Mid Term Review

1
Mid Term Review

• Validation workshop 2006
• 5 Dec 05

2

• Policy context for SA PIP
• To generate equitable access and participation
  in a globally competitive, profitable and
  sustainable agricultural sector contributing to a
  better life for all.
• The Strategic Plan for South African
  Agriculture. National Department of Agriculture,
  27 November 2001. 25 pp.

3
Aims of the South African Pesticide Initiative
Programme

• Overall Objective
• Continued access to the EU market for RSA
• horticultural produce and minimising the
  detrimental
• impact of EU food safety and consumer
  protection
• requirements on the RSA economy as a whole.

• Programme Purpose
• Assist RSA horticultural export producers to
  comply with EU export requirement for food safety
  and consumer protection, in particular related to
  pesticides regulations.

4
Purpose of the MTR

• Consider progress
• Review effectiveness and Efficiency
• Management of resources and Activities
• Provide recommendations
• Consider revision of the FA
• Potential for SAPIP 2 ?

5
EC Delegation Reports Issues Focus

• Under spending
• Emerging farmers
• Cost sharing
• Revision of the FA
• Possibilities for a follow-up

6
Acknowledgements

• The Mission team is most grateful to the PMU
• and SA PIP for
• Free access to all SA PIP records
• Frank discussions with programme team
• Office space and logistics (bookings, tickets
  etc)
• Many thanks to Gerrit Bruwer, Sandra Keller,
  Tom Mabesa, Claudine Farrell, Megan Philander,
  Helen Goodman

7
Methods of The MTR

• 1. Briefings by ECD, PMU, PPECB
• 2. Interviews with stakeholders (50 persons in 5
  Provinces)
• (emerging farmers, growers, researchers,
  DoA, NAFU etc)
• 3. Desk Study of reports, contracts, work plans,
  minutes etc
• 4. Financial Review rebuilding actual and
  forecast expenditure (only from project financial
  system)
• 5. Debriefings with PMU, PPECB, EC

8
Result Areas and components
9
Issues with the Logical Framework

• 1. Components are not the same as result areas
• 2. No Result areas for management and monitoring
• Some indicators for achievement are missing and
• most unquantified
• 4. Duplicated activity Workshops for MRL task
  force by COLEACP (1.1 and 4.1)
• 5. Agricultural Practice Activity 3.2 on training
  needs ID for emerging farmers is really capacity
  building
• 6. Lack of clarity has meant some work plan sub-
  activities appear as new activities rather than
  building up to an existing activity.

10
Some indicative targets (OVIs) from the Log Frame
of SA PIP

• 1. Information meets expectations of growers
• but what information is needed and by whom?
• 2. 280 MRLs applications for priority chemicals
• but how many trials can realistically be
  done? c. 73 so far
• 3. 70 Alternative treatments are developed
• but how many new treatments are being generated
  from
• adaptive research? None yet
• 4. 10 Agricultural practices adjusted as
  result of adaptive research
• but how many will be documented and
  disseminated? None yet
• 5. 9 Workshops for MRL task force
• how many are realistic?
• 6. Database established emerging farmers
• but how many registered and how useful is
  it? c 500 so far

11
Achievements
12
Information Communications

• More than 50 media inserts and press releases
  about SA PIP
• 2 brochures
• TV and radio items
• Launches and meetings

13
Regulatory component

• MRL trials 87 (?) trials already in progress
• Adaptive Research 89 trials in progress

14
Capacity building

• Workshops held for MRL Task Force and others on
  MRL issues with ACP PIP
• 3 ToT training courses for responsible pesticide
  handling held

15
Management

• Procedures for all purposes devised
• Staff appointed and service contracts agreed
• All necessary systems in place for Committees and
  working groups

16
Finance
17
(No Transcript)
18
Per component (End 2005) Funds available Best
case Scenario

• InfoCom
• Regulation
• GAP
• Cap. Building
• _________________
• Management
• Monitoring
• Contingency
• Total

19
Per component (End 2006) Funds available Best
case Scenario

• InfoCom
• Regulation
• GAP
• Cap. Building
• _________________
• Management
• Monitoring
• Contingency
• Total unspent

20
Financial Monitoring

• Active monitoring of budget/expenses
• Monthly internal financial reports
• Clearer quarterly reports for PSC
• Operational Project Management Information
  system (OPMIS)
• Solution NAVISION Module

