Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors:Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness A Summary Report
2
A Summary Report
Photo credit: ILRI/Ben Lukuyu
3
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
CONTENTS
Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................................4Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................6Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................8Dairy and Poultry Inputs and Services – Key Supply Constraints ................................ 16The Complexity of the Regulatory Framework in the Dairy and Poultry Sectors ............28References ................................................................................................................................. 35Annex 1: Tanzania L-MIRA Reform Agenda ....................................................................... 37
TablesTable 1: Prices of various types of compound feed............................................................................................. 20
Table 2: Nutrient composition of poultry compound feeds .............................................................................. 22
Table 3: Analyzed licenses and related compliance cost .................................................................................... 33
Table 4: GALVmed 2015 analysis of compliance cost for the Certificate of Veterinary
Drug and Vaccine Registration ................................................................................................................... 34
Figures Figure 1: Overview of the milk value chain in Tanzania ........................................................................................8
Figure 2: Network of processing plants and milk collection centers .................................................................9
Figure 3: Factors considered by commercial dairy and poultry farmers as major constraints ................... 11
Figure 4: Tanzania’s projected demand for meat (2000 – 2030) ...................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Licensing and inspection requirements for a dairy company in Tanzania ..................................... 14
Figure 6: Dairy farms – ownership of cattle by breed type and farm size ..................................................... 17
Figure 7: Level of satisfaction with the quality of drugs in the market .......................................................... 18
Figure 8: Producers’ experience with ineffective drugs in the past 12 months ........................................... 18
Figure 9: Dairy farmers’ main sources of drugs and vaccines ........................................................................... 19
Figure 10: Poultry farmers’ main sources of drugs and vaccines ..................................................................... 19
Figure 11: Producers’ animal health and extension services seeking behavior ............................................ 24
Figure 12: Proportion of producers that used bull service and Artificial Insemination (AI) ....................... 26
Figure 13: Reasons for producers to prefer bull service .................................................................................... 26
4
A Summary Report
ABBREVIATIONS
AI Artificial Insemination AU-PANVAC The African Union Panafrican Veterinary Vaccine CentreBMFG Bill and Melinda Gates FoundationBRELA Business Registrations and Licensing AuthorityCTI Confederation of Tanzania IndustriesCGCLA Chief Government Chemist Laboratory AuthorityDED District Executive Director DOCs Day Old ChicksDVO District Veterinary OfficerDVS Director of Veterinary servicesEAC East African CommunityECF East Coast Fever ECI Environmental Compliance Institute FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCI Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation FBD Food-borne DiseasesFYDP Five-Year Development Plan GCLA Government Chemist Laboratory Agency GMP Good Manufacturing PracticeH5N1 Highly pathogenic Asian avian influenza AIFIF International Feed Industry FederationILRI International Livestock Research Institute LGA Local Government AuthorityLN Liquid Nitrogen L-MIRA Livestock Micro Reform for AgribusinessMLF Ministry of Livestock and FisheriesMITI Ministry of Industry, Trade and InvestmentMoU Memorandum of Understanding NMRA National Medicine Regulatory AuthoritiesMRP Mutual Recognition Procedure NAIC National Artificial Insemination CenterNBS National Bureau of StatisticsNEMC National Environmental Management Council OIE World Organization for Animal HealthOSS One Stop Shop
5
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health AuthorityPMS Post-marketing Surveillance PO-RALG President’s Office Regional Administration and Local Governments RAS Regional Administration SecretaryRIU Research Into Use RLA Regional Livestock Advisor RLDC Rural Livelihood Development Company SADC Southern African Development Community SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Corridor of TanzaniaSME Small and Medium Size EnterprisesSOP Standard Operating ProcedureSUMATRA Surface and Marine Transport Regulatory Authority TAMPA Tanzania Milk Processors Association TPBA Tanzania Poultry Breeders AssociationTAEC Tanzania Atomic Energy CommissionTBS Tanzania Bureau of StandardsTBT Technical Barriers to TradeTDB Tanzania Dairy BoardTFDA Tanzania Food, Drug and AuthorityTLMI Tanzania Livestock Modernization Initiative TLMP Tanzania Livestock Master Plan TMB Tanzania Meat BoardTPRI Tanzania Pesticide Research InstituteTVLA Tanzania Veterinary Laboratory AgencyTZS Tanzanian Shillings URT United Republic of Tanzania VAT Value Added Tax VCT Veterinary Council of TanzaniaWBG World Bank GroupWHO World Health Organization
6
A Summary Report
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is based on baseline findings from the Tanzania Livestock Micro-Reforms in Agribusiness
(L-MIRA) project and on subsequent discussions with representatives from the Government, the private
sector and other key stakeholders in the dairy and poultry sectors. The report summarizes findings from
two detailed baseline reports and includes the prioritized reform agenda for the project. The Tanzania
(L-MIRA) project is a technical assistance project, fully funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
(BMFG) and implemented by the World Bank Group (WBG) to contribute to improved competitiveness
of the dairy and poultry sectors through regulatory and institutional reforms. The project is part of a
larger L-MIRA program, which is also implemented in Ethiopia and Nigeria.
This report was prepared by a World Bank Group (WBG) team consisting of Neema Mwingu (Private
Sector Specialist, Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation (FCI) Global Practice and the L-MIRA
Project Lead in Tanzania), Hans Shrader (Senior Program Manager, FCI Global Practice and the Lead for
the L-MIRA Program in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania), and Vazha Nadareishvili (Consultant, FCI Global
Practice). Neema Mwingu led the team in Tanzania throughout the assignment while Hans Shrader
provided strategic guidance and oversight. Vazha Nadareishvili provided M&E expertise throughout
the assignment, from the design to application of M&E tools.
The report is based on detailed analytical work conducted by Muvek Development Solutions. Vera
Mugittu led the team consisting of Kefas Mugittu and other Muvek associate consultants. The Muvek
team worked closely with the WBG team to develop the methodology of the analysis and to prepare
the baseline study tools, based on desk research and interviews and discussions with stakeholders.
During the assignment, the team benefited from contributions from Ed Keturakis (Vice President,
New Business Development, CNFA and former Senior Agribusiness Specialist, FCI Global Practice),
Abel Kahabi (Enterprise Development Specialist, USAID PROTECT Project and former Consultant, FCI
Global Practice), Honest Ndanu (Veterinarian, Honest Veterinary Clinic and former Consultant, FCI
Global Practice), Sarah A. Simons (Senior Agriculture Specialist, Agriculture Global Practice), Caroline
Plante (Senior Livestock Specialist, Agriculture Global Practice) and Syed Estem Dadul Islam (Senior
Results Management Specialist, FCI Global Practice); Jwani Tranquilino Jube (Consultant, FCI Global
Practice), and Betty Jayne Humplick (Consultant, FCI Global Practice).
Several WBG colleagues provided useful input and comments at various points throughout the process
of preparing this report. In particular, the team would like to express its gratitude to Heinz-Wilhelm
Strubenhoff (Senior Private Sector Specialist, FCI Global Practice), Isaac Njoro Thendiu (Senior Private
Sector Specialist, FCI Global Practice), and Jigjidmaa Dugeree (Senior Private Sector Specialist, FCI
Global Practice).
7
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
The team also benefited from the overall guidance and support provided by the WBG leadership,
especially Bella Bird (Country Director for Tanzania, Burundi, Malawi and Somalia); Dan Kasirye (IFC
Resident Representative, Tanzania), Yutaka Yoshino (Program Leader, Equitable Growth, Finance
and Institutions, Tanzania Country Unit), Gayle Martin (Program Leader, Human Development and
Agriculture, Tanzania Country Unit), Catherine Masinde (Practice Manager, Macroeconomics, Trade
and Investments Global Practice); and Steven Dimitriyev (Lead Private Sector Specialist, Trade and
Competitiveness Global Practice). The guidance and support of the BMFG team, led by Alan Rennison
(Senior Program Officer, Agricultural Policy & Data) is also appreciated.
The team would like to extend special thanks to the following individuals within the Government
for their support and contribution during the assignment. Special thanks goes to Dr. Mary Mashingo
(Permanent Secretary, the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries) and her team, which includes Mrs.
Catherine Joseph (Director of Policy and Planning) and Dr. Abdou A. Hayghaimo (Director of Veterinary
Services); Prof. Adolf Mkenda (Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and East African Affairs
and former Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Industry Trade and Investments) and his team, which
includes Mr. Baraka Aligaesha (Trade Officer); Mr. Hiiti Sillo (Director General, Tanzania Food and Drug
Authority) and his team, which includes Mr. Raymond Wigenge (Director of Food Safety) and Mr.
Adam Fimbo (Director of Medicine and Complementary Products); Dr. Lucy Ssendi (Assistant Director,
Economy and Productive Sectors, President’s Office Regional Administration and Local Governments);
Dr. Bedan Masuruli (Registrar, Veterinary Council of Tanzania); and Dr. Furaha Mramba (Chief Executive
Officer, Tanzania Veterinary Laboratory Agency) and her team, which includes Dr. Henry Magwisha
(Director of Surveillance and Diagnostics) and Mr. Proches Malamsha (Central Veterinary Laboratory
Head), Mr. Lazaro Msasalaga (Head of Agriculture & Food Standards Section, Tanzania Bureau of
Standards); Mrs. Suzan Kiango (Registrar, Tanzania Meat Board); Mr. Nelson Kilongozi (Acting Registrar,
Tanzania Dairy Board); Mr. Andrew Mkapa (Deputy Registrar, Commercial Laws, Business Registrations
and Licensing Agency).
Finally, the team would like to acknowledge Irfan Kortschak (Consultant, WBG) for providing editing
assistance and Abdul Muhile (Consultant, WBG) for designing the report.
January 2018
The World Bank Group
Africa Region
8
A Summary Report
Tanzania’s livestock sector presents great
opportunities to generate increased inclusive
economic growth. In Tanzania, around 50
percent of households are engaged in livestock
production, with this proportion increasing to
60 percent in rural areas. The Tanzania Livestock
Modernization Initiative (TLMI) and Tanzania
Livestock Master Plan (TLMP)1 prioritize the
dairy and poultry value chains, together with
red meat and pork value chains, as key to the
transformation of the livestock sector. The
Second Five-Year Development Plan (FYDPII)
also prioritizes the industrialization of dairy and
poultry, along with other key sectors.
