TASTE / Agrofair Technical Assistance for Sustainable Trade & Environment World Bank | Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Sustainable Logistics (MDTF-SL) CONTRACT NO. 7182655 AGRILOGISTICS – Nigeria Improving Inland Transport Modalities for Vegetables and Food Crops between Production Zones, Urban Conglomerations and Export Hubs Results of the surveys, the living lab workshops and the pilot projects Final Report August 2018 1 Agrofair Benelux B.V. Technical Assistance for Sustainable Trade & Environment (TASTE) Koopliedenweg 10 2991 LN Barendrecht The Netherlands Luud Clercx Project manager E-mail: luud.clercx@agrofair.nl Cell phone: +31 6 460 53 031 SKYPE: luudclercx 2 CONTENTS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 7 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 9 2. THE CONTEXT - UPDATE .................................................................................................................. 9 2.1. Tomato sector policy ................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Violence – clashes between Fulani herdsmen and farmers ...................................................... 11 2.3 Round table discussions tomato sector .................................................................................... 11 2.3.1. Roundtable discussions crates (GAIN May 11 and May 18, 2017) ........................................ 12 2.3.2. Kaduna State Stakeholders Forum (21-22 February 2018) ................................................... 13 2.3.3. Agribusiness summit (27 April 2018) .................................................................................... 13 2.3.4. Nigeria Tomato Investment Round Table Jigawa State (11 May 2018) ................................ 13 3. SURVEY AMONG FARMERS, HAULIERS AND TRADERS (PART II, NORTHEN REGION) ................... 14 3.1. Methodology: Baseline Survey- Northern Region (Kano and Kaduna States) .......................... 14 3.2 Socio-economic attributes ........................................................................................................ 14 3.3. Postharvest quality drivers ........................................................................................................ 16 3.4. Conclusions and recommendations from the survey ............................................................... 18 4. THIRD MISSION TO NIGERIA (6 – 13 JANUARY)............................................................................. 20 5. SECOND LIVING LAB WORKSHOP .................................................................................................. 21 5.1. Agenda....................................................................................................................................... 21 5.2. Expectations .............................................................................................................................. 22 5.3. Mapping of value chains ........................................................................................................... 23 5.4. Identification of bottlenecks, causes of losses and possible solutions ..................................... 23 5.5. Proposed projects ..................................................................................................................... 23 6. PROPOSED PILOT PROJECTS / KICK-OFF WORKSHOP THE NORTH 12 – 16 FEBRUARY ................. 25 6.1. Agenda kick-off workshop, 13 – 14 of February 2018 .............................................................. 25 6.2. Pilot project 1: use of plastic crates .......................................................................................... 26 6.3. Pilot project 2: raised platforms for improved sun-dying of tomatoes .................................... 27 7. FEEDBACK WORKSHOPS ON THE PILOT PROJECTS IN THE SOUTH-WEST AND THE NORTH......... 28 7.1. Feedback workshop pilot projects South-East, IITA, Ibadan, 13 of January ............................. 28 7.1.1. Agenda................................................................................................................................... 28 7.1.2. Group work: comparison plastic crates and raffia baskets ................................................... 29 3 7.1.3. Results of the trial ................................................................................................................. 29 7.1.4. Towards a business model for the introduction of plastic crates ......................................... 32 7.1.5. Meeting with enumerators ................................................................................................... 33 7.2 Feedback workshop pilot projects North, Tahir Guest Palace, 23 of April ............................... 33 7.2.1. Agenda................................................................................................................................... 33 7.2.2. Comparison plastic crates - raffia baskets / drying tables and drying on the ground .......... 34 Pilot project plastic crates ..................................................................................................................... 34 Pilot project raised platforms for improved sun-drying........................................................................ 34 7.2.3. Results of the trials ................................................................................................................ 35 Pilot project plastic crates ..................................................................................................................... 35 Pilot project raised platforms for improved sun-drying........................................................................ 37 7.2.4. Towards a business model for the introduction of plastic crates ......................................... 38 7.2.5. Towards scaling up of improved dried platforms ................................................................. 39 7.3 Crates – in search for a business model .................................................................................... 