STDF/PG/: 335 / date:30th November 2013

STDF PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Project Title: / Strengthening the Phytosanitary Capacity of the Floriculture Sector in Uganda
ProjectProgress Report: / 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Project Start and End Dates / From:1stOctober 2012 / To:30th September 2014
Period Covered by this Report: / From:1stApril 2013 / To:30th September 2013
Implementing Agency: / CABI
Contact Person: / Name:Florence Chege
Title:Project Manager
Tel:+254 020 7224450/62
E-mail:
OVERVIEW:
Briefly describe: (i) the objective of the project; (ii) progress in project implementation to date;
(iii) any particular issues facedand/or results achieved during this reporting period.
(i)To strengthen phytosanitary capacity in Uganda and to increase market access of Uganda’s
flowers.
(ii)Project progress to date:
  1. Project initiated and implementation ongoing
  2. Activities 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 are concluded
  3. Activities 1.3, 1.6, 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 are ongoing
(iii)Highlights of key results achieved and issues emerging during the period:
  1. Development of procedures and operational manuals– drafting of 14 SOPs identified for implementation is well advanced:
  2. 8 have been reviewed by NPPS and are undergoing finalization
  3. 3 are under review by NPPS
  4. 3 are in the initial drafting stage
See attached document 1 – SOPs identified for Uganda and status.
  1. Dialogue meetings between DCP, UFEA, and flower farms yielded agreements on sixkey interventions, listed below, which they are already pursuing with an aim of enhancing compliance, pest monitoring and management,inspections & certification:
  • Initiate a Partnership Forum and Fund for sustaining the phytosanitary system that is being put in place. Membership is comprised of the government, flower industry and input suppliers. Initial contributions to the fund were made and used to facilitate DCP’sfarms visits to take stock of pest control measure in place. Based on these findings DCP and the industry have come up with recommendations for enhancing integrated pest management,see attached documents: 2 - Minutes of DCP meeting with flower producers July 2013.pdf; 3 - Minutes of flower producers meeting with input task force and inspectors Sept 2013.pdf; and 4 – Partnership fund figures.pdf
  • Promote the use of Biopesticides - the idea of introducing use of Biological Control Agents (BCAs) was generated from the study tour and training for inspectors held at KEPHIS and then shared with flower farms who became interested to implement it as a cost saving measure. However there is no mechanism in place for the introduction of biopesticides so DCP and the industry pulled together a concept “Importation and Use of Biological Control Agents as Pest Control Products”. The Agro-chemical Board will review the concept and made recommendations on the way forward, refer to document 5 – Biological control agents – concept note working document.pdf
  • Developand implement a public private sector partnership SOP for enhancing compliance. The SOPs was drafted, reviewed and agreed upon by members for implementation. It spells out responsibilities of each player along the flower value chain.
  • Employ deterrents and incentivesto enhance compliance – fines, penalties and rewards have been agreed upon for implementation, see document3 – Minutes of flower producers meeting with input task force and inspectors Sept 2013.pdf
  • Undertake farm owners’ study groups – an effort spearheaded by UFEA to enhance joint learning, interaction and collaboration among flower farms. Flower owners made their initial joint farm visits which focused on the management of Spodoptera littoralisand from which they proposed how they can better improve its detection and control, refer to documents: 6 - Minutes of farm owners visit to Mairye Estates Xclusive and Oasis nurseries.pdf;and 7 - Mairye Estates -Spodoptera Management.pdf
  • Develop and implement a traceability system – agreed that UFEA leads in developing a traceability system ‘from green house to table’ which would also include a requirement for all farms to be registered with DCP – see attached document 8 - Registration of flower farms for traceability.pdf
  1. EU 100% notification - during the reporting period DCP/UFEA received a notification for 100% inspection from the EU to be implemented from September 2013. The notification was based on increased interceptions due to presence of Spodoptera littoralis. The notification gave impetus for discussions and collaboration between the players as evidenced in the interventions listed above.
Further:
  • following the notification, some importing countries sent experts to Uganda to undertake an audit of the Uganda phytosanitary system to evaluate the extent of compliance with the EU regulations.
  • two individuals from the NPPS who are already providing support to the project participated in the audit. Their participation in the audit enabled them better to provide the advice to the project as detailed elsewhere in this report.