There are several reasons why the dairy and
poultry value chains are being prioritized in
Tanzania. The dairy and poultry value chains
are amongst the livestock value chains that
have high potential to generate jobs and to
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. TLMI and TLMP are Government strategic documents that sets out the vision and plans for transformation of the livestock sector in Tanzania. TLMI was launched in July 2015 while the TLMP is currently being finalized.
improve livelihoods for both the rural and urban
population. The 2012/13 National Panel survey
revealed that, of all households in Tanzania that
are engaged in livestock production, 86 percent
raise chickens, 48 percent raise goats, 35 raise
cattle, and 19 percent raise pigs and other
livestock. In addition, the majority of poultry
businesses are owned and managed by women
and poultry provides a good source of animal
protein.
Despite the potential of Tanzania’s dairy
and poultry value chains, they are currently
characterized by a high level of subsistence
production, with limited use of quality
inputs and services. At present, 97 percent
of Tanzania’s milk cows are of a local breed,
producing only one to one and a half liters per
day. In addition, only a tiny proportion of dairy
and poultry products are processed locally. At
Figure 1: Overview of the milk value chain in Tanzania
Source: RLDC / NIRAS Consulting, MLF, WBG
9
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
Figure 2: Network of processing plants and milk collection centers
present, about 98 percent of locally produced
milk is sold raw through informal markets, with
only about 2 percent being processed (see
Figure 1). Most processors do not operate at
optimal capacity, utilizing on average about
30 percent of installed capacity (see Figure
2). Processors are constrained by a number of
factors, including limited supplies of raw milk
(especially during dry season); high cost of
collection; outdated plant technology that limits
the ability to produce a more varied range of
products; and high cost of doing business.
Since only a very small proportion of Tanzania’s
domestically-produced milk is processed,
the vast majority of milk sold on Tanzania’s
formal market is imported from other
countries, especially Kenya, South Africa,
United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands.
There are virtually no export markets for
domestically-produced milk, except through
small-scale trading activities across borders
with neighboring countries.
Source: TAMPA, MLF
10
A Summary Report
Stakeholders Surveyed by L-MIRA
• Farmers: Semi-commercial and com-
mercial farmers who are linked to a
value chain and were more likely to
invest in inputs and services.
• Other Stakeholders: feed manufac-
turers, veterinary drugs and vaccines
importers and suppliers, owners of
hatcheries, dairy and poultry off-tak-
ers and processors, veterinarians,
livestock officers, and staff of various
Government Ministries, Departments
and Agencies.
Tanzania’s poultry sector is dominated by
small-scale production, with the average
producer being a household with 12 birds that
feed by scavenging. While there is a limited
number of medium-scale commercial producers
in urban and peri-urban areas, the commercial
sector’s contribution to overall production is
relatively small. Even within the limited number
of commercial poultry farms, the level of
productivity is sub-optimal. For example, the
L-MIRA study shows that the average annual
level of production at commercial poultry
farms stands at about 235 eggs per hen. This
is considerably lower than the recommended
target levels, which stand in the range of 280 –
300 eggs per hen.
Tanzania’s export of poultry and poultry
products is also limited. While the export of
day-old chicks (DOCs) to neighboring countries
(particularly Kenya and Comoros) is increasing,
the export of other poultry products has
generally declined. In the recent past, some
Tanzanian businesses were involved in the
export of eggs to Comoros. However, due
to competition from cheaper imports from
elsewhere, Tanzanian products have become
uncompetitive.
To improve the competitiveness of Tanzania’s
poultry and dairy sectors, it is necessary to:
(i) increase productivity at the farm level;
(ii) improve linkages in the value chains; (iii)
enable businesses to access capital; and (iv)
establish a conducive regulatory environment.
The L-MIRA project aims to contribute to
improved competitiveness of these two
sectors by focusing on the regulatory and
institutional reforms necessary to establish a
conducive regulatory environment. A high-level
assessment conducted during the design of the
project shows reform opportunities in the dairy
and poultry input markets (e.g. compounded
feed, veterinary drugs and DOCs); services
delivery; and the overall regulatory compliance
environment for dairy and poultry businesses.
The L-MIRA project facilitated a
comprehensive baseline study to identify
specific constraints in the two sectors in
order to prioritize reform opportunities.
Respondents of the study, which commenced
in December 2016 and was completed in
March 2017, included commercial and semi-
commercial farmers who were linked to a value
chain and were more likely to pay for inputs and
services. Consultations were also conducted
with other value chain actors, including input
11
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
manufacturers, importers, and distributors;
veterinarians and other service providers; the
owners of hatcheries; processors of dairy and
poultry products, and relevant regulators.
In this study, limited access to capital was
identified as the most significant constraint by
most surveyed producers.2 In total, 49 percent
of surveyed dairy and poultry farmers identified
limited access to finance and/or capital as being
a significant constraint (see Figure 3). While this
constraint is clearly of major concern, it falls
outside the scope of the L-MIRA project, which
focuses on regulatory and institutional reforms.
Issues related to access to finance are addressed
through a number of other programs, both within
and outside the World Bank Group (WBG). For
example, the World Bank has provided funds to a
value of US$ 70 million to develop the Southern
Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania
(SAGCOT). The stated goal of this program is
to increase the adoption of new technologies
and marketing practices by smallholder farmers
through creation of partnerships between
smallholder farmers and agribusinesses in the
Corridor. Almost 70 percent of the funds will be
used to provide matching grants to agribusiness
small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). The
Bank is also preparing a new project to address
supply and demand side constraints in the
financial sector, which contribute to the high
cost of capital.
The baseline study identified access to markets as the second most significant constraint for Tanzania’s dairy and poultry sectors. In
particular, the major market constraints related
to linkages and farmers’ organization; marketing
infrastructure, including the lack of cold chain
and collection centers; transport infrastructure;
and product demand. The second phase of the
East African Dairy Development Program (EADD
II) and a number of other programs are currently
being implemented to address some of these
challenges. The EADD II program is addressing
market linkage challenges by establishment
and scaling up dairy business hubs or cluster of
services from which farmers can access inputs
and services, including markets for their milk.
The SAGCOT project of the World Bank is also
addressing constraints related to market linkages
in agribusiness value chains.
Figure 3: Factors considered by commercial dairy and poultry farmers as major constraints
2. This was also revealed by the World Bank 2013 Enterprise survey.
Source: WBG
12
A Summary Report
Currently, the demand for dairy and poultry products in Tanzania is relatively low compared to some countries in the East African Community (EAC). For example, Tanzania’s
per capita milk consumption is about 45 liters
compared to about 130 liters in Kenya. This is
partly attributable to a smaller middle class3 and
low awareness on the nutritional importance
of milk. However, the demand for livestock
products is expected to increase in the next
decades, driven by population growth, growth
of the middle class4 and increased consumer
awareness about nutritional value of animal
protein. For example, Tanzania’s total demand
for meat will more than double by 2030 with
white meat (poultry and pork) posting the
highest growth rates (see Figure 4). However,
at current level of investments, local producers
will not be able to satisfy the growing demand
for meat. Adequate investments, policy and
institutional reforms will be required to boost
productivity. The Government of Tanzania
is currently projecting that, with adequate
investments, annual chicken meat production in
Tanzania would rise to 465,600 tons by 2022.
This would bring the production-consumption
deficit for chicken meat from 130,000 to a
surplus of 258,000 tons between 2017 and
2022, which can be used for domestic industrial
use or export.5
The L-MIRA baseline study also identified inefficiencies in the input markets that limit farmers’ access to quality inputs such as feed, breed, veterinary drugs and vaccines and veterinary services. Animal disease is also
amongst the most significant constraints faced
by farmers. Ensuring well-functioning markets
for inputs and services is critical to addressing
these constraints. At present, the further
development of input and output markets
is impeded by several policy and regulatory
Figure 4: Tanzania’s projected demand for meat (2000 – 2030)
3. Deloitte on Africa: The Rise and Rise of the African Middle Class.4. Oxford Economics, Bright Continent – The future of Africa’s opportunity cities.5. The TLMP, 2017.
Source: FAO Projections
13
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
constraints. These include the lack of supportive
policy and regulatory frameworks; limited
enforcement capacity at different levels; and
a complex regulatory compliance regime with
proliferation of laws, regulations and licensing
requirements. In some cases, the limited
knowledge and skills of the private sector also
impedes the development of markets.
For example, at present, Tanzania’s compound feed market is virtually unregulated, largely due to weak regulatory enforcement capacity. While some regulations have been issued, the
level of knowledge and awareness regarding
these regulations amongst the private sector is
very limited. In addition, these regulations are
not comprehensive, with many areas remaining
unregulated. Although some inspectors have
been appointed, they have not been trained
to effectively enforce the law. At present,
manufacturers test feed on a voluntary basis.
Very few of these manufacturers effectively
monitor the quality of their products and
demonstrate commitment to improving
standards. Most feed producers operate
on a small scale, with limited knowledge of
regulatory requirements, feed standards and
good manufacturing practice. In such a weak
enforcement environment and with such a
low level of development in the industry, the
quality of feed is unreliable and often poor. The
Government could address these issues through
a number of interventions, including putting in
place a regulatory framework that encourages
truth in labeling of feed products, building its
capacity to ensure feed manufacturers adhere
to feed safety standards, and promoting self-
regulation by the industry.
In addition, the lack of a national food safety policy and a well-coordinated regulatory and institutional framework for food safety control increases food safety risks and limits Tanzanian businesses’ access to domestic, regional and international markets. Currently,
there are no monitoring programs to assess the
level of microbial and chemical contamination
(including contamination by pesticides and
veterinary drug residues and mycotoxins) in
the local food supply. TFDA has attempted
to address this by establishing a food-borne
surveillance system to conduct monitoring
programs for food. It recently developed
guidelines for the investigation and surveillance
of food-borne diseases (FBD) on the basis
of guidelines issued by the World Health
Organization (WHO). The FBD system has
already been implemented in 15 regions. It is
expected that during FY2017/18, it will be rolled
out in the remaining 17 regions, depending
on the availability of funds. However, food
safety is a multi-sectoral issue which requires
coordination of many stakeholders across the
food supply chain, from farm to fork. Therefore,
a policy framework and well-coordinated legal
and institutional framework is necessary.
With the lack of a comprehensive national food safety policy, there is a high degree of confusion regarding the boundaries of regulatory responsibility, with conflicts resulting from laws and regulations that assign similar mandates to more than one authority. These overlaps often force businesses to comply with duplicative registration, permitting, and inspection requirements, which increases their operational costs. For example, an average dairy company in Tanzania must comply with
14
A Summary Report
31 licensing requirements, with 18 of these involving overlapping mandates. They are also subject to 12 ongoing inspections, of which 10 are overlapping (see Figure 5). These overlapping mandates also put pressure on public finances, with the Government being required to ensure the effective functioning of a range of entities that fulfill similar mandates. Costs to both the private and public sector could be effectively reduced by rationalizing and streamlining the policy and legal framework to reduce or eliminate these overlapping mandates.