40 7.4. Towards improved sun-drying of tomatoes .............................................................................. 42 8. FOURTH MISSION TO NIGERIA (21 – 28 APRIL 2018) .................................................................... 43 8.1. Consultation of development organizations ............................................................................. 43 8.2. Video production ....................................................................................................................... 44 9. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 45 9.1. Post-harvest losses and the tomato sector and upscaling proven innovations........................ 45 9.2. The living lab methodology as tool for improvement of value chains ...................................... 45 10. IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES AND PROJECT RESULTS ..................................................................... 46 11. PROSPECTS – NEXT STEPS ......................................................................................................... 46 OVERVIEW OF ANNEXES........................................................................................................................ 48 ANNEX 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 48 Questionnaires used and combined survey report ............................................................................... 48 ANNEX 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 48 Workshop presentations and worksheets ............................................................................................ 48 ANNEX 2.4 ............................................................................................................................................. 50 Baseline validation questions, after presentation of survey results, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano ........... 50 ANNEX 2.5 ............................................................................................................................................. 52 Examples of worksheets used (a complete set of all sheets is in the DROPBOX), Kano ....................... 52 4 ANNEX 2.6 ............................................................................................................................................. 56 Main bottlenecks in the tomato value chain, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano .............................................. 56 ANNEX 2.7 ............................................................................................................................................. 60 Bottlenecks, solutions, proposed pilot projects, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano.......................................... 60 ANNEX 2.8 ............................................................................................................................................. 63 Priority projects and second best projects of the round tables, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano.................. 63 ANNEX 2.9 ............................................................................................................................................. 70 Summary of evaluation of the workshop, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano .................................................... 70 ANNEX 2.10 ........................................................................................................................................... 71 Measurement tool introduction of plastic crates, kick-off workshop, 12 – 14 February 2018, Kano .. 71 ANNEX 2.16 ........................................................................................................................................... 76 Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 5 value chains, South-East, workshop 13 January ..... 76 ANNEX 2.17 ........................................................................................................................................... 91 Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 3 value chains, North, workshop 23 of April 2018 .... 91 ANNEX 2.18 ......................................................................................................................................... 101 Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 8 value chains, summary sheet................................ 101 ANNEX 2.19 ......................................................................................................................................... 103 Comparison sun-drying on the ground versus sun-drying on raised platforms, 23 April, Kano ......... 103 ANNEX 2.20 ......................................................................................................................................... 105 Elements for a business model, South West, workshop 13 of January 2018, Ibadan ........................ 105 ANNEX 2.21 ......................................................................................................................................... 107 Elements for a business model, North, workshop 23 of April 2018, Kano ......................................... 107 ANNEX 2.22 ......................................................................................................................................... 108 Elements for a business plan for improved sun-drying of tomatoes on raised platforms.................. 108 ANNEX 2.23 ......................................................................................................................................... 109 Structure and cost price structure across the tomato value chain (Coffey International, 2013) ....... 109 Annex 2.23 A – Tomato Value Chain ................................................................................................... 109 Annex 2.23 B – Comparison of Supply Chain Trading ......................................................................... 110 Annex 2.23 C. - Cost price structure across the value chain (See also Excel file)................................ 