Posted on April, 22, 2016 at 10:36 am
By Adam Ihucha
Arusha — Fertiliser supply chain in Tanzania abounds with tariff and non tariff barriers that impede delivery of the input to farmers at the right time and at affordable prices.
Importers say, for instance, new fertiliser registration in the local market costs $30,000, six times compared to Kenya where the same task consumes $5,000.
Again, the registration process is also protracted, as authority demands field trials of the new fertiliser for three consecutive crop seasons, before either being approved or rejected.
James Parsons, importer and Avocado grower cites Boron as probably one of the most important micro-elements required in agriculture, but it is unavailable and unregistered in Tanzania, denying farmers their fair yields.
Boron is the biggest deficiency in Kilimanjaro Region soils and in Tanzania there are no soil applied boron products registered, save for one foliar feed called Bortrac which is $10 per litre.
"Foliar feeds are not sufficient to apply enough boron to the soil and are very expensive" Mr Parsons explains adding: "We need Solubor and borax to be registered and the normal, simple products used all over the world - why on earth do they have to be trailed when everyone knows what the results will be?"
Latest study on fertiliser taxation in East African region undertaken by Tanzania Horticultural Association (Taha) and Best-Dialogue shows that Tanzania is leading for indirect taxes and charges, among the peers.
Taha chief executive officer (CEO) Jacqueline Mkindi said that during their study they had realized that Tanzania charges six indirect taxes, Kenya has five charges, Uganda four taxes including VAT, Burundi imposes three taxes whereas Rwanda only charges two.
"In Tanzania, fertilisers are tax free. However, there are six indirect taxes and charges that contribute to the high prices of fertiliser even before reaching the farmers" says Ms Mkindi.
This is probably why the level of fertiliser use in Tanzania is as low as 7 kg nutrients per hectare, compared to 27 and 53 kg nutrients per hectare for Malawi and South Africa respectively.
This is despite the Abuja Declaration, to which Tanzania is party, directing African Union member states to ensure taxation regimes, policies, and regulations reduce costs of distributing and buying fertilisers in rural areas.
The Abuja Declaration on fertiliser for an African Green Revolution recognises the significance of the key input in forging Africa's economic growth, food security, and environmental health, given the rapid deterioration of soil fertility on the continent.
However, Abuja declaration emphasized that African fertiliser consumption should reach a minimum of 50 kilogramme of nutrients per annum.
Tanzania Fertiliser Regulatory Authority (TFRA), the quality assurance watchdog of the input, says all the charges are stipulated into the law.
"I think it is high time now for us to consider reviewing our laws and regulations by borrowing a leaf from the best practices so as to ease our fertilisers registration process in the country" says a TFRA high-ranking official, Mr Seleman Mselem.
Indeed, the fertiliser Regulations require all fertiliser or fertiliser supplement used in Tanzania to be sampled, tested, analyzed, evaluated and recommended for use by TFRA.
However, the law, as it is, does not allow TFRA to entrust its mandates to any competent body to undertake sampling or evaluation of fertiliser.
In a situation where TFRA lack capacity in terms of facilities, human and financial resources, Taha CEO says private sector self-regulation could have been a cost-effective and efficient means of ensuring high quality fertiliser products.
"Therefore, in order not to hiccup fertiliser companies or dealers from marketing of their products, it would be helpful if the law allows for mechanism in which private sector can be entrusted with self-regulations" Ms Mkindi noted.
The 2009 Tanzania Fertilisers Act No 9 and its 2010 Regulations do not speak with one voice when it comes to fertiliser registration.
For instance, Section 8(1) and (2) of the Act requires registration of every fertiliser factory put up in the country to expire only when the plant stops manufacturing the product.
Yet, Regulation No 12 of the same legislation imposes expiry time for every registered fertiliser plant in the certificate issued to it, contrary to international best practices which nullify the registration only when products fail to meet market standards.
The Fertilisers Regulations provides under regulation 6 for registration and licensing of sterilizing plant. Pursuant to regulation 6(3) of the Regulations, a license issued for setting up sterilizing plant shall be valid for three years from the date of issuance.
"It has observed that this requirement is so restrictive and may hinder investment in the fertiliser industry in a sense that once a license for setting up sterilizing plant expires, it will automatically affect the validity of the established plant" says Taha's deputy CEO, Mr Anthony Chamanga.
He further said that therefore, there should not be a time limit for the issued license unless it is cancelled for whatever genuine reason provided for in the law.
On registration and licensing of fertiliser dealers, it is a conditional requirement pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Act and Regulation 10 of the Fertiliser Regulations that a person shall not import or export fertiliser or fertiliser supplement unless he possesses a permit issued by the Director to that effect.
Furthermore, Regulation 10 requires that every fertiliser dealer must be registered. The validity of the registration certificate is only two years (regulation 12).
However, further to registration, in terms of regulation 13, the applicant would also be required to have a licence and again, when the applicant wishes to establish a fertiliser sterilizing plant, he shall also be required to have a license to that effect (Reg. 6).
On import or export of fertiliser, the registrant or licensee would also be required to have an import or export permit from TFRA (Reg.48 and 49).
"These approval processes may be very cumbersome to the fertiliser dealers and unnecessarily delay to the business" Mr Chamanga explained, adding: "One or two documents would serve the purpose as far as fertiliser quality control aspect is concerned".
Source: www.allafrica.com