PART A: Progress & Results

A.Progress & Achievements:

Describe progress in implementation during this reporting period, including key outputs/outcomes, based on the project logframe.
During this six month period of project implementation the following were achieved:
  1. Activity 1.3 & 1.6 (Updating procedures)
1. Template for and contents of an SOPwere revised based on NPPS technical advice.
2. Prioritization of SOP implementation was revised based on the EU notification and NPPS advice. SOP on ‘pest reporting and scouting’ was made a first priority, see document 9 - SOPs training by NPPS for Uganda stakeholders Sept 2013 .pdf
3. Fourteen SOPs in development, of these 8 have had final inputs by NPPS and are being finalized
4.DCP and flower industry are in agreement on how to implement some of the SOPs
  1. Activity 1.5 (Inspectors detailed hands-on training)
1. A 2-week training curriculum and programme for the ‘specialized and detailed hands-on training for inspectors course’ was developed by COPE
2.Nine DCP inspectors trained at KEPHIS– all the trainees passed the end of course exam with average score of 84%; trainees evaluated the course as very successful whereby their scores for ‘good, v. good & excellent’ on a set of parameters gave a score of 98%
3. During the training:
  • the inspectors generated lists of resources (SOPs, documents, equipment) they would need to undertake inspection work
  • drew up specific on-farm scouting and inspection actions
  • Identified further training needs
Refer to documents: 10 - TORs for COPE's delivery of detailed hands-on training for DCP staff May 2013.pdf; 11 - COPE's report on detailed inspector training May 2013.pdf; and 12 - DCPs report on detailed inspector training May 2013.pdf
4.Following the training the inspectors have demonstrated their improved
knowledge in relation to phytosanitary tasks by identifying and drafting variousSOPs
  1. Activity 1.7 (Computer –based export certification system)
1.TOR for NPPS to produce a technical advice report was issued, refer to
document 13 - TORs for NPPS inputs Sept-Oct 2013.pdf - that also coversNPPS inputs for activities 1.3, 1.6, 3.1 and 3.2
2.NPPS undertook mission and findings are awaited
  1. Activity 2.1 (Dialogue between DCP and flower industry)
1.Three meetings were held in the reporting period with good representation of the
flower industry– see documents 2,3 & 6.
2. A number of key strategies, action points, collaboration mechanisms were
agreed upon, as listed in the overview section above
  1. Activity 2.2 & 3.5 (Procurement)
1.List of equipment and tools to be procured was revised with no major changes
2.Specifications were made following the inspector training in Kenya
3.Procurement process was initiated
  1. Activity 2.3 (Implementation of new procedures)
DCP and Flower industry developed and are implementing a procedure for ‘public private sector partnership’, as detailed in overview section above
  1. Activity 3.1 & 3.2 (Phytosanitary survey and monitoring system)
TORs for NPPS to produce a technical advice report to guide setting up of a survey and monitoring system was issued – awaiting report
  1. Activity 3.3 & 3.4 (Curriculum and training for survey and monitoring)
Will be initiated following NPPS advice under activities 3.1 & 3.2
  1. Project coordination
A project management team meeting was held in April, see documents: 14 - Minutes of the 2nd PMT Meeting April 2013 pptx.pdf; and 15 - Six Month Workplan - April to Sept 2013.pdf

B.Timeframe and Budgeting

Explain whether the project is on-track with regard to: (i) the budget; and (ii) the original timeframe. If either the expenditures and/or timeframe are off-track, please explain and describe the corrective actions being taken.

