This document summarizes a presentation on improving food safety in the pork value chain in Uganda. It notes that pork production has increased significantly in Uganda but is currently managed informally with minimal safety oversight. It outlines opportunities to identify market opportunities for smallholder pig farmers, develop best practice innovations to improve production and access, and document and promote sustainable models. The presentation cautions against hazard-based approaches and promotes a risk-based analysis to prioritize food safety issues and pilot interventions while engaging stakeholders across the value chain.

1. Smallholder Pig Value Chain R4D Projects in Uganda
Preliminary Survey Findings on Slaughter Hygiene at Wambizzi Abattoir
Bioversity Kampala, Uganda, 16 August 2012
Livestock and Fish By and For the Poor (CRP 3.7)
Safe Food, Fair Food (CRP 4.3)
Danilo Pezo (d.pezo@cgiar.org)
Kristina Rösel (k.rosel@cgiar.org)

2. Pig production- a dynamic and rapidly growing sector in
Uganda. In the past three decades increase from 0.19 to 2.3
million pigs (FAO, 2012).
Uganda has the highest per capita consumption (3.4
kg/person/year) in the region -10 times increase in the last
30 years, whereas beef is declining.

3. A large informal subsector
• Backyard pig production, mainly
managed by women
• Few animals
• Free-range, tethered
• Small number of peri-urban small-
scale semi-intensive
• Uncoordinated trade & transport
• Mostly unsupervised slaughter, no
meat inspection in local markets,
road-side butchers
• Pork joints

4. A small formal subsector
• Medium-scale piggeries
• Urban slaughterhouses
• Processors
• Fresh Cuts (Uganda)
• Farmers Choice (Kenya)
• Outgrower scheme: Farmers Choice

6. At farm level
- Nutrition and feed (poor quality feeds, seasonality)
- Swine health (ASF, tryps, lice, mange, helminths,
others)
- Genetics & breeding strategies (inbreeding)
- Husbandry & management (deficient corrals, if
available)
- Poor access to information and services
- Limited organizational strategies to achieve
economies of scale

7. At market level
- Organizational strategies
- Poor road infrastructure
- Limited market information, standards (e.g.,
animals not weighed)
- Poor slaughter technologies and infrastructure
(by-product losses, and risk for disseminating
diseases)
- Minimal attention to disease control and public
health concerns (ASF, cysticercosis, blue pork,
others)
- Underdeveloped processing sector

9. Inputs and Post-farm
Services Live-pig traders
Transporters
Pig breeder
Vet / Animal Prod
Farm Slaughterers
extension services Systems: Pork Butchers
Agrovet / feed shop Breeding Pork processors-
owners large and medium
Growing/Fattening
Feed manufacturers Supermarkets/
and suppliers restaurants
Transporters- feed Consumers

10. 2. To develop and
1. To identify
pilot test a set of 3. To document,
market
integrated best- communicate and
opportunities for
bet innovations promote
pork in Uganda,
for smallholder appropriate
and the multiple
pig production evidence-based
factors preventing
and market models for
smallholder pig
access for sustainable pro-
producers to
specific poor pig value
exploit those
conditions in chains
opportunities
Uganda

11. Production Consumption
Peri-
Urban
urban
Rural Urban
Rural Rural

12. Safe Food, Fair Food
（2008-2015）
risk-based approaches to improving food safety and
market access in informal markets in sub Saharan
Africa
Funded by BMZ/GIZ
(German Federal Minstry for Economic Cooperation and Development/
International Agency for International Cooperation)
12

13.  „Majority of pork in
Kampala contaminated“
 with what?
 „Increasingly risky for
human consumption“
 consequences?
 „Loyal pork consumers
face running mad“
 per se?

14.  „ALL pork supplied in
Kampala for human
consumption is
contaminated“
 defamation, severerly
damaging a sector‘s
reputation
 „Threatening to close all
pork joints around the city“
 risk of unemployment

15. “absence of structured safety inspection”
15

16.  Current food safety management seems to be
neither effective nor efficient
 Food safety communication trivializing
 Tendency to adopt international food quality
standards and hazard-based regulations
without considering local contexts
16

17.  Ban or promote?
 Zero-risk/ hazard-based policy?
„if in doubt, keep it out“
 Is there an acceptable level of risk?
 How can participation help improving food
safety?
17

18.  Based on evidence not perceptions
 Clear distinction between risk and
hazard!
 Hazard = anything that causes harm
 Risk = probability + consequences
 Risk analysis = structured approach for
evaluating and dealing with risks
18

19. Can it be present in food?
Hazard identification Can it cause harm?
What harm does it cause? How does it get from source to
How does harm depend on victim?
dose? What happens along the way?
Hazard characterization Exposure assessment
What is the harm?
What is its likelihood?
Risk characterization
Participatory
methods fit well
Risk management/
Risk communication
19

20.  Rapid assessment of food safety in selected
value chains: priority setting
 Action research on priority food safety issues in
these chains: pilot best-bet interventions
 Enabling environments: engagement with
Regional Economic Communities (REC),
academia, private sector, vc stakeholders
20

21. Thank you!
Wakiso, Uganda (June 13, 2012)
21