111 ANNEX 2.24 ......................................................................................................................................... 113 Business model crates ......................................................................................................................... 113 ANNEX 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 116 Overview of activities and meetings ................................................................................................... 116 ANNEX 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 121 Overview workshops ........................................................................................................................... 121 5 ANNEX 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 122 References (updated) .......................................................................................................................... 122 ANNEX 6 .............................................................................................................................................. 134 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 134 ANNEX 7 .............................................................................................................................................. 137 Abstract presented to the IHC Congress. Istanbul .............................................................................. 137 ANNEX 8 .............................................................................................................................................. 138 Presentation keynote speaker Agribusiness & Food summit, 27 of April 2018, Lagos ....................... 138 ANNEX 9 .............................................................................................................................................. 139 Logical framework: overview .............................................................................................................. 139 A. Immediate objective 1 ................................................................................................................... 139 B. Immediate objective 2.................................................................................................................... 140 C. Immediate objective 3.................................................................................................................... 141 D. Immediate objective 4 ................................................................................................................... 142 E. Immediate objective 5 .................................................................................................................... 143 6 SUMMARY This is the final report of the research project “AGRILOGISTICS – Nigeria. Improving Inland Transport Modalities for Vegetables and Food Crops between Production Zones, Urban Conglomerations and Export Hubs�, financed by the Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Sustainable Logistics (MDTF-SL), administrated by the World Bank. Officially, the project started in April 2017, with the signature of the contract between the World Bank and Agrofair Benelux B.V. In December, a budget neutral contract extension was granted, until August 30, 2018. The first task was to complete the project team. The initial team (formed when the concept note was submitted in May 2015), with Luud Clercx (Agrofair, team leader) and Mrs. Eruore Peace Quadt (of the consultancy firm “Netherlands - Nigeria Solutions�), Nigerian, resident of the Netherlands, ex- employee of the Business Department of the Netherlands Embassy in Abuja, with an extensive network in Nigeria, was completed with Mr. Milindi Sibomana (PhD), agricultural value chain researcher from Rwanda, with Mr. Emmanuel Akinwekomi, Nigerian consultant with a lot of experience in extension work with small farmers in Nigeria, and with Mr. Frits Blessing, logistics expert, with practical experience in applying the “living lab� methodology. Contact was also established with a research group from Wageningen University & Research (WUR), which in practice resulted in close collaboration and joint implementation of workshops in Nigeria. Mr. Emmanuel Akinwekomi was contracted on full time basis via the IFDC, which provided for an “institutional anchor� in Nigeria. As was outlined in the project proposal (submitted in December 2015), the main research theme would be centred to the participatory investigation of causes of the enormous post-harvest losses in the tomato value chain in Nigeria, and work out possible solutions. To that effect, review of literature took place, and key informants and players were interviewed during the four field missions of the project team and numerous SKYPE conferences. The main findings were laid down in the Inception Report (June 2017) and updated in the Progress Report (December 2017) and the present Final Report (August 2018). Also a video documentary was made. In the field in Nigeria, a so-called “living lab� methodology was applied, a participatory approach in which the stakeholders of the tomato value chain, farmers, transporters and traders with different interests, were put together to map the value chains, to analyse the causes of post-harvest losses, to propose solutions, and work together in the implementation and evaluation of pilot projects These sessions took place in the South-West and the North; the results of two surveys among tomato farmers, transporters and traders in these regions were input for the discussions in the first workshops. In the pilot projects two innovations were tested: the introduction of returnable plastic crates to pack and transport the tomatoes, and the use of raised platforms for improved sun-drying of tomatoes. Both innovations had a positive effect on the reduction of post-harvest losses, and were widely accepted and welcomed by different stakeholders. The testing of plastic crates and raised platforms in Nigeria is not new, and the results confirmed and the outcome of previous tests. What has been new is the living lab participatory approach, in which stakeholders with different interests were able to analyse the advantages from the viewpoint of their particular interests. 