Both the TLMI and TMLP prioritize measures
to streamline the policy, legal and regulatory
environment and to build regulatory
enforcement capacity. These two strategic
documents identify a number of measures that
fall within the scope of the L-MIRA project,
including: (i) strengthening animal health
regulatory capacities at the national, regional,
and local levels; (ii) improving the availability
of drugs and vaccines and exercising effective
quality control over these inputs; (iii) enforcing
the Grazing Land and Animal Feed Resources
Act, 2010, and associated regulations on
feed quality standards, quality monitoring and
control; (iv) strengthening the enforcement
of the Animal Disease Act, 2003, and its
associated regulations; and (v) developing a
harmonized regulatory framework to lower the
cost of business and to facilitate investments
(see Annex 1).
The scope of the Tanzania L-MIRA project covers a range of policy, legal, regulatory and institutional reforms. The project prioritizes
regulatory and institutional reforms in five
key areas, as follows: (i) strengthening the
regulatory framework for the manufactured
animal feeds supply chain and the Government’s
enforcement capacities in this area; (ii)
strengthening the Government’s enforcement
capacities in the chicks supply chain; (iii)
strengthening the capacities of the Tanzania
Figure 5: Licensing and inspection requirements for a dairy company in Tanzania
Source: WBG
15
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
Food and Drug Authority (TFDA) to assure the
quality of veterinary drugs and vaccines through
improved post-marketing surveillance (PMS);
(iv) supporting the TFDA to minimize vaccines
registration costs through the implementation
of the EAC harmonized guidelines on the
registration of veterinary vaccines; and (v)
minimizing regulatory overlaps in food safety
control through the implementation of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between TFDA and the Tanzania Bureau of
Standards (TBS).
These reforms have been prioritized on the basis of four main criteria, these being: (i) the pressing needs of the private sector; (ii) the potential impact of the reforms; (iii) their ease of implementation, with a focus on reforms that can be achieved within the timeframe of the project; and (iv) their alignment with Government priorities. In implementing
these reforms, the L-MIRA project will seek
to incorporate input from the private sector
by encouraging dialogue and consultations
to strengthen the transparency of the reform
process; by fostering collaboration among
various Government institutions; and by
introducing best practices that can ensure
sustainability of reforms.
L-MIRA will also facilitate public-public, public-private and private-private dialogues in three areas of critical importance to advance efforts to achieve the prioritized reforms. These are:
(i) defining and clarifying the policy, legal and
institutional framework for food safety control,
with an emphasis on dialogue to identify the
legal reforms necessary to reduce regulatory
overlaps; (ii) defining a legal framework for
animal breeding, with such a framework
currently entirely lacking in Tanzania; and (iii)
coordination between the Ministry of Livestock
and Fisheries (MLF) and the President’s Office –
Regional Administration and Local Government
(PO-RALG), to ensure the effective delivery of
animal health services.
A Summary Report
16
The L-MIRA baseline study surveyed dairy and poultry producers to gain an understanding of the key constraints in the inputs and services markets. The survey’s
respondents included commercial and semi-
commercial farmers who were linked to a value
chain and were more likely to pay for inputs and
services. Consultations were also conducted
with other value chain actors, including input
manufacturers, importers, and distributors;
veterinarians and other service providers; the
owners of hatcheries; and relevant regulators.
While many respondents claimed that there
were many substandard inputs and services
on the market, most commercial producers
appeared to have established relationships
with trusted sources that supply them with
quality inputs and services. This contributed
to commercial producers’ somewhat more
favorable responses to a number of survey
questions.
The survey confirmed that the use of sufficiently high-quality inputs and veterinary and extension services can greatly reduce the incidence of animal diseases and contribute to improving farmers’ productivity. The average level of
productivity in the dairy and poultry sectors
is currently sub-optimal. For example, with
poultry, the average annual level of productivity
is 235 eggs per hen, significantly lower than
targeted levels, which are in the range of 280 –
300 eggs per hen. The average time for chickens
to reach market weight is about 82 days, much
higher than the target levels of 28 – 35 days.
Similarly, the average time for chickens to reach
sexual maturity is 168 days, when they are
close to peak production levels, while the target
levels are 126 – 180 days. With dairy, a pure
breed dairy cow can produce up to 30 liters per
day, while an improved dairy cow can produce
10 liters per day, and an indigenous cow one
to three liters per day. On the surveyed dairy
farms, the average level of productivity stood at
5.7 liters per cow per day.
One of the most serious identified constraints on productivity in the case of both the dairy and poultry sectors was disease. The majority of surveyed farmers
reported that their livestock had experienced
diseases and death from causes that could easily
be prevented or treated. In the case of dairy,
the most prevalent diseases included several
tick-borne diseases, including East Coast Fever
(ECF) and anaplamosis. Of all the tick-borne
diseases, ECF has the most significant negative
impact, often resulting in high death rates,
especially amongst calves. Tick-borne diseases
are treatable and can be prevented through
regular tick control involving regular spraying or
dipping with acaricides. ECF is also preventable
with immunization. In the case of poultry, the
most prevalent viral diseases were Newcastle
disease, Gumboro disease and fowl pox, all
of which can be prevented by vaccination. In
addition, poultry was affected by infectious
coryza, fowl typhoid, coccidiosis and worm
infestation, all of which are treatable infections.
A range of factors contribute to high
prevalence of disease and low productivity.
These include poor quality of inputs (veterinary
DAIRY AND POULTRY INPUTS AND SERVICES – KEY SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
17
drugs and vaccines, compound feed, and
DOCs); inadequate feeding; the inappropriate
use of veterinary drugs (farmers self-prescribing
drugs); the inappropriate use of vaccines
(farmers vaccinating animals that are already
sick); and farmers’ inability to access quality
veterinary and extension services. The low
levels of productivity recorded by the surveyed
farmers, particularly on dairy farms, could be
largely linked to their breeds of animals, with
most livestock on surveyed farms consisting of
indigenous breeds with very low productivity
potential. For example, amongst the farmers
surveyed for this Study, the largest proportion
of cattle consisted of indigenous cattle, followed
by cross-breed and then pure-breed cattle.
Small-scale farmers tended to own a relatively
higher proportion of cross-breed cattle, while
large-scale farmers tended to own a higher
proportion of indigenous cattle (see Figure 6).
Key constraints in the veterinary drugs and vaccines supply chain
While drugs and vaccines are generally easily
accessible, some important vaccines (e.g. for
Marek’s disease, foot and mouth disease,
and lumpy skin disease) are not registered in
Tanzania. Some of these vaccines are not fast
moving and are primarily intended for mass
vaccination. In the case of the vaccine for
Marek’s disease, the vaccine is primarily used
by hatcheries, of which there are very few in
Tanzania. As a result, the distribution of these
vaccines is not profitable for private suppliers.
Thus, the vaccines are usually imported under
a special or emergency permit issued by TFDA,
following a recommendation by the Director
of Veterinary Services (DVS). The scarcity of
these vaccines encourages smuggling from
neighboring countries. With the limited or
irregular supply of vaccines, compliance with
regulations regarding the use is often impractical
or impossible. For example, the regulations
governing hatcheries require all layer day-
old-chicks to be vaccinated against Marek’s
disease, although the vaccine is not available
on the market in Tanzania. TFDA is taking steps
to address this by developing regulations with
incentives to encourage the registration of
these difficult-to-source vaccines.
Most surveyed farmers stated that while
they were satisfied with the quality of drugs
and vaccines they utilized (see Figure 7),
there were many sub-standard products on
the market. It appears that after a process of
trial and error, most commercial farmers have
Figure 6: Dairy farms – ownership of cattle by breed type and farm size
Source: WBG
A Summary Report
18
Figure 8: Producers’ experience with ineffective drugs in the past 12 months
Figure 7: Level of satisfaction with the quality of drugs in the market
established relations with trusted sources
that supply them with drugs and vaccines of
sufficiently high quality. Thus, about 33 percent
of all surveyed farmers (and about 55 percent of
poultry farmers) stated that they had previously
purchased drugs that did not improve the
condition of their livestock(see Figure 8).
Agrovet shops, which are farmers’ main source
of veterinary drugs and vaccines, are currently
almost completely unregulated. The survey
found that about 75 percent of dairy farmers
and more than 90 percent of poultry farmers
source veterinary drugs from Agrovet shops
(see Figure 9 and Figure 10). Agrovet shops
serve a dual purpose, selling both veterinary
drugs and vaccines and other agricultural inputs,
including pesticides and fertilizers. However,
the current legal framework does not recognize
these outlets as a formal channel for dispensing
veterinary drugs and vaccines. As a result, most
of them are not registered. In general, the storage
and other practices of these shops are not up
to standard, with poor storage threatening the
quality of drugs and vaccines. TFDA and other
key stakeholders are beginning to engage in
discussions on the means to formalize the role
of these retail outlets to assure the quality of
the drugs and vaccines they supply without
imposing constraints that limit farmers’ access,
particularly in rural and remote areas.
Another constraint relates to the limited
cold chain capacity, which has the potential
to negatively impact the quality of vaccines.
The locally produced (I-2) vaccine is heat
stable and can withstand temperatures of up
to 37OC for considerable durations. However,
many other vaccines are heat-labile, which
means that they can lose potency or viability
if stored under unrefrigerated conditions (2 to
8OC) for extended periods. In the case of these
heat-labile vaccines, the cold chain is usually
reliably maintained between manufacturers to
Source: WBG
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
19
importers and distributors. However, following
this point, the cold chain between distributors
and end-users is often poorly maintained, due
to a number of causes, including frequent
power outages. To transport vaccines over long
distances, distributors use ice-packed passive
containers, such as vacuum flasks and cool
boxes. While these containers may be suitable
for short-distance transportation, they may be
less suitable for long distances, as it may not be
possible to maintain cool temperatures until the
vaccines arrive at their destination.
Key constraints in the compound feed supply chain
Tanzania’s poultry sector absorbs about 96
percent of the total volume of manufactured
compound feed.6 Therefore, the L-MIRA
study assesses issues related to feed from the
perspective of the poultry sector. Commercial
poultry farmers responding to the survey
stated that while they have easy access to
manufactured compound feed, they often find
it unaffordable. Only about half of the surveyed
farmers (54 percent) stated that they had used
compound feed in the past twelve months.
Amongst those who stated that they didn’t use
compound feed, the majority claimed that their
decision was related to cost. At the time of the
survey, a number of poultry farms had closed
due to increased production costs. Analysis
shows that the Tanzanian compound feed
market is relatively uncompetitive (see Table 1).
