than 50 food-related standards.N/AN/A
41SeychellesMember. Bureau of Standards serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
42Sierra LeoneMember. Standards Bureau serves as NCCP and chairs the NCC.N/AN/A
43SomaliaNot a memberN/AN/A
44South AfricaMember. NCCP and secretariat of NCC is located in the Dept of Health. NCC includes Depts of Health, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, the South African Bureau of Standards and the National Consumer Forum.N/AN/A
45SudanMember of CCNEA. NCC established with all relevant stakeholders. Ministry of Agriculture serves as NCCP.N/AN/A
46SwazilandMember. NCC comprises relevant Ministries, Local Government, University, the food industry and consumer associations. NCCP is in the Ministry of Health. Committee meets on an ad hoc basisN/AN/A
47TanzaniaMember. NCC was established in 1980, with secretariat located in the Tanzania Bureau of Standards. Have an active and well established NCCP in TBS.N/AOutbreak of cholera around Lake Victoria in 1997
48TogoMember. Division of Nutrition and Food Technology of the Ministry of Agriculture serves as the focal point for the NCC and NCCP. NCC was established in 2004 and involves all relevant stakeholders.N/AN/A
49TunisiaMember of CCNEA. Active NCC and NCCP- in Bureau of Standards.N/AN/A
50UgandaMember. NCCP located in National Bureau of Standards. NCC established in June 2002 comprising Government ministries, the industry and trade associations, academia, research institutions, and consumer organizations.N/AN/A
52ZambiaMember. Ministry of Health is the NCCP. NCC not yet established due to lack of funds and continuity.N/AN/A
53ZimbabweMember. Food Standards Advisory Board (FSAB) serves as the NCC. The NCCP and secretariat of the NCC and the FSAB is the Government Analyst Laboratory of the Ministry of HealthN/AFood- related disease outbreaks are recurrent, in particular, cholera and anthrax
Source of Information / DataReport of Sixteenth Session of the Codex Committee for Africa, Rome, Italy, 25–28 January 2005WHO/AFRO Regional Survey
N/A= Not available
NCC - National Codex Committee:
NCCP - National Codex Contact Point

TABLE 5 - REGULATIONS ON BIOTECHNOLOGY AND GMOS (SIGNATORY TO THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY)

S/NCountryRegulations on Biotechnology or GMOsSignatory to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
SignatureRatification (rtf) Accession (acs)Entry into force
1AlgeriaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs25-May-0005-Aug-04rtf03-Nov-04
2AngolaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
3BeninDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-0002-Mar-05rtf31-May-05
4BotswanaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs01-Jun-0111-Jun-02rtf11-Sep-03
5Burkina FasoRegulatory framework on all functions pursuant to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety24-May-0004-Aug-03rtf02-Nov-03
6BurundiDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
7CameroonDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs09-Feb-0120-Feb-03rtf11-Sep-03
8Cape VerdeN/A    
9Cen. African Rep.Regulatory framework24-May-00   
10ChadDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-00   
11ComorosDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
12Congo, RepDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs21-Nov-00   
13Congo, DRDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 23-Mar-05acs21-Jun-05
14Cote d'IvoireDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
15DjiboutiDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 08-Apr-02acs11-Sep-03
16EgyptDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs20-Dec-0023-Dec-03rtf21-Mar-04
17Eq. GuineaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
18EritreaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 10-Mar-05acs08-Jun-05
19EthiopiaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-0009-Oct-03rtf07-Jan-04
20GabonDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
21GambiaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-0009-Jun-04rtf07-Sep-04
22GhanaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 30-May-03acs11-Sep-03
23GuineaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-00   
24G. BissauDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
25KenyaN/A15-May-0024-Jan-02rtf11-Sep-03
26LesothoPolicy- still in draft form 20-Sep-01acs11-Sep-03
27LiberiaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 15-Feb-02acs11-Sep-03
28LibyaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 14-Jun-05acs12-Sep-05
29MadagascarDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs14-Sep-0024-Nov-03rtf22-Feb-04
30MalawiDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-00   
31MaliDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs04-Apr-0128-Aug-02rtf11-Sep-03
32MauritaniaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 22-Jul-05rtf20-Oct-05
33MauritiusDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 11-Apr-02acs11-Sep-03
34MoroccoDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs25-May-00   
35MozambiqueDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-0021-Oct-02rtf11-Sep-03
36NamibiaRegulatory framework24-May-0010-Feb-05rtf11-May-05
37NigerNational legislation24-May-0030-Sep-04rtf29-Dec-04
38NigeriaNational guideline on handling, transport, packaging and identification, public awareness and participation24-May-0015-Jul-03rtf13-Oct-03
39RwandaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-0022-Jul-04rtf20-Oct-04
40SenegalDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs31-Oct-0008-Oct-03rtf06-Jan-04
41SeychellesRegulatory framework23-Jan-0113-May-04rtf11-Aug-04
42Sierra LeoneDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
43SomaliaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
44South AfricaNational legislation on the following topics: Intentional introduction into the environment (Advanced Informed Agreement); LMOs for use as food, feed or for processing; Transit and contained use; Genetic modification of organisms 14-Aug-03acs12-Nov-03
45SudanN/A 13-Jun-05acs11-Sep-05
46SwazilandDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs    
47TanzaniaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs 24-Apr-03acs11-Sep-03
48TogoDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs24-May-0002-Jul-04rtf30-Sep-04
49TunisiaDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs19-Apr-0122-Jan-03rtf11-Sep-03
50UgandaN/A24-May-0030-Nov-01rtf11-Sep-03
52ZambiaN/A 27-Apr-04acs25-Jul-04
53ZimbabweDoes not have regulations on biotechnology or GMOs04-Jun-0125-Feb-05rtf26-May-05
Source of Information / DataFAOLEX, ECOLEXParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity / Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety CDB/UNEP, 2001–2005