21
MRL Trials

• Value invoiced is less than the budget
• 40 trials for veg in WP3 (2006)
• 50/50 funding unlikely
• Unused funds MUST be reallocated
• Solution
• PMU and SABS need to review the MRL budget

22
Vegetables minor crops

• Problems
• No levy
• Weak associations
• Chemicals companies not interested
• Can not afford 50/50 share of costs

23
Cost sharing

• Current cost sharing by EU
• Information 100
• Regulation 50
• Agri practices 50
• Capacity building 100
• Management 100
• Overall proportion EU 63
• Solution Flexibility across components
• Achieving 63 overall

24
How to achieve 63 ?

• Correct valuation of industry contribution
• Growers associations spending on own
• adaptive research (Without PIP)
• Adaptive research (With PIP)
• True RSA contribution to regulation
• But .need certified statement for EC

25
Why should we ?

• Because
• If the true value of RSA contribution is
  accepted by EU as counterpart funding, more of EU
  contribution can be made available for SAPIP
  projects

26
What steps needed ?

• Obtain the certified position from Industry
• Propose a revised budget 2006 2007
• Request approval of change to FA

27
Faster MRL dossiers ?

• Flexible funding
• Multi-chemical trials and dossiers
• (ACP PIP)
• Obtain compliance check-list from Registrar
• Submit pilot dossier asap
• SABS to provide dossier submission plan
• to Registrar
• Visit to EU by senior industry reps with DoA for
  latest MRL info early 2006

28
Financial Monitoring

• Active monitoring of budget/expenses
• Monthly internal financial reports
• Clearer quarterly reports for PSC
• Operational Project Management Information system
  (OPMIS)
• Solution NAVISION Module

29

• Specific proposals

30
Information Communication

• Propose needs assessment early 2006 to clarify
• What information
• identify recipients
• what is the best vehicle
• Help Desk for MRL info
• Information not capacity-building
• Emerging farmer Pesticide Specialist
• Clarify role and provide additional support
• Contacts with Agriculture Colleges universities
• Possible role in curriculum development
  (pesticides, GAP)
• Partnership with CropLife, PPECB, others

31
Adaptive research

• AR only useful if it leads to modified
  agricultural practices
• Committee to examine results and pick likely
  winners
• Invite submissions to produce guidance sheets for
  farmers from completed research
• Priority in future calls given to completing
  existing work new work with rapid application

32
Preconditions

• Correct underspending
• Achieving targets for Capacity-building,
  information and regulatory component
• Innovative solutions (involving ACP PIP, SADC,
  other stakeholders

33
Capacity-building 1 Emerging Farmer Database

• Only 500 entries (but link to more)
• Several service providers have failed to deliver
• What is sustainability of a small stand-alone
  database?
• DoA has its own large GIS/database system with
  LRAD links
• Need to review progress and expense and explore
  DoA linkage

34
Capacity-building 2 Training Needs Strategy
Development

• Needs assessment to develop training strategy
• Workshop on Emerging farmer capacity needs
• Involve wide range of stakeholders
• PAETA, Agri-SETA, Banks, retailers, Philippi,
  Agri-Academy, DTI, DoA, Du Roy, Growers groups,
  NUFFIC etc
• Look at curriculum development
• Look at accreditation issues
• Internships, bursaries (to develop black
  professionals)

35
Capacity-building 3

• Purpose to integrate SA PIP component
  technologies, together with inputs from other
  stakeholders, in meeting needs of actual EFs for
  capacity building
• Utilises PIP expertise on pesticide handling, GAP
• Requires partnerships with other service
  providers (literacy, marketing, credit)
• Requires co-funding (govt schemes, other
  partners)
• Four projects identified so far
• (Koekedouw, Mariveni, Winterveld, Richtersveld

36

• Possible Follow-up to SA PIP

37
Justification

• EU harmonization not complete before 2008 (at
  earlierst)
• Exit strategy problematic without stability
• MRL trials and adaptive research may require 3-4
  years
• Delay in issuing new practices for dissemination
• Broader issues such as GAP issues need to be
  addressed
• Exploring regional linkages and integration in
  SADC
• Forthcoming REACH project in EU may create new
  challenges
• (e.g. multi-country testing)

38
Scope

• Focus on integrating quality and safety issues
  into the marketing chain
• Priority given to training and information access
  for emerging farmers
• Creative partnerships with educational service
  providers, retailers, growers etc (building on SA
  PIP 1)
• Regional Cooperation
• Environmental issues may need to be addressed.
• (largely ignored under PIP 1)