For example, average prices are considerably
lower in Zambia (Tanzania’s neighbor), with
Zambia’s prices lower than African and global
averages, partly due to economies of large scale
grain production. According to feed suppliers,
Figure 10: Poultry farmers’ main sources of drugs and vaccines
6. Alex Geerts – An evaluation of compound feeds manufactured in Tanzania, 2014.
Figure 9: Dairy farmers’ main sources of drugs and vaccines
Source: WBG
A Summary Report
20
the high cost of compound feed drives poultry
producers to settle for cheaper alternatives,
which may be of poor quality. This has also
resulted in the emergence of the informal
backyard production of feed, which is difficult
to regulate.
Feed manufacturers report that the high cost of raw materials, inadequate storage capacities, and logistical challenges all contribute to increased production costs. In addition, in July 2016, the Government
introduced an 18 percent VAT on animal feed,
which further increased prices. White maize is
the most commonly used raw material for the
production of compound feed, with a demand
for this commodity also existing for human
consumption and export markets. Similar
competition exists in the case of fishmeal,
which is the primary source of protein in the
production of animal feed, with competing
Table 1: Prices of various types of compound feed
Type of Feed
Tanzania7
Zambia (US$/ Ton)8
Regions (US$ / Ton)9
TZS /50 kg Bag
TZS / Ton US$/Ton10 Africa Asia
Pacific Europe Latin America
North America Global
Layers’ Feeds 52,367 1,047,340 469 405 425 425 346 432 413 430
Chick Mash 54,940 1,098,800 492
Grower mash 49,677 993,540 445
Layers Mash 49,696 993,920 445 425 425 346 432 413 430
Broilers’ Feeds 63,401 1,268,020 567 459 490 490 370 476 440 480
Broiler starter 66,690 1,333,800 597
Broiler grower 62,621 1,252,420 560
Broiler Finisher 60,375 1,207,500 540 490 490 370 476 440 480
demand from the export sector and the human
food sector. Increasingly, large manufacturers
are using soybean as an alternative source of
protein. However, Tanzania’s low production
capacity makes the use of soybean expensive,
with manufacturers being forced to rely on
imports from high-producing countries such as
Zambia, Uganda, Malawi and India. According
to the 2016 analysis by the SAGCOT Center,
Tanzania has unmet demand for soybean of
43,000 metric tons primarily used for animal
feeds, which is serviced by imports (the local
production capacity is estimated at 5,000
metric tons)11. To address this, increased private
investment in the production of traditional
animal feed materials, including yellow maize
and soybeans, is critical. The Government
can play a supportive role by facilitating the
availability of the appropriate seed varieties and
by researching alternatives (e.g. non-traditional
7. Values for Tanzania were established by L-MIRA survey.8. Agriprofocus Zambia – Investment Opportunities in the Zambian
Poultry Sector (and in the Katanga Region of the DR Congo), 2015.
9. AllTech – 2015 Global Feed Survey.10. US$ / TZS Rate of 2,235.
Source: WBG, AllTech, Agroprofocus
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
21
and locally available feed sources, including
sorghum and millet). Production of yellow corn
will also need to be well controlled in order to
avoid cross pollination of white maize, which is
the preferred staple food in Tanzania. Private
sector investments in shared storage facilities
are also needed. In the short-term, until local
supply improves, the Government could consider
granting tax relief to local manufacturers. In
July 2017, the Government provided relief by
zero rating VAT on manufactured animal feed.
Industry stakeholders have indicated that this
has already had a positive impact, reducing the
price of feed and encouraging investments.
As is the case with drugs and vaccines, surveyed farmers stated that while they were satisfied with the quality of compound feed they utilized, there were many sub-standard products on the market. Farmers who claimed
to have purchased poor quality compound
feed mentioned the presence of dust and large
particles of maize in chick mash, stating that as
a result, their chickens had experienced reduced
egg production, irregular laying, stunting and
delayed weight gain. Generally, farmers do not
have the technical means to verify the quality of
feed at the point of purchase. Instead, they rely
on regulatory oversight of the supply chain, from
the manufacturers to retail outlets. Stakeholders
have reported cases of malpractice along the
supply chain, including cases of manufacturers
adding red clay soil instead of blood meal and
sand instead of bone meal. The adulteration of
feed is also reported to have occurred at retail
outlets (in Agrovet shops). As with the purchase
of veterinary drugs and vaccines, farmers mostly
buy compound feed from Agrovet shops, which
are largely unregulated and which have poor
handling and storage standards.
The Government’s regulatory enforcement capacity in the feed supply chain is weak. While the Grazing Lands and Animal Feed
Resources Act was enacted in 2010, in
practice it has been barely implemented. Some
regulations have been issued; however, the
level of knowledge and awareness regarding
these regulations amongst the private sector is
very limited. In addition, these regulations are
not comprehensive, with many areas remaining
unregulated. Although some inspectors have
been appointed, they have not been trained
to effectively enforce the law. Manufacturers
responding to the survey stated that they had
not been subject to any official inspections to
determine feed quality.
At present, very few manufacturers effectively
monitor the quality of their products and
demonstrate commitment to improving
standards. These manufacturers usually test
their feed on a voluntary basis. The U.S. Grains
Council has been working with a number of
manufacturers to improve their capacity to
produce quality feed. As a result, awareness
of the importance of testing raw materials
and final products is increasing. Data from the
Tanzania Veterinary Laboratory Agency (TVLA)
shows that the number of samples submitted
by feed manufacturers for lab analysis increased
from 400 in 2009 to 1,600 in 2016. The TVLA
analysis of 2013 – 2015 shows that some
feeds have lower than required nutrient levels
but the variation is not significant (see Table
2). This is partly attributable to the fact that
11. The SAGCOT Center Ltd.: Investment Opportunities
A Summary Report
22
all feed samples tested by TVLA are submitted
voluntarily by the feed manufacturers.
Key constraints in the chicks’ supply chain
About 67 percent of surveyed farmers claim to have easy access to chicks. Amongst those
stating that access to chicks was difficult, 48
percent stated that demand for chicks exceeded
supply, while 52 percent stated that they
experienced delays with the delivery of orders.
In addition, 71 percent of all producers stated
that high quality chicks were too expensive, with
the proportion increasing to 81 percent in the
case of small farmers. To manage costs, most
farmers prefer to buy day-old chicks, which
are about 50 percent cheaper than month-old
chicks, although the older chicks have passed
the high-risk period and are less susceptible to
diseases and ambient temperature fluctuations.
In Tanzania, neither poultry nor animal breeding in generally, are comprehensively regulated. Breeding flocks and hatcheries are
currently regulated by the Animal Diseases Act,
2003, and the Animal Diseases (Hatcheries and
Breeding Flocks) Regulations, 2010. This act
and the related regulation only cover breeding
flocks and hatcheries from the perspective
of disease prevention. There are no other
laws or regulations to adequately control
breeding activities, including the procurement
and distribution of animal genetic materials.
The problem is more serious in the emerging
indigenous chicken market, where there are
no certified lines of parents and grandparents.
Breeding cocks and hens are usually selected
phenotypically through an examination of
the birds’ size, color, plumage, etc. There are
also reports of unregulated breeder eggs and
live birds being imported from neighboring
countries. The Government is currently drafting
the Animal Breeding Act, which is intended
to form the basis for the regulation of animal
breeding activities.
Existing hatcheries and breeding flock
regulations to prevent disease should
be reviewed to ensure that compliance
requirements are practical. For example,
the current hatcheries and breeding flock
regulations require sampling breeding flocks
or hatcheries for notifiable disease at four
Table 2: Nutrient composition of poultry compound feeds
Type of Feed Recommended Min levels
Crude Protein Levels (% of total nutrients)
Metabolizable Energy (Kcal/KgDM)
Recommended Min levels
Actual (2013-2015)
Recommended Min levels
Actual (2013-2015)
Layers
Growers Mash 15.00% 15.34% 2,700 2,763
Chick starter 20.00% 18.57% 2,850 2,866
Layers Mash 16.00% 16.04% 2,900 2,732
BroilersBroiler starter 22.00% 20.47% 3,000 2,890
Broiler finisher 18.00% 19.74% 3,100 2,923
Breeders Breeders mash 17.00% 16.56% 2,900 2,850 Source: TVLA
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
23
different points in time: (i) when birds in the
flock are chicks; (ii) when birds in the flock are
four weeks old; (ii) two weeks before the birds
commence laying; and (d) monthly during the
laying period. Currently, sampling of this sort is
not generally conducted. According to hatchery
owners, compliance with these requirements is
burdensome because the proposed frequency
of sampling is too high and could be costly. The
hatcheries regulations also need to consider
emerging trends and issues, including issues
related to quail and to bird flu (H5N1). The
regulations should encourage self-regulation
by the industries and be formulated to facilitate
the growth of the hatchery industry.
The Government’s regulatory enforcement
capacity should be enhanced. Hatchery
owners have indicated that the Government’s
current inspection capacity does not guarantee
the production of high-quality chicks and that
there is a need to improve the manner in which
inspections are conducted. Respondents state
that inspections are sporadic and inconsistent
in terms of content, timeframe and purpose. To
ensure that inspections add value to hatcheries
and farmers who use products from hatcheries,
the Government should ensure that inspection
guidelines and checklists are revised to reflect
relevant issues. It should also ensure that
inspectors receive training related to the new
guidelines, best practices and recent trends in
the sector.
The transportation of chicks is not well
regulated. About 56 percent of producers
either use private cars, taxis or Bajaj (three-
wheeled motorized vehicles) while 27 percent
use public transport, including commuter buses
with boxes of chicks stacked on passenger
seats. To reduce the risk of spreading disease,
the Animal Disease Act, 2003, restricts or
prohibits such practices, with the hatcheries
and breeding flocks regulations requiring chicks
to be transported in disinfected trucks. While
these laws and regulations should be enforced,
the Government should also review regulations
to ensure they are business-friendly and that
they recognize that the Tanzania’s poultry sector
is still at a relatively early stage of development.
For example, regulations and guidelines could
prescribe minimum requirements to ensure the
safety of animals, without creating unnecessarily
high compliance costs for businesses.
Key constraints in delivery of veterinary and extension services
While most semi-commercial and commercial
farmers use animal health and extension
services, they tend not to do so in a proactive
manner. About 82 percent of surveyed poultry
and dairy producers stated that they had used
animal health or extension services in the
preceding 12 months. However, farmers’ level
of knowledge on when to seek animal health
services and when and how to use veterinary
drugs is limited. Most farmers seek animal
health services only when a cow or bird falls
sick. Only 38 percent of surveyed farmers
conduct routine checks to identify animals or
birds that require attention (see Figure 11).
