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.