Effects of Food Safety Standards on Livelihoods of

Nile Perch Value Chain Actors

11 January 2007

Structure of the Policy Brief

• Introduction• What are the costs and benefits of

compliance• Livelihood Asset Portfolios of the Actors• Who benefits in the Nile perch export

value chain?• Food safety versus sustainability• Conclusions and policy recommendations

Introduction

• Policy brief based on results of survey conducted in Mwanza and Mara region 2006

• Respondents:- Actors in Nile Perch Value Chain

(Comply with EU Food Safety Standards)- Actors in other fishery value

chains (which are not compliant with the EU standards)

Introduction (Cont)

• Results : WP, SAFE Website and Paper presented by Dr. Kadigi on Wednesday

• Compliance to food safety standards- Barrier- Opportunity

• Popular media: Darwin’s nightmare

Actor category Gross revenue (TShs) Operating costs (TShs.)

Net Profits (TShs.)

Nile perch value chain: Fishers 97,245 58,473 38,772 Boat owners 295,390 173,161 122,229 Other fishery value chains: Fishers 53,317 32,185 22,068 Boat owners 147,958 89,720 58,238 Extra costs, revenues and net profits obtained by actors in the Nile perch value chain above those obtained by counterparts in other fishery value chains: Fishers 43,928 26,288 16,704 Boat owners 147,432 83,441 63,991

Average costs, revenues and profits obtained by fishers and boat owners per actor per week in 2006

Livelihood Asset Portfolios

• Assets: Land, Livestock, Labour, Education, equipment

• Mean values of land holdings were higher for actors in the Nile perch value chain than for actors in the other fishery value chains

• Fishers: 2.4 ha versus 1.7 ha• Boat owners: 3.5 ha versus 2.8 ha• Values of other assets were also higher for Nile

perch value chain actors than their counterpart in the other fishery value chain but mean differences insignificant.

Who benefits?

• Direct benefits: actors in the Nile perch value chain including fishers, crew, boat owners, processors/exporters

• Indirect benefits: Boat builders, net traders, net menders, people who offer support services owners of kiosks, bars, eating places, etc.

Food safety versus sustainability

• Numbers of fishers as well as fishing assets and gears, and in particular those targeting Nile perch have increased considerably in the past 5 years

• Heavy exploitation of Nile perch is seen as a threat to sustainability

• Need to address issues of sustainability together with issues of compliance to food safety standards.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

• The research upon which this policy brief is based on suggests positive impacts on livelihoods of fishery actors from maintaining food safety standards in the Nile perch export chain

• Non-compliance with food safety standards may cause significant impacts on the livelihoods many people

Policy Implications (Cont’)

• In order to maintain compliance with EU food safety standards, there is need to:- increase the number of landing sites that are “improved” for handling fish- fully integrate Beach Management Units (BMUs) in the assurance of food safety and hygienic handling of fish at the landing sites – regulation and external monitoring are not sufficient- provide support to the industry to meet private food safety and quality management standards which are increasingly demanded retailers in Europe.

Policy Implications (Cont’)

• Efforts should be made to ensure the long-term sustainability of the fishery resource:- Ensure more effective and coherent planning of the fisher resources in the country in order to safeguard the future of the sector- Ensure enforcement of the regulatory and monitoring mechanisms through BMUs- Strengthen on going joint regulatory and monitoring efforts under the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization- Evaluation whether complying with MSC certification is appropriate, feasible and has positive effect both in terms of sustainability and market access.

Policy Implications (Cont’)

• The fisheries policy of 1997 and its amendment of 2003 contains strategies geared towards improving the quality of fishery products and market access, but they have implemented only partially. They need to be implemented fully

• Since the Lake Victoria fisheries contribute to livelihoods of several poor people, the government should plough back some of fishery tax revenue to improve infrastructure and handling facilities at the landing sites

• As for public perceptions, coherent efforts should be made by the riparian countries to repair the reputational damage cause by the popular media in Europe

END

THANK YOU