7 The fact that the plastic crates and raised platforms were accepted and welcomed as considerable improvements, increases the viability of these innovations. However, the implementation of a feasible business model, especially for the introduction of plastic crates, remains a huge challenge, due to the highly fragmented character of the tomato value chain (small farmers, small wholesalers, small transporters, small retailers) and the weak integration and lack of strong organisations of farmers, transporters or traders. There are no economies of scale and commitment within the chains are weak. These are exactly the ingredients that are needed for the introduction and circulation of crates. Unlike the beer industry for example (where the use of plastic returnable crates is normal practice), there is no central organizing player in the chain. There are no strong associations of farmers, traders or transporters that could assume a similar role in the tomato value chains. Therefore, the alternative of third-party solutions is on the table: service companies that buy a huge quantity of crates and lease or rent them to farmers or traders. Specific business models for such solutions should be worked out for different regions and circumstances, and financial instruments, market promotion, regulation by market authorities, supportive policies by State and Federal Governments and capacity building are needed to create a good environment for the introduction of crates at massive scale. Sooner or later, this will happen. The use of plastic crates is the normal practice all over the world in value chains of fresh fruit and vegetables. We hope that our research project will has been a modest contribution to a more sustainable tomato value chain with less losses in Nigeria. By this means, we would like to thank stakeholders, farmers, transporters and traders for their enthusiast participation in this project, and the World Bank for their confidence and funding. Barendrecht, The Netherlands August 27, 2018 The research team Milindi Sibomana Eruore Peace Quadt Frits Blessing Emmanuel Akinwekomi Hans Willem van der Waal Luud Clercx 8 1. INTRODUCTION This is the second progress report and final report combined of the research project on tomato losses in Nigeria. It should be read as the third part of the reports. The inception report (June 2017) In the inception report we presented an overview of the context in which the post-harvest losses take place: the macro-economic developments and policies, changing market structures, sector policies, initiatives in the tomato sector from development organisations, structural factors affecting productivity, and some specific factors: drought, conflict, pests (Tuta absoluta). Also some concepts related to food security, food losses and sustainability were presented: the main determinants and causes of food losses, the importance of well-functioning urban wholesale markets, the interconnectedness of agri-food chains and networks due to globalisation. In the inception report the main research questions and a logical framework were formulated, with immediate objectives, expected results / outcomes and activities / outputs. The first progress report (December 2017) In the first progress report, a description was given of the main activities carried out between July – December: the results of a first exploring mission to Nigeria by the project team; an explanation and results of the survey in the South-West among 48 farmers, 44 hauliers and 48 traders; the exploring mission to the North, 29 – 31 of October, and a report on the first living lab workshop in Ibadan, 2 – 3 November. An overview was presented of the implementation of the survey in the North, among 158 farmers, 89 hauliers and 109 traders; and the kick-off workshop for the pilot projects, 8 – 9 December: mainly oriented at the introduction of plastic returnable crates in 5 supply chains. The present report (June / August 2018) In the present report, an overview will be presented of the results of the survey in the North, the living lab workshop in the North, the results of both pilot projects in the South-West and North. We also will present an update on the tomato policy of the Government of Nigeria (launched in May 2017). By way of conclusion, some scenarios for feasible business models for the introduction of plastic returnable crates will be worked out, product of the discussions in the feedback workshops in the South-West and North which took place on January 13 and April 23, respectively, and in meetings with development organisations, government and private sector companies in Abuja, Lagos and Kano, during the third mission (January 6-14) and fourth mission (April 21 – 28). 2. THE CONTEXT - UPDATE 2.1. Tomato sector policy On 11 of April 2017, the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMITI) announced the development of a new tomato sector policy. (Olanite 2017; Edeh 2017a, 2017b; AETS Consortium 2018). In 2016, the tomato sector in Nigeria was severely hit by the Tuta absoluta pest 1, which dramatically affected the availability of fresh tomatoes on the market. Importers lobbied with success with the 1 Tuta absoluta is a species of moth known by the common name tomato leafminer. The larva feeds voraciously upon tomato plants, producing large galleries in leaves, burrowing in stalks, and consuming apical buds and green and ripe fruits. It is capable of causing a yield loss of 100%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuta_absoluta 9 government to make foreign exchange available for the massive import of tomato paste and tomato paste concentrates, backed by labour union officials. Due to a shortage of raw material for the tomato processing industry, and lack of national production and storage capacity (in terms of quantity and quality), they feared closing of processing factories and loss of jobs. (Businessday