Farmers also tend to buy and administer drugs
without consulting an expert, with this practice
relatively more prevalent among poultry
farmers. This practice can significantly hinder
farmers’ ability to prevent and manage diseases
effectively.
A Summary Report
24
Farmers indicate that they are generally
satisfied with the response time of animal
health service providers. Assurance of payment
(service and transportation fee) was one of
the main reasons for their promptness and
timeliness. The majority of surveyed producers
(64 percent) stated that they could afford to
pay for animal health and extension services.
This shows that the private provision of
veterinary services, if appropriately encouraged
and affordable, could be a sustainable way of
ensuring that farmers had access to quality
services.
The public sector still plays an important
role in the provision of animal health and
extension services, hence measures should
be taken to improve their capacities. This is
especially important in remote areas and for
non-commercial, pre-commercial and some
small commercial farmers. At present, farmers
who have used government veterinarians, para
professionals and/or livestock officers have
expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of
service delivered by these officers.
The adequate staffing of veterinary
professionals, especially at the regional and
district level, is critical to improving the Figure 11: Producers’ animal health and extension services seeking behavior
quality of the public provision of animal
health. Currently, there is shortage of veterinary
professionals, which the Government is making
efforts to address. During the 2008 evaluation
by the World Organization for Animal Health
(OIE), one third of all veterinarian positions
were vacant. At the regional and local level,
many veterinary services were provided by
officers who were not veterinary professionals
and who were not supervised by veterinarians.
For example, although Regional Livestock
Advisors (RLAs) have a mandate to advise the
Regional Administration Secretariat (RAS) on
livestock development and veterinary services,
not all advisors are veterinarians. At the ward
and village level, Ward and Village Extension
Officers are multidisciplinary officers, with the
same individual involved in issues related to
crops, animal production or animal health. Since
2008, the Government has been working to
improve this situation. In 2016, the OIE noted
that there had been a significant improvement,
with about two thirds of all LGAs (110 LGAs)
having district veterinarians and 16 out of 26
regions having a regional veterinary officer.
In animal health services delivery, there is a
break in the chain of command between the
Source: WBG
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
25
central Government (the DVS) and regional
and local governments. This hinders the
capacity of the DVS to adequately exercise his
or her technical authority on matters related to
the delivery of veterinary services. The chain
of command is broken at two points: (i) at the
regional level, Regional Livestock Advisors
(RLAs) are not responsible to the DVS, but
rather to the Regional Administration Secretariat
(RAS); and (ii) at the district level, DVOs are not
responsible to RLAs, but rather to the District
Executive Officers (DEDs). Both DEDs and
RASs are under the authority of PO-RALG, the
Ministry in charge of regional administration
and local governments. The break in the chain
of command is not unique to the livestock
sector. Other sectors such as the health
sector have had similar challenges in the past
but managed to address it by working closely
with PO-RALG. The MLF is also making similar
efforts and has developed a national guideline
for the supervision of livestock services in
collaboration with PO-RALG. The main purpose
of this guideline is to establish a structured
technical communication and backstopping
system between MLF and livestock service
providers who operate under the authority of
the PO-RALG.
Key constraints in delivery of artificial insemination (AI) services
Farmers’ access to artificial insemination
(AI) services is very limited. The majority of
farmers prefer to use bull services, mainly
because AI is not readily or easily available.
Only three percent of survey respondents
stated that they preferred to use AI, with only
1.7 percent stating that they had used AI in the
preceding 12 months (see Figure 12). Farmers
that used bull service stated that they preferred
it because it is effective and easily available
(see Figure 13). This shows lack of knowledge
regarding the potential benefits of AI, which, if
correctly performed, has far more benefits than
bull service. The effectiveness of AI services
play a key role in increasing their uptake. At
present, farmers report a higher success rate
when using a bull service than when using AI
service. On average, surveyed farmers who
used bull service in the preceding 12 months
reported an 86 percent success rate, compared
to a 75 percent success rate when they used
AI service. Poor AI infrastructure and limited
number of qualified AI technicians are among
the factors affecting the quality of AI services
in Tanzania. An earlier study by ILRI has also
shown that the availability of breeding services
is a key determinant of whether the service is
used.12
The easy availability of liquid nitrogen (LN);
ready access to qualified technicians; and
affordable prices for AI services are all
essential to increasing farmers’ uptake of
these services. In Tanzania, the supply of LN
is not reliable due to limited and inconsistent
production. LN production equipment at the
National Artificial Insemination Center’s (NAIC)
zonal centers is outdated and breaks down
periodically. Currently, only two out of six zonal
centers (Mwanza and Dodoma) are operational.
To maintain a reliable LN supply, it will be
necessary to upgrade these facilities. There is
12. Dairy Genetics East Africa –Phase 2 (DGEA-2) – Baseline Study, ILRI, 2014
A Summary Report
26
Figure 13: Reasons for producers to prefer bull service
Figure 12: Proportion of producers that used bull service and Artificial Insemination (AI)
also a limited number of qualified AI technicians,
with only 20 licensed AI experts in Tanzania,
compared to 950 in Kenya (of whom 40 percent
are active). Farmers state that the cost of using
AI services is high. Although locally produced
semen is cheap (the price of a dose of unsexed
semen from NAIC is approximately US$ 1.34,
compared to US$ 2.42 in Kenya), the total cost
of using AI services is high. In Tanzania, the
total cost for a farmer to use AI services ranges
from US$ 11 – 13 per service, compared to
approximately US$ 7 – 10 in Kenya.
Nonetheless, the Government and
development partners have made efforts
to improve the genetic stock of Tanzania’s
national herd. The Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation (BMGF) is currently supporting
a program to strengthen AI service delivery
in Tanzania. It is expected that Public Private
Partnerships will be utilized to develop financially
sustainable private channels, to upgrade NAIC’s
infrastructure, and to train public and private
inseminators. BMGF is also providing support
to facilitate the training of AI technicians and
inseminators. Trained inseminators are also
being provided with soft loans for motorbikes
and insemination equipment, and are being
assured of door-step delivery of semen and
LN, sourced from Tanzania Oxygen Ltd. The
Government is also in the process of developing
a legal framework to regulate animal genetic
resources and breeding services in Tanzania.
Source: WBG
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
27
A Summary Report
28
The National Livestock Policy of 2006,
which currently under review, provides
overall guidelines for the development of
Tanzania’s livestock industry. The policy is
implemented through the Livestock Sector
Development Strategy of 2010; the Livestock
Sector Development Program of 2011; the
TMLI (launched in 2015); and the TLMP
(currently being finalized). There are other legal
frameworks for the regulation of the livestock
sector, including laws and regulations related
to animal diseases control and management;
animal welfare; food safety and public health;
veterinary services; grazing lands and animal
feed resources; and the hides, skins and leather
trade. Businesses in the livestock sector must
also comply with general laws and regulations
related to business registration and trading
activities, quality standards, environmental
safety, occupational safety and workers’ welfare,
and taxation.
Given the high risk of FBD, the regulation of
the food supply chain (including dairy and
poultry) is appropriate. The food supply chain
is complex and becoming increasingly more so.
Therefore, the Government must ensure that
food supply chains operate in a manner that does
not jeopardize the health of final consumers in
either domestic or export markets. However,
the regulation of the food industry in Tanzania
is highly complex and excessively burdensome,
with a multiplicity of laws, regulations and
licensing requirements. In the dairy and poultry
value chains alone, businesses must comply
with the requirements of more than 30 acts
of parliament, and more than 100 subsidiary
legislations. L-MIRA’s analysis focuses on only
20 relevant acts (primary legislation) and 65
subsidiary legislations, with these being deemed
to be most relevant to the two value chains.
There are significant overlaps in regulatory
mandates, with various laws assigning similar
mandates to more than one authority. In
particular, in the food sector, regulatory
overlaps are largely attributable to the lack of
a national food safety policy and a coordinated
implementation and monitoring mechanism for
activities intended to safeguard food safety.
Currently, there are no monitoring programs
to assess the level of microbial and chemical
contamination (including contamination by
pesticides and veterinary drug residues and
mycotoxins) in the local food supply. This
increases food safety risks and constrains
producers’ access to domestic, regional and
international markets. TFDA has attempted
to address this by establishing a food-borne
surveillance system to conduct monitoring
programs for food. It has developed guidelines
for the investigation and surveillance of FBD
on the basis of guidelines issued by the World
Health Organization (WHO). The FBD system
has already been implemented in 15 regions. It
is expected that during FY2017/18, it will be
rolled out in the remaining 17 regions, depending
on the availability of funds. However, food
safety is a multi-sectoral issue which requires
coordination of many stakeholders across the
food supply chain, from farm to fork. Therefore,
a policy framework and well-coordinated legal
and institutional framework is necessary.
THE COMPLEXITY OF THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN THE DAIRY AND POULTRY SECTORS
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
29
The lack of a well-coordinated policy, legal
and institutional framework for food safety
control has also led to confusion regarding the
boundaries of regulatory responsibilities, with
overlaps sometimes existing even between
institutions within the same ministry. The
enforcement of regulations requires financial
and other resources, as do efforts by the
private sector to comply with these regulations.
At present, businesses are forced to comply
with duplicative registration, permitting, and
inspection requirements, which increases
their operational costs and make them less
competitive. These overlapping mandates
also put pressure on public finances, with the
Government being required to ensure the
effective functioning of a range of entities that
fulfill similar mandates. Costs to both the private
and public sector could be effectively reduced
by rationalizing and streamlining the policy and
legal framework to reduce or eliminate these
overlapping mandates.
Regulatory overlaps also exist in the areas of
the dairy and poultry value chains. Regulatory
overlaps have been identified and analyzed in
areas related to the control of veterinary drugs,
vaccines and acaricides; the processing of dairy
products; the processing of poultry meat; and
hatchery operations.
Regulatory overlaps in the regulation of veterinary drugs, vaccines and animal pesticides
Primary legislation assigns overall
responsibility for the regulation of the
importation, manufacture, storage, sale and
distribution of drugs and vaccines to TFDA.
However, the Animal Diseases Act also assigns
a mandate for the regulation of the use of
vaccines and any other related products (i.e.
including veterinary drugs) that may be used
to control and manage animal diseases to DVS,
within the ministry responsible for livestock
(MLF). This mandate includes: (i) ensuring
that vaccines manufactured or imported into
Tanzania do not result in the introduction of
new diseases (in the case of live vaccines); (ii)
assessing the efficacy of vaccines and drugs
and the risks associated with their use; and (iii)
traceability, including any complaints that may
arise following the use of vaccines. The Animal
Diseases Act does not recognize the role of
TFDA. Thus, it is not clear how the mandate
of the DVS is distinct from that of TFDA, nor
is it clear how the two entities are intended to
coordinate their activities.
