MCDA Final Report Malawi - Standards and Trade Development ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table A3.3. Aflatoxin controls for maize Decision Criterion Value Details Confidence Cost Up-front investment US$600,000 Estimated cost of scoping study for 4 mycotoxins in diet, land race typing of Aspergillus flavus to geographical indicators, and 3 year field trial with Medium multiple strain atoxigenic strain Aspergillus flavus. On-going cost 0% Limited additional production costs estimated conservatively at 0.1 per cent of the value of exports. Medium Ease of implementation +4 Somewhat difficult because of the number of people involved in the value chain. Maize basically is a subsistence crop Medium Trade impacts Change in absolute value of exports US$0 Minimal impact. There are moves to set mycotoxins standards in the SADC/EAC/COMESA region and the implementation of these controls will act to preserve existing regional trade. However, much of the Medium current trade is through the WFP and is already tested. Trade diversification 0 Most maize production is for domestic consumption. Any trade is within the region and this is not expected to change. High Domestic agri-food impacts Agricultural/fisheries productivity +1 Implementation of GAP likely to lead to enhanced productivity. High Domestic public health +1 Aflatoxin contamination reduces immunity. Therefore, more effective aflatoxin control and management for this staple crop is likely to reduce health problems such as HIV/AIDS. Medium Environmental protection 0 No impact High Social impacts Poverty impact 0 No impact High Impact on vulnerable groups +1 Will have some positive impact on individuals with HIV/AIDS Medium Page | 59
Table A3.4. Mycotoxin testing capacity Decision Criterion Value Details Confidence Cost Up-front investment US$100,000 Estimated cost of testing equipment and training of personnel. High On-going cost $0 Ease of implementation +1 Change in absolute value of exports US$0 Costs of maintaining laboratory accreditation $10,000/year. Annual maintenance costs $5,000. Costs of retesting in EU avoided. On balance, will be little or no additional on-going costs. Very easy. Only requires Malawi to upgrade laboratory facilities and implement testing services. Trade impacts Samples already tested in non-accredited laboratory in Malawi and then retested in EU, or tested in accredited laboratory in the region. Thus, no additional exports created. Trade diversification 0 No impact on market access. High Agricultural/fisheries productivity 0 Domestic public health 0 Environmental protection 0 Domestic agri-food impacts Samples already tested in non-accredited laboratory in Malawi and then retested in EU, or tested in accredited laboratory in the region. No change. Samples already tested in non-accredited laboratory in Malawi and then retested in EU, or tested in accredited laboratory in the region. No change. Samples already tested in non-accredited laboratory in Malawi and then retested in EU, or tested in accredited laboratory in the region. No change. Social impacts Poverty impact 0 No change in exports, so no impact High Impact on vulnerable groups 0 No change in exports, so no impact High High High High High High High Page | 60
Page 1 and 2:
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE Usin
Page 3 and 4:
4.11. Compliance with hygiene requi
Page 5 and 6:
RASFF SADC SME SPS STDF TAML TBT UP
Page 7 and 8:
Using Multi Criteria Decision Analy
Page 9 and 10: Table 1. Existing reviews of SPS co
Page 11 and 12: Table 3. Malawian agri-food exports
Page 13 and 14: were presented with a series of car
Page 15 and 16: Genetically-modified organism (GMO)
Page 17 and 18: Option Number Name Details 4 Mycoto
Page 19 and 20: Option Number Name Details 15 Seed
Page 21 and 22: Table 6. Decision criteria measurem
Page 23 and 24: 4. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
Page 25 and 26: participation/oversight of the Comp
Page 27 and 28: 4.9. Pesticide residue testing capa
Page 29 and 30: Development (OECD) 51 ; and 3) Inte
Page 31 and 32: Figure 4. Decision criteria measure
Page 33 and 34: Figure 7. Decision criteria measure
Page 35 and 36: Finally, Figures 11 and 12 report t
Page 37 and 38: Figure 12. Decision criteria measur
Page 39 and 40: Figure 14. Decision criteria scores
Page 47 and 48: To explore the impact of changing t
Page 49 and 50: Figure 32. Net flows for baseline m
Page 51 and 52: Given the robustness of the results
Page 53 and 54: Faulkner, L., Harrington, J., Levy,
Page 55 and 56: Appendix 2. Participants at Stakeho
Page 57 and 58: Appendix 4. Capacity-Building Optio
Page 59: Poverty impact +2 Impact on vulnera
Page 63 and 64: Poverty impact +1 Impact on vulnera
Page 65 and 66: Table A3.7.Pesticide controls for p
Page 67 and 68: Table A3.9.Pesticide controls for t
Page 69 and 70: Table A3.11. Animal health controls
Page 71 and 72: Social impacts Poverty impact +1 Sm
Page 73 and 74: Social impacts Poverty impact +2 Li
Page 75 and 76: Table A3.15. Seed inspection and ce
Page 77 and 78: Table A3.16. Animal health controls
Page 79 and 80: 21 Anonymous (2002). Volume 2, Chap
Page 81: The eggs from which the day old chi
show all

MCDA Final Report Malawi - Standards and Trade Development ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?