Online editor, 2016). This situation continued in 2017, although tomato supplies were better, with less incidence of the Tuta absoluta. (Sunday et al., 2018). The objectives of this sector policy reform in April 2017 were the import substitution of tomato paste, to stimulate investments in the national tomato processing industry and create employment, and contribute to the reduction of the huge post-harvest losses (especially in the glut period when there is an oversupply of tomatoes). Each year, 150.000 MT of tomato paste are imported, valued at US$ 170 million, more than double the amount of 5 years ago (Sunday et al., 2018). Current demand for fresh tomatoes is 2.45 million MT, and the country produces 1.8 million MT of which 40% is lost due to poor post-harvest handling and transport (Edeh 2017a, 2017b; Okojie, 2017a). The proposed instruments for policy implementation were a combination of price policy and extension services by the government to the tomato sector. The policy was applauded by stakeholders (Okejie, 2017a, 2017b) but also met scepticism (Oroho 2017; Nwafo 2017; NAN 2017). It was argued that complementary policies were needed to support farmers to increase their productivity and with accessible financial services, with low interest rates (Okojie 2017b). The main measures of the new tomato sector policy comprise the following, amongst others (AETS Consulting, 2018): ▪ The classification of greenhouse equipment as agricultural equipment in order to eliminate import duty ▪ Cessation of the import of tomato paste, powder and concentrate for retail sale, and of tomatoes preserved in vinegar or acetic acid ▪ An increase in the tariff on tomato triple concentrate from 5 to 50%, with an additional levy of USD 1,500 per metric tonne ▪ Restriction of the import of tomato concentrate to sea ports, with the aim of addressing the current abuse of the ECOWAS Trade Liberalisation Scheme (ETLS); ▪ Introduction of a zero-rate tariff (for both customs and excise duty and VAT) on the import of equipment for the production of tomato concentrate ▪ A 3-year tax holiday for investors in tomato-processing plants using fresh fruit to produce paste in Nigeria ▪ Removal of the current monopoly on agricultural insurance enjoyed by the Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (NAIC) to allow private sector players into the market ▪ Development of good agricultural practices (GAPs) to be followed in Nigeria in order to guide both increase yields and bring production into line with international standards ▪ The institutional provision of credit support to all tomato farmers ▪ Establishment of an inter-professional forum comprising input dealers, Government agencies, processors and packers, farmers’ associations, banks and donor agencies for regular dialogue on the entire tomato chain ▪ The inclusion of tomato production and processing in the list of industries eligible for investment incentives administered by the Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) The policy measures were implemented at a moment when there was still an considerable supply gap during certain periods of the year, exacerbated by the 40% - 50% post-harvest losses. It would take time to achieve sufficiency in production. In this vision, the greenhouses would take care of the year round production of fresh tomatoes for the urban conglomerations (such as Lagos), with higher yields 10 and better control of pests and diseases, and the open field production in the North would be for industrial processing (Ojewale and Baily, 2018; Okojie 2018). Triple concentrate tomato paste is not the same as finished tomato paste (with massive imports from China, in 2014 alone US$ 170 million, affecting local processors), but is a raw material that is of added value to the local tomato paste industry. The NASCON factory in Kano (Dangote), the only manufacturer of tomato paste concentrate in Nigeria is paralyzed, because the supply to the factory is not functioning (Nwafo 2017, Okejie 2018) 2. Therefore, representatives of the processing industry and watchers of the tomato industry argue for a step-wise implementation, to be able to organize and invest in local supply and processing (Oroho, 2017; Nwafo, 2017). A tariff barrier was considered counterproductive and premature. (Nwafo, 2017). The tomato policy was also frustrated since importers of tomato paste anticipated the measures by importing large quantities of tomato paste before the policies were announced, according to several stakeholders. (NAN, 2017). Furthermore, eight months after the announcement of the policy, the abolition of import duties on greenhouses had not taken effect at customs level, due to the lack of an appropriate HS custom code for greenhouses (Ojewale and Baily 2018; Okojie 2018; Ojewale 2018a; Ojewale 2018b). So it remains to be seen to which extent the federal policy will be effective as instrument to improve the perspectives of the tomato sector. 2.2. Violence – clashes between Fulani herdsmen and farmers The past year saw increasing violence and armed clashes between herdsmen and farmers, especially in what is called the “middle belt� , but also in tomato producing states as Kaduna. The attacks caused hundreds of deaths, tens of thousands of internally displaced persons and is affecting food security (Ihembe, 2018). Structural solutions are far away, such as the creation of corridors for cattle movement, electronic registration of cattle , creation of special grazing areas and ranches, and massive planting of high-yielding cutting grass (such as napier grass, also known as giant king grass or elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum)), which would put an end to the nomadic way of life and open grazing practiced by the Fulani herdsmen. The degradation of natural resources and climate change are among the underlying causes of the insecurity in the countryside (Agbola 2018). In the press, the lack of capacity of the government to put an end to the violence is heavily criticised. The crisis -which does not date back to yesterday but has continued for many years- is also symptomatic for the structural lack of attention for cumulative problems and challenges in the agricultural sector, the main source of employment for Nigerians. 