Agenda Item 6CAF 05/3

PRIORITIZATION AND COORDINATION OF CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITIES
(Paper prepared by the FAO/WHO secretariat)

1. INTRODUCTION

In the midst of the numerous other concerns facing the region, effective food safety systems are essential to the well-being of the people of Africa. As discussed in the Situation Analysis of National Food Safety Systems in Africa (CAF 05/2), access to safe food is an important element of food security, which is a daily concern to many in the region. Furthermore, due to the many other significant public health concerns facing the region, food-borne illnesses often go unnoticed, despite their unfortunate effects, both in terms of human suffering and economic costs. However, the task of attempting to accurately estimate the occurrence of food-borne diseases in the region is truly formidable, as surveillance systems are inadequate and occurrences are poorly recorded in most countries of the region. Accurate reporting of the occurrence of disease as well as the potential hazards in the food supply is needed in order to develop an effective national strategy to reduce food-borne disease and to increase the political will among national policy makers to give higher priority and the necessary resources to food safety programs. This reporting itself also requires a great deal of capacity building to implement.

Some of the countries of the region have realized that food exports provide significant foreign income that contributes to the economic development of their country, and thus also improve the standard of living of their people. However, access to food export markets, particularly the most lucrative markets, depends on their capacity to meet the regulatory requirements of the importing countries. In order to build long-term relationships with importers, the countries of the region must build the trust and confidence of their trading partners in their food control system.

Food supply systems in Africa are often fragmented, involving a multitude of middlemen. This exposes it to various types of contamination and fraudulent practices. In addition to the previously mentioned food security, public health and international trade issues, adulteration and fraud in the food supply are of significant concern to the consumers of the region. Considering that in many African countries, people spend almost 50% of their earnings on food, and among lower-income households this figure may rise to above 70%, the impact of such fraudulent practices can be quite devastating.1

Document CAF 05/2 outlines the importance of food safety in each of these contexts, as well as the challenges to be overcome in improving each of the specific components of national food safety management systems. Because of the many improvements required in national food safety systems in the region, effective, coordinated, and pragmatic food safety capacity building programmes are needed.

Although many activities have been implemented in Africa by various multi-lateral and bi-lateral agencies2 and much progress in food safety capacity building has been made in recent years, many of the basic weaknesses in food safety systems in the countries of the region still exist. Accordingly, this document addresses the need for national identification and prioritization of specific, urgent and important capacity building needs, coordination of capacity building activities and the long term sustainability of the capacity building activities in the African region.

2. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Capacity building and the WTO Agreements

Article 9 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, (SPS Agreement) and Article 12 of the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement emphasize the need for ‘Technical Assistance’ to assist developing country members meet the SPS measures of the developed importing countries to facilitate market access. The Agreement further provides that the technical assistance may cover creation of infrastructure, research activities and processing technologies. It stipulates not only for technical expertise and training to the developing members but also the hardware necessary to achieve the appropriate levels of sanitary and phytosanitary protection needed in their export markets.

Under Article 9 of the SPS Agreement, members of the WTO agreed to facilitate the provision of technical assistance to other members either bilaterally or through the appropriate international organizations. However, many African countries are not fully aware of the agreement of members to provide technical assistance under the SPS Agreement and therefore do not request the assistance. Also, many developed country members do not take adequate initiatives in providing the necessary technical assistance.

The technical assistance provided to date has, in many cases, been inadequate to permit African countries to meet their obligations and accrue the benefits of the SPS Agreement. Substantial investment and a coordinated and concerted effort among bi-lateral donors and the appropriate international organizations, international banks and other potential partners is needed if the real challenges faced by the countries of the region are to be addressed.

2.2 Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of national food control systems

CAF 05/2 provides an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the national food control systems of the region. As evidenced, many of the national systems and institutions suffer from a number of weaknesses that make them vulnerable in addressing food safety and quality issues. The weaknesses documented include all the fundamental elements of an effective national food control system including: basic infrastructure; national food safety and quality strategies and policies; food legislation; food inspection services; food control laboratories; effective participation in the work of Codex and other international standard setting and trade related organizations; implementing quality and safety assurance systems throughout the food chain; collaboration and cooperation of national agencies; information exchange; consumer involvement; food-borne disease surveillance and contaminant monitoring; and scientific and technical expertise. The safety and quality of street foods is also a major concern to the region, and is discussed in-depth in CAF 05/4.

In addition to the components of effective food control systems discussed in CAF 05/2, a foundational concern in strengthening food control systems is the development of national infrastructure. In many countries of the region, investment in basic infrastructure including sanitation, potable water supplies, cold storage, transport facilities and power supplies may be a prerequisite for addressing previously indicated concerns of personnel, laboratories, and other elements of food control systems. In addition, substantial investment in information technologies is important to improve communication and access to relevant information. Due to the large number of weaknesses in national food safety systems in the region, a well- coordinated and integrated set of actions for building capacity are needed.

2.3 Identification of specific urgent and important capacity building needs

The capacity building process must begin with an honest assessment by that country, involving all stakeholders, to identify the specific urgent and important needs of that country and to develop an optimal approach to meeting those needs. The needs assessment process requires the review of the existing structure including legislation, agencies involved, existing capabilities, and priorities. The assistance needs would broadly include various aspects of human and institutional capacity building.

FAO is in the process of testing Guidelines to Assess Capacity Building Needs in Official Food Control Systems that encourages a participatory approach of all stakeholders to ensure ownership and that the process is demand driven. As it is recognized that some lesser developed countries of the region may require assistance in employing such a tool, FAO is also in the process of developing a more concise tool that can easily be administered by consultants visiting these countries. FAO is also in the process of peer reviewing a Biosecurity Capacity Needs Assessment tool, which addresses cross-sectorial needs related to food safety, animal and plant health. After testing in pilot countries, all of these tools will be translated into all FAO languages and widely disseminated, likely in early 2006.

The results of such a needs assessment would provide useful information on which to design a national action plan outlining a coherent and integrated approach for internal actions and external assistance to meet the specific needs of individual countries. Capacity building and technical assistance activities could then be based on the actual requirements and these activities could be prioritized, designed and sequenced to meet the specific needs most efficiently and effectively. The specific assistance provided should be coordinated by all stakeholders involved, taking into consideration the agencies' respective mandates, resources and expertise. Development of such a plan would ensure collaboration between the national agencies involved, as well as external agencies, which often tend to provide disjointed assistance to the countries of the region.