(i)Budget: A total of USD 121,373.5 has been spent from the USD 191,747 received to date. The variance of USD 70,373.5 is comprised of:
savings made in completed activities and funds at hand with implementers (activity 1.1 and 1.4)
funds due to be paid for commissioned work whereby the outputs are yet to be delivered for payment to be effected (activity 1.3,1.6,1.7,3.1 & 3.2)
delayed spending or activities that are not yet due (PMT meetings and general project coordination). A 3rd PMT which had initially been scheduled for October 2013 was rescheduled to February 2014 to give partners time to address urgent issues arising from the notification; also it was felt that by February substantial outputs will have been made for review and integration into next set of activities.
(ii)Original Timeframe: Other than 2 activities (3.3 and 3.4) which are delayed, the rest of the activities are either completed or in progress as follows:
  • 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 completed
  • 1.3,1.6, 2.1 ongoing with very good progress - it is expected that these activities will continue to be undertaken during the life of the project
  • 1.7, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 have been initiated. Their results will enable the commencement of activities 3.3 and 3.4 which are delayed.

C.Other Implementation Issues

Describe any significant changes to the project design, context or partners during the reporting period, or any other issues faced, and actions that are being taken in response, if appropriate.
Procurement of airport laboratory and office equipmentwas delayed mainly because most of the quotations received from potential providers didnot meet therequired specifications making it impossible to analyse the quotations. The procurement process was re-initiated with an agreement that DCP assigns a technical staff to cross-check that items quoted for and eventually delivered do match the required specifications.

D.Other Comments:

Please provide any other relevant information or observations on the project, e.g. on lessons learned, particular challenges or issues that may arise in the next reporting period, changes to the logframe, etc.
The EU notification for 100% inspection provides a good environment for mobilizing support for implementation of the project and other related initiatives. As a result good progress has been made in putting in place procedures and ensuring collaboration.

E.Project Documents:

Provide a list of key documents (e.g. mission reports, training materials, workshop reports, etc.) produced during this reporting period. Copies of the final versions of these documents should be attached to this report.
Document ref. number in report / Document title / Activity under which document was produced
1 / SOPS identified for Uganda and Status.pdf / 1.3 & 1.6
2 / Minutes of DCP meeting with flower producers July 2013.pdf / 2.1 & 2.3
3 / Minutes flower producers meeting with input task force and inspectors Sept 2013.pdf / 2.1 & 2.3
4 / Partnership fund figures.pdf / 2.1 & 2.3
5 / Biological control agents – concept note working document.pdf / 2.1 & 2.3
6 / Minutes of farm owners visit to Mairye Estates Xclusive and Oasis nurseries.pdf / 2.1 & 2.3
7 / Mairye Estates -Spodoptera Management.pdf / 2.1 & 2.3
8 / Registration of flower farms for traceability.pdf / 2.1 & 2.3
9 / SOPs training by NPPS for Uganda stakeholders Sept 2013 .pdf / 1.3 & 1.6
10 / TORs for COPE's delivery of detailed hands-on training for DCP staff May 2013.pdf / 1.5
11 / COPE's report on detailed inspector training May 2013.pdf / 1.5
12 / DCPs report on detailed inspector training May 2013.pdf / 1.5
13 / TORs for NPPS inputs Sept-Oct 2013.pdf / 1.3,1.6,3.1,3.2
14 / Minutes of the 2nd PMT Meeting April 2013 pptx.pdf
15 / Six Month Workplan - April to Sept 2013.pdf