2.3 Round table discussions tomato sector During the past year, several roundtable discussions took place to discuss the perspectives of post- harvest loss reduction and investments in the tomato sector. 2 The project team visited the plant in November 2017 and talked with the Manager, Mr. Kaita. Indeed the shortage of supply by small producers was the main problem, and the factory was not functioning. Therefore, DANGOTE was thinking of planting tomatoes on own farms. A daily supply of 30 to 40 trailers of 30 MT is needed, sourced from small producers (1200 MT) to operate the plant at full capacity. At this moment this is impossible due to a combination of lack of organisation of the supply and the fluctuating prices on the fresh tomato market; farmers prefer to bet on this market. 11 2.3.1. Roundtable discussions crates (GAIN May 11 and May 18, 2017) On May 11 2017, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) organized an expert workshop, followed by a multi-stakeholder workshop, May 18, 2017, to discuss the concept for commercializing the use of Reusable or Returnable Plastic Crates (RPCs) as packing method to reduce post-harvest losses in the tomato value chains, with representatives from the federal and state governments, development organisations, traders, researchers, crate manufacturing companies, private sector agribusinesses and banks. The use of proper crating (instead of raffia baskets) was identified as one of the most appropriate and proven solutions to reduce postharvest loss of perishable fresh fruits and vegetables in Nigeria. (GAIN, 2017a). The participants in both workshops explored workable models, trade-offs and incentives for lending, leasing and owning crates, to promote adoption of the crate at a wide scale. (GAIN 2017a, 2017b). The following were the most important recommendations of the expert workshop (GAIN 2017a): ▪ Cleaning of the crates before re-use is essential to conserve the quality of the tomato. ▪ Rigid stackable and nestable crates are preferable for long hauls – empty collapsible crates occupy less space but are fragile. ▪ Crate adoption rates increase when farmers and other stakeholders have a clear understanding of the benefits of crate usage, and when crates are readily available; continuous awareness raising is needed. ▪ Training is needed on how to pack, handle, store and clean the crates. ▪ A closed supply chain network is the best option for a crating business model, that is, when all supply chain actors use the crates continually to pack, load and transport to their buyer and then the buyer is able to return crates back to farmer. ▪ It is most efficient when farmers have a 2-3 times as many crates on farm as generally two thirds of the crates will be in transit and/or at the market. ▪ The greatest challenge to crate adoption is the availability of crates and the upfront costs of purchasing crates. The main recommendations of the multi-stakeholder seminar can be summarized as follows (GAIN 2017b): ▪ There is a business case for the use of returnable plastic crates and for investment in a crate leasing business; however a proper cost-benefit analysis needs to be conducted and disseminated to stakeholders to show the value in switching to crates. ▪ A workable business model in crate leasing business is required to attract investment funding. ▪ Financial institutions should work with relevant stakeholders to ensure access to funding for the purchase of crates for use and as a leasing / renting business. ▪ The Lagos State Government should ensure that markets are adequately and timely sensitized (especially Mile 12) prior to the introduction of legislation on the crating policy for handling fresh fruits and vegetables. ▪ The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD) and the Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON) should actively collaborate with other regulatory agencies to ensure the standardization of crates recommended for use, and ensure adherence to food safety practices for handling fresh fruits and vegetables. Different business models were discussed: crates owned or leased by farmers or dealers; or owned, leased or rented by a third party. 12 These options were also discussed in the feedback workshops in the South-West (January 13) and North (April 23); further elaboration in Section 7.3 of this report. 2.3.2. Kaduna State Stakeholders Forum (21-22 February 2018) On the Kaduna State Stakeholders Forum, 21 – 22 February 2018, hosted by the Government of Kaduna, one of the biggest tomato producing states in Nigeria, a National Stakeholders Committee for Governance, Promotion and Regulation of Tomato Sector in Nigeria was formed, with several sub- commissions and a shared agenda (Oluwo, 2018): ▪ Stabilize farmgate prices across the country ▪ Promote continuous awareness ▪ Advocate for the implementation and reinforcement of the tomato sector policy of the Federal Government (see Section 2.1 of this report) ▪ Strengthen the adoption of good handling pre- and post-harvest practices, such as the introduction of plastic crates ▪ Promote investments in fresh produce logistics and storage Emmanuel Akinwekomi of IFDC, member of the research team, also attended this meeting. It is unclear how follow-up will be given to the commitments and agreements. 2.3.3. Agribusiness summit (27 April 2018) On April 27, a one-day Agribusiness summit was organized by the magazine BusinessDay online, with financial support from the Netherlands Embassy. The reduction of post-harvest losses was one of the themes of the summit, highlighted in a keynote address (van der Waal, 2018, see Annex 8). On the summit, the need for investment in the logistics and cold chain was emphasised; and several speakers advocated for a stronger role and appropriate policies of the financial institutions to support the agricultural sector, heavily affected by structural underinvestment. 