In addition to an action plan at the national level, it is also essential that regional actions are well-coordinated through a regional action plan. Such a regional plan to address the food safety concerns of the region, including a plan of action for the FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committee for Africa (CCAfrica), will be subsequently presented and discussed in the working group sessions of this Conference.

3. COORDINATION OF CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITIES3

Countries may be able to implement various useful capacity building and technical assistance activities that strengthen specific elements of national food safety and quality control without conducting a needs assessment and developing a subsequent food safety action plan. However, these independent activities are often not well coordinated within the country, or with other efforts in the region, thus they may be ineffective or inadequate in achieving optimal or sustainable results. Unfortunately, information regarding or generated from these activities is normally not shared between agencies.

Capacity building activities can be expensive and time-consuming for both the provider and the benefactor; however, poor coordination often leads to duplicative activities, poor synergy between initiatives, and may not actually address the real needs of the country. Therefore, to complement the national and regional food safety action plans that are developed, it is necessary to improve the collaboration and coordination amongst the various agencies involved in food safety capacity building, whether within a specific country, regionally, or internationally.

3.1 National level

As a part of the national food safety action plan that is developed, it is essential that all the agencies within a country having mandates related to food safety work together to ensure coordination and long-term sustainability. Government agencies must also collaborate with the private sector to promote and ensure the safety and quality of the food they produce4. Government agencies and the private sector also must assure that they involve consumer and other advocacy groups in food safety activities to ensure that their needs are being met. Academia and other research organizations are also valuable partners in various aspects of assuring food safety and quality in the region.

National governments must also work to ensure that the assistance they receive from various multi-lateral and bi-lateral donors is well coordinated. Agencies working in food safety must ensure that the support they receive is shared with all concerned stakeholders, and that external inputs are not duplicative of each other, thus making the best use of available resources.

3.2 Regional level

There is great potential for effective regional collaboration among the countries of Africa. Many strong regional and sub-regional economic groupings already exist, some of which also address food safety issues. These groups include COMESA, EAC, ECOWAS, NEPAD, SADC and UEMOA, among others. However, many current capacity building activities do not adequately address the needs of the region or address areas of common concern. Accordingly, a regional action plan for food safety has been developed and will be discussed in order to improve the food safety situation in the entire region. The following actions are examples of practical capacity building actions that could be carried out a regional level in order to improve food safety:

3.2.1 Joint participation in international standards formulation

With greater acceptance of Codex standards and the initiation of the Codex Trust Fund5, there has been an increased interest by the countries of the region in the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The SPS Agreement also clearly emphasizes that all member countries should participate in international standards work.

Participation by individual African countries in the work of international standards setting organizations is very difficult due to cost and capacity constraints. Making known the viewpoint of a developing country can require a great deal of effort. Regional capacity building efforts that would foster more regional cohesiveness would enable all the countries of the region to have a more effective voice in the Codex process. Countries also need assistance to provide relevant data to the Codex system and to take part fully in the standard setting process, including physical attendance at Codex meetings.

An action plan for the strengthening of CCAfrica will be further discussed during the subsequent working group session on the regional action plan for food safety. The biennial sessions of the CCAfrica committee can also serve to provide a regular review of the implementation of the food safety regional action plan, as well as addressing other food safety related issues of concern to the region.

3.2.2 Safety management systems approach

The HACCP based approach is being incorporated into the new hygienic codes under development by Codex, as well as the regulatory requirements of many countries including Australia, Canada, USA, members of the European Union, and others, especially for more risk-prone products such as marine, meat, poultry and dairy products.

To develop the industries and control authorities in the region, regional programmes can be arranged on a rotational basis to cover the following aspects:

  1. Study the HACCP systems being implemented in countries, both outside and inside the region;
  2. Develop HACCP modules for various important sectors that would assist the food industry of the region;
  3. Arrange training for industry and for competent authorities on all aspects of HACCP, including auditing.