1

PART B: Status of the Outputs and Activities

Output / Activity / Indicator / Target: / Actual performance:
(% complete) / Comments (results and challenges faced)
Expected result 1 / DCP’s staff capacity developed in order to bring the implementation of phytosanitary inspections and certification of flower export consignments in line with international standards of export certification systems and the requirements of the EU market. / 1. Staff confidence in the way they deal with their phytosanitary activities and follow procedures. / 40% / Staff awareness of phytosanitary requirements of the EU market raised and ongoing
2. Implementation of phytosanitary measures according to agreed Standard Operating Procedures. / 10% / Staff awareness of procedures that need to be put in place for phytosanitary inspection raised further through detailed inspectors training and ongoing; modalities for implementing some new measures has been agreed upon
3. Improved reference material and manuals. / 50% / SOPs that need to be in place identified and drafting well advanced; other reference and documentation requirements identified for procurement
Activity 1.1 / General Project Initiation Workshop.
Two day awareness creation and technical introduction / training workshop for participants representing key stakeholders / 1. Number of participants from different stakeholders in the floriculture sector. / 100% / Workshop was held on 13th & 14th December 2012
Stakeholders understanding of the phytosanitary requirements for exporting flowers to EU enhanced
2. At least 20 relevant persons trained. / 100% / Many issues that need to be addressed by both DCP and the flower industry; and procedures that need to be improved or instituted were identified for further action
3. Proceedings of workshop written / 100% / Workshop report was compiled and sent to partners – recommendations are being incorporated into project activities
Activity 1.2 / Recruitment by MAAIF of about five new DCP staff members1[1] to be deployed by DCP for activities as required implementing and sustaining the improved phytosanitary measures of this project. / 1. Number of new full time staff
(Five) available to implement phytosanitary measures. / 100% / Five staff appointed to undertake the implementation of phytosanitary measures that the project is putting in place
Activity 1.3 / Review and update of DCP’s procedures, documentation and reference materials related to export certification system with technical assistance from NPPS. / 1. Agreement on new operational procedures / 50% / 8 of the identified 14 SOPS are being finalized; other documents and reference materials required were identified from the training of inspectors – activity 1.5
2. Updates of manuals / 50% / Development of SOPs well advanced
3. Update of reference materials / 10% / Specific reference materials needed were identified during detailed hands-on training for inspectors
4. Advice on relevant staff capacity development. / 50% / Some training needs identified during activity 1.1 and 1.4; further staff development needs were identified during the training of inspectors, activity 1.5
Activity 1.4 / Study tour to Kenya supported by NPPS specialists for DCP inspectors and other DCP staff involved in implementing phytosanitary measures and representatives from flower companies and UFEA, to visit and study practical aspects of the implementation of the various phytosanitary measures in Kenya related to the phytosanitary requirements of the importing country (the Netherlands). / 1. Number of participants and representation of different stakeholders. / 100% / The training was attended by staff from DCP, Entebbe Fresh Handling LTD, Flower Companies and UFEA
2. Report on lessons learned for application in Uganda and an action plan. / 100% / Lessons learned for application in Uganda were identified
An action plan for developing priority SOPS was agreed upon
Activity 1.5 / Specialized and detailed hands-on training for inspectors and other phytosanitary staff of DCP inspection procedures of the export certification system, auditing processes, pest and disease detection, handling of documents and phytosanitary certificates, quarantine pest detection, first line diagnostics etc. / 1. Number of relevant participants (ten) trained. / 100% / The training took place on 19th-31st May 2013 at KEPHIS, Kenya. 9 DCP staff attended
2. Training programme. / 100% / Training programme and curriculum finalized
3. Participants’ improved knowledge and skills related to their phytosanitary tasks. / 100% / Improvement demonstrated through inspectors role in drafting the SOPs
Activity 1.6 / Development and improvement of the existing operational manual for phytosanitary inspection and compilation of other reference materials. Based on advice of NPPS technical expert (activity 1.3) and observations of study tour (activity 1.4), manuals should include a list of quarantine organisms. Pilot testing and adjustment. Make operational manual and other materials available for airport inspectors. / 1. Operational manual up-dated and practical enough to be used by inspector. / 80% / This manual is the ‘export inspection SOP’ that was prioritized during the study tour. It is being finalized following NPPS review and inputs