There is also an overlap between the functions
of the TFDA and the Veterinary Council of
Tanzania (VCT). The laws enacted to establish
these two institutions clearly define the
mandates of each. However, there is an overlap
in the implementation of the respective laws.
According to its mandate, TFDA is responsible
for the regulation of all premises used in the
manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing of
veterinary drugs and vaccines. At the same time,
the Veterinary Act assigns VCT the mandate to
regulate the veterinary profession, including the
registration of veterinary facilities and premises
where animals are treated. Therefore, TFDA
must inspect veterinary facilities that are also
used to dispense veterinary drugs. According to
A Summary Report
30
VCT, veterinarians who own retail drug shops
are considered to practice their profession at
such premises, and thus these shops must also
be registered and inspected by VCT. Addressing
these overlaps will require ongoing dialogue and
the establishment of an effective coordination
mechanism.
Another overlap is between the mandates
of the DVS and the Tropical Pesticide
Research Institute (TPRI) in the regulation of
manufacturing, importation and distribution
of acaricides. The DVS is responsible for
regulating the use of animal pesticides. Hence,
it is empowered to issue regulations governing
the manufacturing, importation, testing, selling
and use of acaricides in the country. However,
another establishing act assigns TPRI with the
exclusive mandate to control all matters related
to pesticides in Tanzania. To date, the DVS has
not developed or issued regulations to fulfill
its mandate under the Diseases Act related
to the use of acaricides. When it does so, the
private sector will have to deal with two sets
of regulations governing the same product, and
both institutions will require adequate financing
to enforce the laws.
There is an overlap between the mandates
of the TFDA, the Chief Government
Chemist Laboratory Authority (CGCLA)
and other regulators in the issuance of port
clearance certificates to import veterinary
pharmaceuticals. Although efforts have been
made to establish a One-Stop-Shop (OSS)
at the Port of Dar es Salaam, interviewed
importers stated that the OSS is not functioning
optimally. While the different agencies share a
building, each agency has a separate window
and different back-office processes. Therefore,
importers must visit all these agencies at
different times to obtain separate approvals.
Best practice suggests that if an OSS is to provide
the intended benefits, the harmonization of
processes is vital, with paper work and back-
office processes being harmonized so that a
client can complete all processes at a single
window.
Regulatory overlaps in regulation of processed dairy and poultry products
There are significant overlaps in the mandates
of TBS and TFDA in food safety and quality
control. TFDA has been assigned with the
mandate to control food safety. Thus, it registers
and inspects food businesses and prescribes
standards for food quality in cases where no
national standards have been established. On
the other hand, TBS has been assigned with the
mandate to control the quality of products of
all descriptions and to promote standardization
in industry. Therefore, it has the power to issue
compulsory and voluntary standards for food
products and to approve, register and control the
use of standard marks. This involves inspecting,
certifying and registering business premises
used for food production where voluntary
standards marks are used. This is a significant
burden on businesses, especially SMEs, most
of which operate in the food production sector.
Therefore, the rationalization of the mandates
of the TFDA and TBS is critical. The mandate for
food safety needs to be clearly articulated, with
the TFDA assuming overall responsibility of the
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
31
food safety system. TBS must be assigned the
responsibility for establishing relevant national
standards, assisting businesses to obtain TBS
standard mark when needed and providing
conformity assessment services. It is expected
that this reform will take time. Pending these
reforms, the two institutions have signed an
MOU to collaborate to minimize the regulatory
burden on businesses.
There is an overlap between the mandates of
the TFDA and the DVS in the regulation of dairy
products. TFDA has the absolute mandate to
regulate and license food businesses, including
dairy processing and marketing businesses,
in order to assure food safety and to protect
public health. However, given DVS’ mandate to
control animal diseases, it also plays a role in
regulating parts of the supply chain. In practice,
the DVS’ mandate extends beyond the farm
into the midstream and downstream supply
chain and thus overlaps with the mandate of the
TFDA. The Animal Diseases Act empowers the
DVS to make regulations prescribing how milk
and milk products should be handled during
transportation from one area to another and
during exportation and importation. Therefore,
it also issues milk movement permits, milk
transportation permits, and export and import
permits. Similar permits are also issued by
TFDA. To address this overlap, a coordinated
approach is required to enforce or rationalize
the two laws to streamline the mandates.
Dairy processors are also subjected to
regulation by the Tanzania Dairy Board (TDB),
which has the dual function of promoting and
regulating the industry. With this mandate,
TDB registers processors and milk marketers,
issues import and export permits, and certifies
milk transporting equipment, amongst other
functions. This is a duplication of the tasks
and functions of the TFDA. Consequently,
there is a need to rationalize and streamline
the mandates of the two entities. To achieve
this, TDB should be stripped of its regulatory
role and empowered in its role as promoter of
the industry, including through measures to
assist dairy processors to comply with various
regulations.
Poultry meat processors are also subjected
to similar regulatory requirements and
inspections as dairy processors. Poultry meat
processors must comply with regulations issued
by DVS with regards to slaughter facilities, meat
movement permits, and export and import
permits. They must also comply with the TFDA’s
requirements on food safety, which also include
the inspection of slaughter facilities, meat
movement permit, meat transportation permit,
registration of meat processing plants, and the
importation and exportation of meat products.
In addition to the DVS and TFDA, meat
processors are also registered with the Tanzania
Meat Board (TMB), which is a commodity board
playing a similar role to TDB. TMB registers all
stakeholders, and issues movement permits and
import and export clearing certificates. There is
a need to rationalize the legal framework to
clarify the respective roles of the DVS and the
TFDA and to rationalize TMB’s role to focus on
the promotion of the industry, rather than on
regulation.
A Summary Report
32
Multiplicity of licenses and related compliance cost
L-MIRA’s analysis also focuses on licensing
requirements and related costs for businesses.
Businesses in the dairy and poultry value chains
must comply with a wide range of licensing
requirements, of which L-MIRA analyzes 37.
The L-MIRA study considers licenses to include
permits, certificates, clearances, authorization,
and permissions that businesses must obtain
prior to commencing commercial activities and/
or to operate. The study analyzes licenses on
the basis of four key criteria: (i) the legality of the
license: the study determines whether there is
a clear and sufficient legal basis for the license,
either on the basis of primary or subsidiary
legislation; (ii) the necessity of the license:
the study determines whether the license
serves a regulatory purpose, such as ensuring
health, safety or environmental protection,
and whether there is a more efficient way to
obtain the same result; (iii) the compliance cost
of license: the study determines the extent
to which the license has a financial impact on
business activity and to which it consumes
public resources; and (iv) business-friendliness:
the study determines the extent to which the
procedures involved in acquiring the license are
business-friendly.
The compliance cost analysis focused on direct
costs associated with obtaining the different
licenses required by operators in the sectors.
Direct costs include: (i) monetary costs: official
fees, stamp duties and other official payments
to regulatory bodies; and (ii) labor costs: the
monetary value of the labor costs, determined
on the basis of the average time spent by
business employees to complete the licensing
procedures (processing a transaction) multiplied
by the average staff wage. The compliance cost
for each license has been calculated based
on the analysis of legal requirements and
procedures, with reference to the primary and
subsidiary legislations. The detailed analysis
indicates areas that the Government may wish
to address in order to streamline procedures; to
ensure alignment between different regulators;
and to ensure that procedures are cost effective
for both businesses and the Government.
There is a legal basis for all the licenses
analyzed by the study. A number of licenses
could be rationalized while the necessity for
others is questionable. Based on this analysis,
the study recommends that: eight licenses
should be retained, as these serve a necessary
regulatory purpose; 20 licenses should be
rationalized, as while these serve a regulatory
purpose, the administrative procedures
associated with acquiring them are either
burdensome or unnecessary and therefore
they increase the cost of doing business; seven
licenses should be eliminated, as these licenses
serve no legitimate regulatory purpose; and two
licenses should be merged with other licenses,
as merging will eliminate overlaps and still
achieve the intended regulatory purpose (see
Table 3).
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
33
Of all the analyzed licenses, licenses related
to veterinary drugs and the registration of
vaccines, pesticides, and food premises are
the most expensive. Effective drug and vaccine
registration and regulation is generally not
cheap, so this is not surprising. However, the
analysis shows that there are opportunities to
minimize costs through measures to improve
efficiency. In the case of veterinary drugs,
suppliers have expressed concern regarding the
cost of registering products, especially in the
case of imported drugs and vaccines. There are
some countries in Africa, such as Ghana, where
the registration of veterinary drugs and vaccines
costs more than in Tanzania. However, costs
in Tanzania are higher than in most Eastern
Table 3: Analyzed licenses and related compliance cost
Retain (8) Agency Cost ($) Rationalize (20) Agency Cost ($)
Premise registration certificate
TFDA
112 Pharmaceutical business license
TFDA
157
Certification of veterinary pharmaceutical promotional meetings
76Certificate of veterinary drugs/vaccine registration
8,025
Certificate of food premises registration 6,697 Food business license 640
Food export permit 1,488 Certificate of food product registration 2,451
Meat transport license 55 Food import permit 1,729
Certificate of veterinary facility registration VCT 111 Meat movement permit 17
Goods carrying vehicles license SUMATRA 38 Veterinary pharmaceutical import permit 145
Chemical clearance certificate GCLA 78 Slaughter facility registration certificate DVS 34
Eliminate (7) Registration of hatcheries 93
Meat industry stakeholder registration certificate
TMB
75Animals and animal products movement permit
122
Import clearance certificate 257 Veterinary import permit 1,488
Export clearance certificate 157 Veterinary export certificate 253
Certificate of stakeholder registration
TDB
70 Certificate of pesticides registrationTPRI
6,697
Milk and milk products import permit 146 Animal pesticides import permit 776
Milk and milk products export permit 43 Certificate of conformity TBS 111
Milk carrier and container permit 72Occupational health and safety compliance license
OSHA 2,722
Merge (2) Certificate of fire safety FIRE 455
Certification of veterinary pharmaceutical adverts
TFDA 425Weight and measure certificate of conformity
WMA102
Zoo-sanitary export clearance certificate DVS 478
Weight and measure certificate of correctness
258
Radioactivity certificate TAEC 136Source: WBG
A Summary Report
34
and Southern Africa countries (see Table 4).