3.2.3 Establishment of subregional centres for human resource development in food safety and quality

Training has been identified as an essential activity to develop and upgrade human resource skills and to implement food quality and safety programmes as per international requirements. Because of the previously mentioned strong regional economic sub groupings and the common languages spoken in the various countries of the region, subregional training centres associated with the various economic sub groupings would be very effective. Small countries with limited funds could not support such training programmes individually, but regional efforts would also allow the countries of the region to learn from others in similar situations. Such training centres could address the training needs of the region in areas such as food inspection, laboratory analysis, the application of HACCP, etc. Required funding could be sought from potential bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors through the existing structures in place in the region.

3.2.4 Equivalence Mutual Recognition Certificates

The concept of equivalence has been recognized in the SPS Agreement and is also being encouraged at the international level by Codex with a view to using pooled resources more effectively, avoiding duplication of inspection and testing, and ensuring that health and safety requirements are met effectively. These also serve as an important means of facilitating trade by recognition of the standards and certification systems of the exporting country to provide for an equivalent level of protection against health risks as those of the importing countries and also lead to reduced rejection rates and provide for reduced inspection of export products in overseas markets.

Such equivalence agreements are normally signed between the importing and exporting countries individually. However, if such agreements are developed regionally - a form of regional agreement for recognition of the equivalence of specified SPS measures of all countries in the region, it would not only benefit intra Africa trade, but also give strength for negotiating equivalence agreements with third party countries on regional basis. Such agreements would also help reduce the financial burden for each member. For example, the members of the East African Community are currently developing regional food standards for the benefit of all its member countries and to facilitate inter-regional trade and transit. Other similar initiatives are on-going in other subregional groupings as well.

As many countries of the region are small, land-locked, share largely unpatrolled borders with multiple countries, and depend on other countries for food imports, mutual recognition agreements are also especially important for neighbouring countries of the region. Mutual recognition is the recognition by two trade partner countries of the validity of each others’ control procedures. The agreement may cover all foods or only specified foods.

3.2.5 Risk-based approach6and harmonization at regional level

Risk to consumers resulting from hazards in foods has been identified as a significant concern at the international level. Article 5 of the SPS Agreement provides that sanitary and phytosanitary measures should be based on risk assessments, taking into account an appropriate assessment of the actual risk involved, and, if requested by the exporting country, make known details of this assessment. Codex is also promoting the application of risk analysis principles throughout all Codex Committees in establishing and adopting standards. It becomes necessary, at times, to carry out risk assessments before fixing standards for domestic use, especially when these relate to indigenous products or are different to international standards due to local or regional conditions. It is proposed that such standards are formulated at the regional level, based on joint risk assessment studies which are conducted by utilizing the strengths of respective countries. As most countries of the region do not have adequate resources to effectively conduct the needed risk assessments at a national level, a regional risk assessment body may provide a valuable service in conducting risk assessments required by national governments to meet the risk assessment needs of the region that are not addressed by risk assessment bodies form outside the region. The establishment of regional food standards may also require harmonization of food standards within the region.

3.2.6 Laboratory networking

Increasing sophistication of laboratory instrumentation and methods of food analysis has handicapped many African countries. Accordingly, strengthening the equipment, manpower and infrastructure of laboratories has been identified as an important area for most countries of the region. A system of networking of laboratories within the region may be useful so that the facilities in one country could be utilized by other countries so that facilities are not unnecessarily duplicated, while at the same time are available to all countries of the region. Accreditation of these laboratories on common international criteria would be a prerequisite for being used in a regional network.

Joint training programmes for laboratory personnel may also be organized. It may also be useful to have a system of specific laboratories given the responsibility of development and maintenance of standard methods and sharing of the same. Inter laboratory calibration tests could also be organized within the region. This would also facilitate sharing of analytical test data for decision making as well as standards development.

3.2.7 Certification

Facilities for certification in different areas, such as export certification, HACCP, ISO 9000, etc. should be recognized within the region, irrespective of the country of operation. A country which has additional experience in a particular area could assist the other countries of the region without existing systems in that area until they are able to establish their own system.