2.3.4. Nigeria Tomato Investment Round Table Jigawa State (11 May 2018) Together with TECHNCOSERVE, the government of Jigawa State organized a round table conference with stakeholders of the tomato industry in May 2018 in Dutse, capital of the state. The challenge of the post-harvest reduction and need to invest in improved tomato distribution chains and processing plants, were the central themes of discussion. The audience called on the government to boost public investment in infrastructure to improve access of farmer to the markets. For the private sector (domestic and foreign), several investment opportunities were listed: (1) The growing market (including ECOWAS, 340 million people); (2) Filing the output gaps with improved domestic production (now covered by imports of tomato paste); (3) Improve efficiency in production and reduce post-harvest waste of 45%; (4) Add value by processing (paste, drying, canning, grinding); (5) Invest in infrastructure and distribution (plastic crates, cold storage, collection centres and pack house facilities); and (6) Financial services (leasing, loans). (Sagagi, 2018). 13 The following dimensions were mentioned as main challenges: the lack of competitiveness and low productivity of the current sectors (agriculture and processing); poor infrastructure, non-reliable power grid and electricity; and the difficult access to finance. 2.3.5. Concluding remarks Several “tomato state� governments took initiatives (Kano, Kaduna, Jigawa), together with representatives of the private sector (often organized in the NABG or NCDA), several financial institutions and NGOs or development organisations engaged in the tomato value chain (such as GAIN, IFDC, PYXERA and GEMS4) to explore pathways to reduce post-harvest losses. The introduction of plastic crates, investment in tomato processing plants and improvement of infrastructure are recurrent recommendations. As main unsolved challenges, the following are frequently mentioned: (1) the introduction of appropriate business models for the introduction of plastic crates, for investment in the cold chain and post-harvest handling in the highly fragmented tomato sector; (2) the difficulties in organizing farmers, traders or transporters; (3) the structural underinvestment in public infrastructure (roads, rail); and (4) the lack of access to finance for agribusinesses and small farmers due to high interest rates and other barriers. 3. SURVEY AMONG FARMERS, HAULIERS AND TRADERS (PART II, NORTHEN REGION) 3.1. Methodology: Baseline Survey- Northern Region (Kano and Kaduna States: December, 2017) In December 2017 a baseline survey was conducted with value chain actors operating in the states of Kano and Kaduna. The actors included tomato producers, hauliers and traders. The data collection was carried out in Kano and Kaduna, however some of the surveyed participants, mainly hauliers, also had operational bases in Benue, Enugu, Gombe and Plateau. The survey questionnaire and data storage tool was designed by the core project team, while on-ground execution was performed by a team of enumerators from IFDC. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0 statistical software and involved trends analysis, frequency measures and mean determinations including standard errors. The main markets in the area were the Badume market, Dutse-Wei, KGTM and YanKaba, with Mile 12 in Lagos also serving as a major end market for the Northern tomato supply chain. The outcome of the baseline survey was validated in a follow-up workshop with the value chain actors, held in Kano (January 2018, details see Section 5 of this report). The aim of the survey was to capture a snapshot of the current state of this particular value chain and to identify gaps in the chain which can then lead to adoptable interventions for reducing postharvest losses in the tomato value chain. For an extensive report on both surveys, see Annex 1.4. 3.2 Socio-economic attributes Similar to the survey in the South-West of the country, this survey involved detailed engagement with producers, transporters and traders involved in the tomato industry with production in the states of Kano and Kaduna. 151 tomato farmers, 89 transporters and 109 traders were engaged in this survey. The farmers and traders were based in Kano and Kaduna state, while the transporters also had bases 14 in Gombe, Plateau, Benue and Enugu. Some of the socio-economic attributes of the participants are presented in Tables 1 - 3. The results of the baseline survey show that, contrary to the South-West which had 85% of interviewed farmers as male, 100% of farmers interviewed in Kano and Kaduna were male. Transporters were all male which was somewhat expected, while only one female trader (0.9%) was interviewed in this Northern region survey, which contrasted starkly with the 45% of female traders interviewed during the South-West survey. Overall, the cultural context in the North was found to differ with observations in the South-West, showing that the primary decision makers, among participants surveyed in Kano and Kaduna, for value chain activities were male. The majority of participants were educated under the Arabic school system. Table 1. Tomato producers Variable Sub-type % Male 100 Gender Female 0 Primary school incomplete 8.6 Primary school complete 22.5 Secondary school incomplete 13.2 Education Secondary school complete 21.2 Higher education 4.0 Arabic school 71.5 Member 63.6 Producer Association Non-member 36.4 18-35 years 39.7 Age 36-50 years 39.1 >50 years 21.2 3-9 years 13.4 Tomato Growing Experience 10-20 years 53 >20 years 33.6 Kaduna 35.8 State Kano 64.2 N = 151 Table 2. Tomato transporters Variable Sub-type % Male 100 Gender Female 0 Primary school incomplete 9.0 Primary school complete 19.1 Secondary school incomplete 9.0 Education Secondary school complete 34.8 Arabic school 44.9 Higher education 10.1 Owns the truck 23.9 Truck ownership Driver for individual/company 76.1 Member 60.5 Transporter Association Non-member 39.5 15 20-30 years 36.4 Age 31-50 years 60.2 > 50 years 3.4 Benue 