In addition, according to TFDA’s documented
procedures, the registration has 20 steps
involving about 117 hours (approximately 15
days) of the private sector and about 698 hours
(approximately 87 days or three months) of
the regulator. However, businesses report that
(considering waiting time), it takes a longer time
(more than five months and sometimes one
year) to obtain registration approval.
The Government acknowledges most of the
problems described in this report and has
shown interest to address them. In 2017,
the Government developed the Blueprint for
Regulatory Reforms to Improve the Business
Environment, which contains an inventory of
various licenses and fees charged by different
regulators in different sectors and indicates
that several regulatory overlaps need to be
addressed. The L-MIRA project’s analysis
provides a more detailed assessment of the
overlaps and licensing requirements in the dairy
and poultry value chains. It is hoped that it will
serve as a useful input to the Government to
enable it to achieve the goals defined by the
Blueprint.
Table 4: GALVmed 2015 analysis of compliance cost for the Certificate of Veterinary Drug and Vaccine Registration
Country Registration
Fee (US$)
GMP
Inspection
(US$)
Total Cost
(US$)
South
Africa386 696 1,082
Zambia 2,000 - 2,000
Sudan 1,400 900 2,300
Morocco 4,235 - 4,235
Cameroon 3,440 860 4,300
UEMOA
member
countries13
1,000 4,000 5,000
Ethiopia 1,000 4,000 5,000
Kenya 1,000 4,000 5,000
Uganda 1,700 4,000 5,700
Nigeria 1,250 6,500 7,750
Tanzania 2,000 6,150 8,150
Zimbabwe 1,800 20,000 21,800
Ghana 1,800 20,000 21,800
13. Members of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (also known by its French acronym, UEMOA) have a similar fee structure. UEMOA member countries are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo.
Source: GALVmed
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
35
• Tanzania Livestock Policy (2006). • The Second Five Year Development Plan (FYDPII).• Tanzania Livestock Modernization Initiative (2015).• Tanzania Livestock Master Plan (2017).• Deloitte on Africa: The Rise and Rise of the African Middle Class
(2012). • Oxford Economics, Bright Continent – The future of Africa’s
opportunity cities (2012). • Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development: Basic Data for
Livestock and Fisheries Sector (2013).• National Sample Census of Agriculture 2007/2008. Small Holder
Agriculture, Volume III: Livestock Sector – National Report.• Ministry of Finance, The Economic survey (2012).• Benchmarking the Artificial Insemination Sub-Value Chain in Kenya:
Report of a Stakeholder Brainstorming Meeting, held at ILRI info Centre.
• Dairy Genetics East Africa –Phase 2 (DGEA-2) – Baseline Study, ILRI (2014).
• Kenya Animal Genetic Resources Center website www.kagrc.co.ke.• ILRI (2013); Investing in African Livestock: business opportunities in
2030-2050. • FAO (2011); Mapping supply and demand for animal-source foods
to 2030. • Rabobank (2017); Time for Africa – Capturing the African meat and
poultry investment opportunity.• FAO STATS (2014) – http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA.• Arend Jan Nell, Hans Schiere, and Sifra Bol; Quick Scan – Dairy Sector
Tanzania (2014).• Geerts A. (2014); An evaluation of compound feeds manufactured in
Tanzania, 2014.• Agriprofocus Zambia; Investment Opportunities in the Zambian
Poultry Sector (and in the Katanga Region of the DR Congo), 2015. Data for regional averages for layer finisher and broiler finisher.
• AllTech; 2015 Global Feed Survey.• Survey of Dairy Products Market in Tanzania, Rural Livelihood
Development Company, 2010. • Research Into Use (RIU) Tanzania, Policy Brief, Taking Poultry Subsector
to Scale: A Call for Commercial Expansion of the Indigenous Poultry Industry.
• The Tanzania Livestock Service Delivery System – a survey of frontline officers, MLF, 2015.
• Charles G. and A. Mambi (2013); Simplifying Compliance with Regulations in the Food Processing Sector to Enhance the Ease of Doing Business. Policy proposal. Confederation of Tanzania Industries (CTI). Dar es Salaam. Tanzania.
• Charles G. and K.W Mchau (2010); Improving Competitiveness of the Dairy Sector Through Rationalization of the Regulatory Framework. Policy Proposal by Tanzania Milk Processing Association (TAMPA). Tanzania.
• Charles G. and D. Rweikiza (2012); Owner Manager’s Perception of the Impact of Regulations on the Competitiveness of Food Processors
in Tanzania. Business Management Review Vol.16. pgs71-101. ISSN 0856-2253.
• ECI Africa and DAI-PESA (2004); Study on Weights and Measures Practices in Tanzania. Report prepared under USAID contract No. PCE-I-00-99-00002-00.
• MLF (2013); Basic Data for Livestock and Fisheries Sectors. • NBS (2012/2013); National Panel Survey. • Kurwijila L.R and A. Bennet (2011); Dairy Development Institutions in
East Africa: Lessons Learned and Options. FAO East Africa Reviews. Rome.
• Mhamba R.M and S. Mbingirenda (2010); The pharmaceutical industry and access to essential medicines in Tanzania. EQUINET.
• Mosha Claude J.S (2005); Development of a National Strategy for Food Control: The Experience of Tanzania. FAO/WHO Workshop. Effective Food Control Systems: Practical Approaches for the African Region. Rome. Italy.
• RLDC / NIRAS (2010); Survey on Dairy Products Market in Tanzania.• SADC (2011): Regional Guidelines for the Regulations of Veterinary
Drugs in SADC Member States. Published by SADC through the Food and Safety-Capacity Building on Residue Control Project, FANR. SADC Secretariat. Gaborone Botswana.
• Tanzania Port Authority (2009); Cargo Clearance Guidelines: A simple guide to clearance of cargo through the port of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
• The SAGCOT Center Ltd. (2016): Investment Opportunities.• Tibandebage P, S. Wangwe, M. Mackintosh and P.G.M Mujinja (2016);
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Decline in Tanzania: How Possible Is a Turnaround to Growth; In M. Mackintosh, et al. (Eds.) (2016); Making Medicines in Africa.
• Tijdens K and G. Kahyarara (2012); Wages in Tanzania: Wage Indicator Survey. Wage Indicator Data Report. WageIndicator.org.
• URT (2008); In-depth assessment of the medicines supply and management system in Tanzania; Ministry of health and social welfare (2008).
• URT (2008); Mapping of the medicines procurement and supply management system in Tanzania; Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, 2008.
• URT-National Audit Office (2014); Performance Audit on the Management of Food Inspection and Surveillance at Processing Plants and at Ports of Entry. A Report of the Controller and Audit Republic of Tanzania. The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and Food and Drugs Authority (TFDA).
• URT-National Audit Office (2013); Performance Audit on the Management of Occupational Health and Safety in Tanzania. A Report of the Controller and Audit Republic of Tanzania. The Ministry of Labor and Employment and Occupational Safety and Health Authority. Dar es Salaam. Tanzania.
• Word Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2011); Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Vol 1. General Provisions, 20th Edition. Paris France. ISBN 978-92-9044-825-9.
REFERENCES
A Summary Report
36
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
37
The L-MIRA project in Tanzania will deliver
a set of regulatory and institutional reforms
in five key areas to improve the efficiency
of the dairy inputs and outputs markets.
The criteria used to prioritize these reform
areas are: (i) the pressing needs of the private
sector; the potential impact of reforms; ease of
implementation – focusing on reforms that can
be practically achieved within the timeframe of
the project; and alignment with priorities of the
Government, including the second FYDPII, the
TLMI, the TLMP and other Government plans.
L-MIRA will also facilitate public-public, public-
private and private-private dialogues in three
areas. These relate to food safety policy and
respective legal framework, legal framework for
animal breeding, and Government coordination
in delivery of animal health services. To the
extent possible, L-MIRA will support dialogue
and provide analytical underpinning for policy
dialogue. L-MIRA will also provide support to the
private sector to undertake evidence-based policy
advocacy in the areas supported by L-MIRA.
ANNEX 1: TANZANIA L-MIRA REFORM AGENDA
DIALOGUE OPPORTUNITIES
1. Food safety: Defining and clarifying the policy, legal and institutional framework for “food safety” control and advancing dialogue on legal reforms to reduce regulatory overlaps. This will include leveraging the proposed revision of the TFDA Act to advance the dialogue on reducing and eliminating regulatory overlaps;
2. Animal breeding: Defining the legal framework for animal breeding in the country which is currently nonexistent; and
3. Animal health services delivery: Coordination between the central Government (i.e. the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries – MLF) and the ministry responsible for regional and local governments (PO-RALG) in effective delivery animal health services.
L-MIRA Tanzania Reform Areas
1. Strengthening the regulatory framework for the manufactured animal feeds supply chain and the Government’s enforcement capacities;
2. Strengthening the regulatory framework for the chicks supply chain the Government’s enforcement capacities;
3. Strengthening the capacities of the TFDA to assure the quality of veterinary drugs and vaccines through improved post-marketing surveillance (PMS);
4. Supporting the TFDA to minimize vaccines registration costs through the implementation of the EAC harmonized guidelines on the registration of veterinary vaccines; and
5. Minimizing regulatory overlaps in food safety control through the implementation of the MOU between TFDA and TBS.
A Summary Report
38
Reform Area No. 1: Strengthening the Regulatory Framework
for the Manufactured Animal Feeds Supply
Chain and the Government’s Enforcement
Capacities
The ChallengeAn effective regulatory system is critical to assuring the quality of compound feeds from manufacturing to retail points. The current legal
framework is weak – regulations and guidelines
that are necessary to enforce the 2010 “Grazing
Land and Animal Feed Resources Act” are not
in place and there is an inadequate number of
“well-trained inspectors”. Knowledge of feeds
standards, Good Manufacturers Practices
(GMPs) and Standards Operating Procedures
(SOPs) among feeds manufacturers, distributors
and consumers is limited and there no clear
guidelines and rules related to truth in labeling.
Furthermore, analysis of feed samples for
chemical composition by the Tanzania Veterinary
Laboratory Agency (TVLA) in 2014 showed that
protein and energy contents were inconsistent
across different feed manufacturing plants in
the country.
In the absence of an effective statutory oversight, only few serious feed manufacturers would make the effort to assure the quality of their products (feeds testing is currently done on voluntary basis). Consequently, stakeholders
have shown concerns regarding feed quality
including presence of unwanted substances,
such as red clay soil, sand and rotten fishmeal.
Food safety is a growing concern as there
are diseases that can be transmitted through
consumption of contaminated animal products.
Presence of chemicals above the allowable
limit in feed and food can threaten both the
safety and quality of products. Therefore, the
Government must strengthen its capacity to
adequately regulate the feed industry.