3.2.8 Technical assistance between countries of the region

In addition to multi-lateral and bi-lateral assistance from countries outside of the region, many of the countries of the region have a great deal of knowledge and experience that could be shared with other countries of the region, with mutual benefit for both countries. Many countries of the region face similar issues and have related climates, histories, infrastructures, etc, so they would be best suited to assist other countries in similar situations. The strengths of each country of the region should be identified and a system developed for maintaining and sharing this information, and then providing the necessary technical assistance to other countries. Some of the areas identified could include laboratory testing, inspection and certification, including export certification.

This collaboration would reduce dependency on outside, and often irrelevant, technical assistance. Cooperation in provision of technical assistance may also lead to the strengthening of intra regional trade, which has great potential to assist the countries of Africa to ensure food security without dependence on foreign markets.

3.2.9 Communication and exchange of information

Access to information is essential in a rapidly changing global food economy. FAO and WHO provide a number of resources in this area, but further assistance is still needed. These activities are described in CAF 05/6, International, Regional, Subregional and National Cooperation in Food Safety in Africa.

3.3 International level

FAO and WHO must also work to further coordinate food safety capacity building activities at the international level, including activities such as those given below:

FAO currently serve as the chair and co-chair, respectively, of the Working Group for the Standards and Trade Development Facility, which seeks to improve coordination of SPS related capacity building activities. The WTO serves as secretariat for this facility and IPPC, OIE, and the World Bank are also involved in the working group. The STDF also funds standards and trade related capacity building projects.

The STDF also seeks to collaborate with the Integrated Framework trade facilitation programme (involved partners include WTO, UNCTAD, ITC, IMF, World Bank and UNDP) and other trade related initiatives.

As previously indicated, many countries of the region do receive bi-lateral technical assistance from countries outside of the region, and could also take part in twinning programmes where the countries can learn about food safety systems directly from the country with which they are paired.

1 Malik R.K. 1981. “Food: a priority for consumer protection in Asia and the Pacific region.” Food and Nutrition, 7:2.

2 A complete list of FAO and WHO’s capacity building activities in the Africa region and world-wide in 2004 and 2005 is available as CAC 28/INF 5: ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/cac/cac28/if28_05e.pdf

3 Conference document CAF 05/6 further describes the coordination and cooperation in general food safety issues, at both national and regional levels.

4 More information on the particular challenges and possibilities for small and medium producers to produce safe and high quality food is further detailed in CAF 05/5.

5 More information on the Trust Fund is available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/codex/trustfund/en/index.html

6 FAO and WHO are in the process of peer reviewing a Food Safety Risk Analysis manual that provides a framework for conducting all aspects of risk analysis (risk assessment, risk management and risk communication) at a national level.

4. Long-Term sustainability of the results of capacity building activities

In order for technical co-operation activities to be effective and sustainable in the long term, all stakeholders must be involved and the project must be needs based. Special emphasis should be given to appropriate sensitization of key persons, such as policy makers, and to the development of public education programmes related to food safety, such as inclusion of quality and safety aspects in all levels of educational curriculum. Food control systems must be strengthened by implementation of international systems standards such as Codex, ISO 17020, ISO 17025, ISO 22000, ISO/IEC Guide 62 and 65 and must seek accreditation to ensure continued implementation of international norms.

To ensure its sustainability and effectiveness, there is a need for a regular review and evaluation of the technical assistance provided to individual developing countries. This review should include all of the agencies involved and officials of the developing countries concerned. The purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of the assistance provided in meeting its objectives and, if needed, to make any necessary adjustments in the approach to ensure its sustainability and effectiveness.

5. CONCLUSION

Effective capacity building must reflect the needs, priorities and conditions of the countries of the region. Although there have been many capacity building activities in the region, efforts have been sporadic and critical mass and multiplier effects have not been achieved. Most of the capacity building activities have been focused on training and seminars, while infrastructure development, such as equipment for laboratories, has been limited. Action is required to improve cooperation and collaboration between the various organizations involved and to build alliances so that the available resources are optimally applied. Capacity building must be addressed in an integrated manner with a national, regional and international perspective.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to the points mentioned throughout this and other conference documents, the following recommendations are proposed for consideration by the conference:

The countries of the region should:

FAO and WHO should:


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page