2. Hard copies of new manual available at inspection site at the airport. / 0% / Manual not yet ready for printing
Activity 1.7 / Development of a computer-based format of the export certification system / 1. Computer-based system is in operation and is used by staff. / 5% / TORs for NPPS to produce a technical advice report that will guide this activity issued
Expected result 2 / A streamlined inspection and export certification system based on public-private partnership is designed and adopted / 1. An implementation plan for the phytosanitary inspections indicating clear responsibilities of the partners (DCP, UFEA, FLH and growers) is adopted / 50% / Dialogue between DCP and UFEA well advanced and a SOP for collaboration developed and implementation commenced through project activities listed under 2.1 & 2.3
2. Clear responsibilities of the partners (DCP, UFEA, FLH and growers) are
reflected in the operating procedures of all the partners. / 50% / 2.As above
Activity 2.1 / Dialogue and agreement on (i) improved institutionalized inspection arrangements and requirements between DCP and flower companies and (ii) a communication strategy on phytosanitary issues / 1. Number of meetings. / 50% / Dialogue well advanced; responsibilities defined and collaboration avenues, e.g. the partnership fund put in place – see details in overview section
2. Number of participating stakeholders in meetings. / 100% / All the participating stakeholders were represented in meetings i.e. UFEA, DCP, flower farms, FHL
3. Feasible decisions and action plans on strategies and communication. / 50% / Decisions, action plans and communication avenues have been defined and implementation started
Activity 2.2 / Procurement of small equipment and tools for export inspectors and set up of a small office and laboratory at the airport / 1. Small laboratory at airport with tools, equipment in working condition. / 5% / Procurement process commenced – quotations requested from providers
2. Phytosanitary inspections and issue of certificates follow described procedures. / 10% / New procedures identified and collaboration commenced between DCP and flower farms for management of pests, particularly with regard to Spodoptera
Activity 2.3 / Technical assistance on practical aspects of implementation of phytosanitary measures. / 1. All new phytosanitary procedures are properly implemented. / 20% / Various recommendations made during NPPS technical visit in October and some being implemented, e.g., the partnership fund
Expected result 3 / Specific phytosanitary survey and monitoring systems are effectively operational / 1.Survey and monitoring system is developed and implemented by DCP and at company level by scouts under supervision of DCP. / 10% / TORs for NPPS technical advice to enable implementation of activities 3.1 -3.4 issues; some recommendations made during NPPS visit in October – awaiting report
Activity 3.1 / Development and design of specific phytosanitary survey and monitoring system / 1.Survey and monitoring system is developed. / 10% / As above
Activity 3.2 / Creation of a small task force on the development of a specific phytosanitary survey and monitoring and technical assistance on the set-up of such a system in concert with the private sector. / 1.Number of meetings. / 3 related meetings held – see attached minutes (reported under activities 2.1 & 2.3)
2.Feasible decisions and action plans on strategies to implement phytosanitary surveys and monitoring / 5% / Some of the decisions made under 2.1 & 2.3 are relevant for survey and monitoring – in particular for Spodoptera
3.Number of participating stakeholders in meetings of task force / 5% / Some of those attending meeting under 2.1& 2.3 will be members of the task team for monitoring and surveying
Activity 3.3 / Specialized and practical training on quarantine pest surveillance systems (training of trainers) / 1.Number of relevant participants from both the private and public sector. / 0% / Not commenced
2.Training programme. / 0% / Not commenced
3.Improved knowledge and skills related survey and monitoring systems and practical aspects of its implementation. / 10% / Some of the skills gained during the hands-on inspectors training are relevant for survey and monitoring
Activity 3.4 / Develop curriculum for specific phytosanitary survey and monitoring training and implement training. / 1.Course curriculum. / 0% / Not commenced
2.Training programme. / 0% / Not commenced
3.Number of relevant participants from the private sector. / 0% / Not commenced
4.General improved knowledge and skills related to survey and monitoring systems and particularly scouting for quarantine pests and its implementation. / 0% / Not commenced
Activity 3.5 / Procurement of surveillance equipment (pheromone traps, sticky traps, etc.). / 1.Equipment available and in working condition. / 5% / Procurement commenced with request for quotations from providers
Activity 3.6 onwards / Not due for implementation in the reporting period

1