L-MIRA interventions:1. Support the review of existing regulations
and development of missing critical regulations and related guidelines. Support dissemination of existing critical regulations;
2. Facilitate assessment of existing feed standards and (where applicable) development of additional standards;
3. Support dissemination of existing critical regulations;
4. Define an appropriate modus operandi for Inspectors, considering the current market conditions and the role of Local Governments;
5. Support training of Inspectors on current market dynamics, the law and related regulations, guidelines and tools;
6. Contribute to capacity building of feed manufacturers on adoption of feeds standards and good manufacturing practices, and build their awareness of feed regulations. L-MIRA will collaborate with other players such as the U.S. Grains Council who are currently working with feed manufacturers in these areas.
Expected result(s): • Improved quality of feed as measured by
levels of critical nutrients; and
• Improved time for chicken to reach sexual
maturity and market weight.
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
39
Reform Area No. 2: Strengthening the Regulatory Framework
for the Chicks Supply Chain and the
Government’s Enforcement Capacities
The challenge:
Profitable poultry farming business starts with
a healthy chick bred from a healthy breeding
flock. This requires good management practices
in hatcheries and a strong regulatory system to
ensure hatcheries are enabled to comply with
required standards. The current Animal Diseases
(Hatcheries and Breeding Flocks) Regulations of
2010 has some limitations, which necessitate
a review to rationalize some requirements
and make them practical. The Government’s
capacity to enforce the regulations also needs
to be enhanced.
Aspects of the hatcheries regulations that could
benefit from review include: incorporation of
emerging trends and issues, e.g. quail birds
and bird flu (H5N1); requirements on sampling
frequencies which are currently not realistic;
inclusion of additional schedules to guide
importers on acceptable poultry breeds/strains,
products and countries of origin; inclusion
of a list of notifiable diseases, and how the
regulations could facilitate self-regulation by
hatcheries in some procedures, disease alerts,
and tracking potential avenues for disease
spread.
L-MIRA interventions:
1. Review the Animal Diseases (Hatcheries
and Breeding Flocks) Regulations of 2010
to address current shortcomings;
2. Update existing or develop new guidelines
to support the implementation of
regulations (ensure involvement of key
stakeholders, including the PO-RALG);
3. Enhance the capacity of the Government
to enforce regulations. This will include:
• Training staff to enhance inspection
capacity; and
• Developing (and training Government
staff on) efficient systems and tools
that can be used to register and
monitoring breeding farms, hatcheries
and distributors (including traceability
system).
4. Work with the Tanzania Poultry Breeders’
Association (TPBA) to ensure adequate
dissemination of revised regulations and
requirements.
Expected result(s): • Increased number of hatcheries that
comply with regulations (baseline to be
established);
• Improved first week chick survival rate.
A Summary Report
40
Reform Area No. 3: Enhance The Capacity of TFDA to Assure the Quality of Veterinary Drugs and Vaccines
Through Improved PMS
The challenge:
About 55 percent of poultry farmers and 27 percent of dairy farmers surveyed by L-MIRA indicated they bought ineffective drugs. This was a perception survey hence it is viewed with caution. However, to a great extent, the survey findings are supported by the fact that the current capacity of TFDA to carry out post-marketing surveillance (PMS) is low. Other veterinary drugs and vaccines supply chain actors also indicated there are substandard veterinary medicines and vaccines in the market. Quality assurance of medicinal products and vaccines is critical at registration point but even more important during post-marketing since the quality of products may vary under different storage conditions. In the case of Tanzania, unwanted and / or substandard products sometimes enter the market through porous borders.
TFDA has a rigorous registration process for both human and veterinary medicines and vaccines. However, structured PMS is adequately conducted only in the case of human medicines and vaccines. A well-functioning surveillance system in human medicines has significantly enabled TFDA to monitor products in the market and take regulatory actions to improve their quality. TFDA has not conducted a structured market surveillance for veterinary drugs and vaccines. Due to budgetary constraints, the Government’s budgetary allocation to TFDA has focused more on human medicines. TFDA needs support to build a strong case for institutionalizing a sustainable PMS system for veterinary medicines and vaccines. In addition, TFDA does not have an efficient system of storing, referencing, and
investigating approved medicines and vaccines.
L-MIRA interventions: The project will support TFDA to institutionalize a structured and efficient PMS system that will better inform and update marketing authorization and assure the ongoing quality, safety and effectiveness of veterinary medicines and vaccines. The focus will be on building the foundations of the system; therefore, the project will support the following activities: 1. Establish quantitative data (a small-scale
baseline PMS) on the quality of veterinary medicines and vaccines in the market;14
2. Use the baseline PMS report to inform regulatory actions for monitoring and improving product quality and safety after approval or for re-evaluating approval decisions;
3. Support TFDA to improve the current processes and systems (including the system of storing, referencing and investigating all approved medicines and vaccines) in order to make future PMS activities more efficient and effective;
4. Support TFDA to establish a working relationship with The African Union Panafrican Veterinary Vaccine Centre (AU-PANVAC) for testing of quality of vaccines in the future; and
5. Use the baseline PMS report to build a strong case for adequate budget allocation by the central Government for the PMS of veterinary drugs and vaccines.
Expected Result(s):
• Improved quality of veterinary drugs and vaccines in the market;
• Reduction of farmers that report using ineffective drugs.
14. Such baseline data has not yet been established for veterinary drugs and vaccines in Tanzania
Tanzania Dairy and Poultry Sectors: Key Constraints Inhibiting Competitiveness
41
Reform Area No. 4: Support TFDA to Minimize Vaccines
Registration Cost by Implementing the EAC
Harmonized Guidelines on Registration of
Veterinary Vaccines
The Challenge:The East African Community (EAC), through the support of the Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines (GALVmed), has been engaged in activities to harmonize technical requirements for veterinary vaccines registration in the region. Harmonization of regulations in animal health and specifically requirements for registration of veterinary vaccine products is of utmost importance for the development of the livestock industry in Tanzania and within the East African region. It can help to simplify the registration process, save time and resources and help to ensure drug quality, safety and efficacy.
Harmonization processes have led to the development of EAC Harmonized Guidelines on Registration of Veterinary Vaccines. However, the guidelines are yet to be implemented while the cost for registration of veterinary vaccines remains high. A 2015 analysis of first time registration costs for foreign veterinary drugs in Africa by GALVmed, showed that Tanzania is the third most expensive country to register veterinary drugs at US$ 7,700. Ghana is the most expensive at USA 21,800 followed by Zimbabwe at US$ 8,700. Costs for drugs registration were much lower in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia at US$ 5,000, while in Zambia they were only US$ 1,082. L-MIRA’s analysis shows that on average the cost (time and fee) of obtaining a “Certificate of Veterinary Drug or Vaccine Registration” averages US$ 8,000. A significant part of the drug and vaccine registration costs relate to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspections and certification. In addition, according to TFDA’s documented
procedures, the registration has 20 steps involving about 117 hours (approximately 15 days) of the private sector and about 698 hours (approximately 87 days or three months) of the regulator. However, businesses report that (considering waiting time), it takes longer (more than five months and sometimes one year) to obtain registration approval.
TFDA has already proposed three actions that could further simplify and lower GMP inspection costs, and consequently overall costs for importation and registration of veterinary drugs and vaccines. TFDA also plans to implement EAC harmonized guidelines on registration of veterinary vaccines; and explore linkages with other regulators on GMP for veterinary drugs and vaccines registration.
L-MIRA Interventions:1. Work with TFDA and National Medicine
Regulatory Authorities (NMRAs) of other EAC partner state to:
• Explore effective ways of domesticating the harmonized guidelines;
• Implement various developed guidelines for implementation of the Mutual Recognition Procedure (MRP);
• Train inspectors on joint assessment of dossiers and GMP inspection of manufacturers / applicants and facilitate at least one joint inspection for available application from manufacturers of veterinary drugs and vaccines.
2. Work with TFDA to explore other opportunities to improve efficiency of drug and vaccines registration processes.
Expected result(s): • Reduced cost (time and money) of
veterinary vaccines registration;
• Increase in the number of veterinary vaccines importers/wholesalers.
A Summary Report
42
Reform Area No. 5: Minimize Regulatory Overlaps in Food Safety Control by Supporting Implementation of the TFDA-TBS MOU
The Challenge:TFDA and TBS have significant regulatory overlaps in food safety and quality control. TFDA’s mandate is to regulate food businesses to ensure they meet food “safety” requirements. TBS also regulates food businesses to ensure they meet food “quality” requirements based on mandatory standards it sets. Both institutions inspect businesses and charge fees. This is detrimental for the development of the food processing industry (including dairy and poultry processing), as it increases financial costs and renders the industry less competitive. While large companies could better manage the regulatory compliance cost, the burden is huge for SMEs which must be nurtured to grow. Most of Tanzanian SMEs operate in the food sector. Currently, 100 percent of all dairy and poultry SMEs interviewed by the L-MIRA project identified this overlap as a significant regulatory burden.
A long-term solution for this challenge is to review the laws of TFDA and TBS to clarify mandates and eliminate legal overlaps. Best practice guides that Standards Bureaus set standards and let food regulators to define technical regulations based on standards and ensure their enforcement. This could be considered when the two laws are reviewed. However, a legal review is usually lengthy and will last beyond the timeframe of the L-MIRA project.
As a near term solution, TFDA and TBS signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to promote collaboration between the two institutions in order to minimize overlaps and enhance availability of safe and quality products. The MoU specifies nine areas of
cooperation between TFDA and TBS. They include establishment of joint consultation and inspection mechanisms; mutual recognition of certificates, permits, and laboratory tests and reports; joint mechanisms for supporting SMEs on compliance; and joint capacity building for inspection and laboratory techniques, amongst other areas.
L-MIRA Interventions: L-MIRA will support TFDA and TBS to jointly implement the MoU, focusing on activities that build longer-term institutional collaboration capacity to: (i) assure quality and safety of food products; and (ii) reduce regulatory overlaps and burdens for SMEs in the food sector. Specifically, L-MIRA will support TFDA and TBS to:
• Establish formal consultation mechanisms between the two institutions to strengthen collaboration;
• Establish a system of mutual recognition of certificates, permits, laboratory results and reports to reduce duplication and compliance costs for SMEs;
• Support implementation of TFDA’s risk based inspection guideline and explore implementation of a similar mechanism within TBS;
• Build TFDA’s and TBS’s capacity and develop a joint mechanism to train and support micro and small-scale industries to comply with requirements for food safety and conformity assessment;
• Establish a joint inspection mechanism.
Key results: • Reduction in the number of businesses that
identify TBS-TFDA overlap as a significant regulatory burden.
Top Related