22 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM lish community wide institutions - research, seed companies, regulatory institutions, etc., as well as an opportunity to pioneer certification of crop varieties that are endemic to the EAC. The presence of physical infrastructure – roads, ports (air, water), rail, etc., and diverse agro-ecologies allow for continuous seed production, while the availability of ICT infrastructure eases communication, document processing and dissemination of information. CONSTRAINTS The seed industry in the region is faced by various constraints which are evident both at the national and regional level. The institutional framework in some of the Partner States does not provide for existence of a national designated authority responsible for the industry. The functions are in some cases domiciled in the Ministries responsible for Agriculture which may to an extent impact on the operations and ease of decision making and in undertaking inspection and trials. This is par- ticularly critical for the process of variety release and issuance of import and export documentation. In terms of the duality of standard bodies, national standard bodies pose as custodians, and National Designated Authorities (NDAs) as implementers. When it comes to regulatory framework, it is at different levels/stages, particularly in terms of the regulations guiding the technical aspects of the sector, which need to be either devel- oped or reviewed. There are different variety testing protocols and evaluation periods in the Partner States, and some of the Partner States are yet to acquire membership into the relevant international bodies including UPOV, ISTA and OECD. This is a major constraint that definitely adversely impacts on the State’s capacity to produce adequate high quality/certified seed and further limits seed trade capacity development. Other constraints include the inadequate institutional/ legal framework and coordinated response mechanisms to handle emerging technologies and deal with issues. Of specific interest is the issue of possible introduction of GM seeds where awareness creation about the technology has not been adequate; inadequate funding of seed sector activities in the Partner States limits manpower and infrastructural development, and short- ages of seed and therefore prevalence of fake seeds. Limited land for cultivation coupled by high population density, low purchasing power, pre-dominance of informal seed, different regional frameworks requiring harmonization – COMESA, SADC, ASARECA, EAC., and a few other factors affecting farmer access to seed – roads, power, finance, climatic factors, prices etc. – also impede the industry. PRIORITY AREAS FOR REGIONAL SEED INDUSTRY LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK HARMONIZATION The areas that require harmonization include: 1. Establishment of a defined institutional framework and designation of relevant entities for efficient administration of the sector in the Partner States and at regional level. 2. Provide for regional variety testing protocols and common periods of variety evaluation. 3. Develop seed certification standards in the region to facil- itate cross border seed trade. 4. The technical requirements for authorization of inspec- tors, samplers and analysts should be harmonized. Build capac- ity of Partner States to implement the process. Harmonize authorization process. 5. The requirements for maintenance of reproductive mate- rial - Breeders to undertake maintenance and the NDA to ensure this is a condition for continued maintenance of the variety in the catalogue. 6. Harmonized documen- tation systems for inter-Partner States seed trade including the import and export permits; phytosanitary certificates, testing certifi- cates and seed labels. 7. Need for ratification and membership of Partner States in relevant international bodies, particularly OECD, ISTA, and UPOV to facilitate active participation in international seed trade and speed up regional harmonization. Partner States are encouraged to be members of the international organisations. 8. Plant Variety Protection - Need for capacity building, awareness creation for relevant stakeholders. Implementation of existing laws to be done by Member states. Recommended that member states align their PVP laws with UPOV 1991 Convention and ARIPO, PVP Protocol. 9. ITPGRFA Issues - There is a need to put in place enabling laws. Particularly, to have a clear regime of access and benefit sharing. There is also need to improve capacity on identification, documentation and conservation of plant genetic resources. GENERAL COMMENTS ON HARMONIZATION PROCESS 1. Packaging materials – Need to provide guidelines on materials used, sizes, standard weights, user information (stor- age/handling conditions, warnings, agronomic guidelines), addresses and contacts. Some Partner States prohibit use of certain polythene packaging material. 2. Required infrastructure/resources a. Policy b. Legal framework c. Regulatory institutions d. Personnel e. Physical infrastructure f. Laboratories – research and testing g. Laboratory/Inspection Protocols h. Documentation and information systems (ICT) 3. Different Partner States are at different levels of infra- structure development. There are glaring inadequacies, which may slow down implementation of a harmonized regime. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? First of all, we need to profile the capacity of the Partner States and identify the needs. Furthermore, it is necessary to develop and implement a strategy to address the needs. This means creating awareness among policy makers in the Partner States to give priority to those needs. But also, resource mobilization at the EAC and at the national level. Collaboration between the NDAs will need to be stimulated for example through the exchange of information, trainings etc. Once up and running we will need to do a regular review of the progress through monitoring and evaluation. Needless to say, that the support from policy makers at national and regional level is important.