Establishing a More Effective Phytosanitary Regulatory System: A Zambian Case Study

Zambia, a landlocked country importing plants and plant products is vulnerable to the trading risks associated with agricultural products. By virtue of its geographical location, traded plants and plant products also transit through the country. Importations and the transit of plants and plant products have the potential for introducing plant pests that affect agricultural production and limit access to export markets. Globally, government institutions, especially National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs), play an important role in preventing the introductions of plant pests resulting from international trade. For this reason, Zambia requires an effective phytosanitary regulatory system. One of the essential components of such a system is an internationally acceptable Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) process. In this context, PRA is a systematic evaluation of the risks associated with the movement of plants and plant products in international trade. It is the basis on which scientifically based phytosanitary measures aimed at preventing the introduction of quarantine pests are developed. This paper highlights the essential components of a PRA process and describes a critical assessment of Zambia’s phytosanitary system and its capacity to undertake PRAs. Keywords: National Plant Protection Organization, quarantine pests, phytosanitary measures, Pest Risk Analysis, trad

Pest risk analysis for developing countries: the case of Zambia

International trade of plants and plant products is one of the major vectors for the introduction and spread of exotic pests of plants. Some of these pests may affect agricultural production and/or limit access to international export markets. Phytosanitary inspections of plants and plant products at border ports are an important phytosanitary measure to ensure compliance with importing countries’ requirements. Measures are formulated by undertaking Pest Risk Analysis (PRA). In many developing countries however, the undertaking of PRAs is affected by limited national phytosanitary capacity and resources. This thesis provides insights that may facilitate more effective phytosanitary regulation, particularly the undertaking of PRAs where limited data and expertise are available for this purpose. The Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Service (PQPS), the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of Zambia is a case in point. In light of the above, a simplified PRA procedure was developed, one that is internationally acceptable and easily applied day-to-day with the resources available in a developing country like Zambia. The developed procedure focused on Pest Risk Assessment, the second stage of a PRA as guided by international standards. This stage is key to formulating phytosanitary measures. The procedure is entirely qualitative and relates to particular risk elements. The risk elements used in the simplified procedure were identified for inclusion after a detailed review of PRAs conducted by NPPOs of various developed countries, including Australia, New Zealand and the USA as well as one of the Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPO), the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). The review evaluated the different steps of stage two of these PRAs, specifically, entry, establishment, spread and consequences of the pest(s). Selection of risk elements for inclusion in the procedure was based on their consistent usage in the PRAs reviewed. The procedure was developed to be easy to apply and being user-friendly, with straightforward questions requiring a yes or no response. The procedure developed in this study avoids the burden of misinterpretation of levels of risk through ratings or scoring. As such, the procedure has the potential to be applied by the NPPOs of other developing countries, including Zambia’s PQPS. The procedure can provide PQPS with science-based PRAs to support the application of phytosanitary measures on imported plants and plant products. Use of the procedure was then tested, using Zambia’s import of South African maize (Zea mays) seed for sowing in a comparative study. However, having a suitable PRA procedure is one thing but ensuring there is the capacity to apply it routinely is another. Additional effort was therefore made to identify the essential PRA process components necessary for a NPPO to have an internationally acceptable PRA system. Essential components of a PRA system were determined through the aforementioned comprehensive review of publicly available PRAs as well as NPPOs and RPPOs documented procedures. The essential components included: • Presence of a PRA unit; • Collaboration with specialists from all relevant plant health fields, whether in the NPPO or outside; • Access to published sources of PRA relevant information and the availability of up-to-date data sets; • Objective, if not independent technical peer review of each PRA; and • Risk communication and consultation with stakeholders, including potential trading partners(s). As the case in point, the phytosanitary capacity of Zambia’s NPPO, the PQPS was examined in relation to its PRA system. Two questionnaires were designed specifically for this purpose. The questionnaires provided the means to survey PQPS staff to obtain information on: • Phytosanitary activities at border ports; • International trade patterns; • The current PRA process; • The availability of PRA experts; • PQPS staffing; • Availability of and access to sources of information relevant to PRAs; and • Laboratory and inspection facilities. The questionnaires were applied between November 2011 and June 2012 at the PQPS head office in Lusaka and Zambia’s border ports. Border ports were Katima Mulilo, Chirundu, Copperbelt, Mwami, Nakonde, Victoria Falls and the main airport, the Kenneth Kaunda International Airport (KKIA). Survey results showed that Zambia’s phytosanitary capacity is challenged in relation to PRA processes. The Zambian NPPO does not have staff specifically tasked with conducting PRAs and a PRA unit is not established in its structure. At the time of the survey, PQPS had a staff comprising 26 Plant Health Inspectors (PHIs). Presently, PHIs located at the border ports conduct ad hoc analyses of the risks associated with imported plants and plant products at the same time they complete phytosanitary inspections. In summary, there was little doubt that Zambia’s PRA process needs to be improved. The phytosanitary capacity of its NPPO is lacking and ideally will require significant injection of funds in the long term. In the absence of additional funding, however, improvements could still be made to its PRA process. The effectiveness of Zambia’s phytosanitary regulatory system will depend on its capacity to undertake PRAs. It is recommended that the effectiveness of Zambia’s system could be improved by: (i) restructuring PQPS so as to utilise some of its in-house tertiary qualified personnel located centrally in Head Office to focus on PRAs; (ii) applying routinely the newly developed PRA procedure at Head Office to develop scientifically justified measures to imports of plants and plant products; (iii) utilising the expertise of other centrally located plant health specialists in the PRA process; (iv) clarifying the inspection roles of PQPS border staff; and (v) establishing clearer communication channels with PHIs located at the border ports thereby enabling them to respond consistently to Head Office directives relating to phytosanitary measures required for imported plants and plant products