Regulatory maze slows Kenya's drive for bigger EU exports

The lack of a centralised national authority to coordinate and enforce standards for farm produce destined for export has emerged as a major obstacle to Kenya’s efforts to expand its exports to the European Union (EU).

The newly unveiled Kenya–European Union Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) Implementation Strategy identifies this institutional gap as a key challenge, noting that it persists despite the presence of several agencies mandated to uphold export standards.

Nevertheless, the document also speaks of the EU market having higher standards than what has been set by other global regulatory bodies, which adds to the complexity of Kenya’s challenge.

The strategic plan says the EU is Kenya’s largest export market, accounting for approximately 13.6 to 21.1 per cent of Kenya’s total exports. Key export products include cut flowers, fresh vegetables, fruits, coffee and tea.

On the other hand, major export categories from the EU to Kenya include machinery and mechanical appliances, pharmaceutical products, vehicles and automotive equipment and chemical products.

Under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, which is one of the six thematic focus areas of the strategy, the government hopes to strengthen Kenya’s system so that it can comply with EU standards while protecting human, plant and animal health.

SPS measures, simply put, are rules that ensure farm produce, made up of crops and animal products,  exported to other markets are free of pests and diseases.

This is for the safety of consumers and also crops and animals in the importing country. 

The document, prepared by the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry, notes that despite the efforts Kenya has made in food safety, plant and animal health, the existing laws do not comprehensively address all the SPS issues.

“Further, the lack of harmonisation of the SPS legal and regulatory framework often leads to duplication and overlaps in the mandates of the institutions involved in implementing SPS measures,” the document says.

This, it adds, hampers efficient and effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and continuous improvement of food and feed safety systems. The plan says the absence of designated SPS units and personnel within competent authorities has contributed to uncoordinated implementation of the measures, delays in notifying other countries of Kenyan SPS measures and ineffective responses to SPS measures implemented by other countries.

“Further, the National SPS Committee is yet to be gazetted as a legal entity, and this curtails its working since it is not recognised, thus posing funding and other operational challenges,” it says.

To address these challenges, the plan proposes the establishment of dedicated SPS units to streamline the approach to its implementation and granting the committee legal status for it to operate effectively. This is besides adopting the latest technology and equipping the workforce that is said not to have the latest know-how on how to detect emerging threats effectively. 

“The current workforce lacks advanced technical know-how required to operate advanced and sophisticated laboratory equipment. This limits the abilities of competent authorities to address current and emerging SPS threats effectively,” it says.

As it stands, the role of overseeing plants and animal products in the country is scattered across different bodies, which the plan notes that they do not communicate with each other.

These bodies include Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate(Kephis), Pest Control Products Board, Agriculture and Food Authority(AFA), Kenya Fisheries Service, Pharmacy and Poisons Board, Kenya Agriculture Livestock Research Organisation (Kalro), Kenya Veterinary Board and Kenya Bureau of Standards. Others are the Directorate of Veterinary Services, State Department for Public Health and Professional Standards, Kenya Dairy Board, National Biosafety Authority, Veterinary Medicines Directorate, Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute and the respective county departments of health.

Additionally, all these bodies are governed by their respective Acts and Regulations.

Even so, the plan states that the primary competent authorities on SPS issues in the country include the Ministry of Health, Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (Kephis) and the Directorate of Veterinary Services.

 These institutions, it says, are mandated to develop, review and implement legislative framework considered necessary to address the three SPS areas.

Kenya, being a member of the World Trade Organisation, has subscribed to the harmonised science-backed standards fronted by other bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the International Plant Protection Convention.

 The plan notes that while the international standard-setting bodies set harmonised guidelines that are the basis for implementation of the agreements, the EU has in many instances set more stringent standards than those agreed on internationally.

“Some of the measures and standards include the EU’s lowering of Maximum Residue Limits, which make it difficult for Kenyan farmers and exporters to meet the lower standards,” the plan states.

Disease-free zones

The ministry argues in the plan that production on this side of the world is undertaken in the tropics; thus, the pest complexities require integrated management practices in developing pest- and disease-free zones in the mitigation of the unique pests in Kenya.

 It laments that continuous regulatory reviews and the adoption of stricter standards have resulted in numerous changes, particularly concerning the authorisation of plant protection products and the establishment of maximum residue limits (MRLs) both within the EU and internationally.

“These evolving regulations directly affect producers, who frequently need to modify their production practices to ensure compliance with the updated requirements. Failure to comply with EU SPS measures can result in significant consequences that disrupt trade by restricting the entry of goods into the EU market. This non-compliance, it says, often leads to financial losses for producers due to rejected shipments and the destruction of products.“

Additionally, it can have broader economic impacts, including potential market contraction, job losses, and damage to the reputation of exporters and their countries, the plan indicates.