3.4 Enugu 1.1 Gombe 1.1 State Kaduna 28.1 Kano 65.2 Plateau 1.1 N= 89 Table 3. Tomato traders Variable Sub-type % Male 99.1 Gender Female 0.9 Primary school incomplete 6.4 Primary school complete 19.3 Secondary school incomplete 7.3 Education Secondary school complete 17.4 Higher education 11.0 Arabic school 74.3 Member 76.9 Trader Association Non-member 23.1 18-35 37.4 Age 36-50 38.3 >50 24.3 Kaduna 25.7 State Kano 74.3 N= 109 3.3. Postharvest quality drivers Overall, the main factor influencing low postharvest shelf-life in the Northern survey was similar to what was observed in the South and this is that there is limited infrastructure for postharvest treatment of tomatoes. Farmers in both regions also mentioned unsuitable varieties, with limited shelf-life capacity as one of the challenges. Figure 1 depicts the challenges affecting tomato shelf-life as perceived by producers and traders as well as factors influencing poor efficiency in the transport of tomato from the North of Nigeria. 16 Figure 1. Factors influencing postharvest losses as mentioned by producers, hauliers and traders. Poor varieties and inadequate transport were also considered as the major factors influencing shelf- life according to traders surveyed. Poor roads and roadblocks were also expressed as limiting factors to efficient transport of tomatoes. From observing the challenges mentioned by the different actors it is apparent that poor transportation and unsuitable varieties were common themes that came out in the data. 17 Other factors mentioned by farmers included: ▪ Diseases e.g. jushi ▪ Lack of funding for setting up infrastructure ▪ Market instability, price instability ▪ Pest infestation ▪ Lack of ready market at time of harvest Additionally, traders also mentioned: ▪ Exposure to sunlight ▪ Warm temperatures during the postharvest period ▪ Pests and diseases ▪ Glut ▪ Poor market conditions ▪ Excess rotting due to high rainfall Finally, when hauliers responded “other�, they mentioned: ▪ Security challenges including armed robbery ▪ Challenges with law enforcement agencies i.e. task force 3.4. Conclusions and recommendations from the survey The data collected during this study show that there are similarities and differences between the tomato value chains in the Northern and Southern regions of the country. As captured during the survey in the North, a substantial portion of the harvest in the North is destined for Southern markets. This was noted in conversations with farmers, hauliers and traders in the Kano and Kaduna areas. This further confirms the work done by van der Waal (2015), which discusses a high dependence on tomatoes from the Northern provinces, while discussion with value chain stakeholders in the Lagos and Oyo areas also revealed importation of tomatoes from the republic of Benin and Cameroon. Such long distances to market, with current transport and handling infrastructure, further promote tomato damage in-transit and contribute to high post-harvest losses between field/collection centre and market. Furthermore due to production fluctuations, in the Kano and Kaduna regions, the survey revealed glut and scarcity periods as a significant driver of profitability and consequently yield loss. In these areas where a 60 kg basket of tomatoes fluctuated in price from an average of US$ 4 during the glut period to US$ 41 during the scarcity period (with extremes reported of close to US$ 100 per basket in the scarcity period), during the glut period some farmers mentioned that they would leave the crop to rot in the field because it was not profitable to incur harvest costs. In Lagos and Oyo, this fluctuation was noted but was not as extreme as in the Northern region, with an average of US$ 16.50 for a 45 kg basket during the glut and US$ 47.90 for the same basket in the scarcity period. Furthermore, pest and disease control was noted as an area for improving production quantity and fruit quality at harvest. Improvements at both the pre- and postharvest levels are therefore critical. The farmers surveyed made their own recommendations on what should be done to reduce postharvest losses of tomato in the chain. These recommendations are presented in the table below: Farmer mentioned recommendations to reduce postharvest losses of tomatoes in the value chain: Stage Suggested Solutions Pre-harvest To improve yield ▪ Loans for production inputs ▪ Good management practices 18 ▪ Access to fertilizers at subsidized rates ▪ Access to pesticides at subsidized rates ▪ Government intervention for training ▪ Access to agricultural machinery at low cost Post-harvest ▪ Construction of farm packhouses ▪ Better handling e.g. smaller volume to reduce damage to tomatoes ▪ Companies to buy excess produce at a reasonable price ▪ Guaranteed market ▪ Availability of cold storage facilities The main interventions noted, based on the survey are presented below: ▪ Improved seed variety, suitable for the agro-climatic conditions in the area, with appropriate shelf- life characteristics is needed. Previous interactions with farmers around Lagos revealed that they purchased bulk seed and fertilizer from agro-dealers without knowledge of the seed characteristics (e.g. maturity period, shelf-life traits etc.), or appropriate application rates for fertilizer resulting in poor production which influences profitability. Practically, farmers should be encouraged to: - Establish on-farm demonstration plots before purchasing seed in bulk is suggested to identify the suitable variety for their agro-climatic conditions. - Establish on-farm demonstration plots evaluating different fertilizer application rates, before using on their entire field. - Perform soil testing, to determine their particular soil condition, and use this data in collaboration with their local agro-dealers to determine appropriate fertilizer rates for their tomato production. ▪ Actors involved in provision of technical support to farmers are encouraged to deliver improved extension services, with information and training on fertilizer use and irrigation scheduling. ▪ Improved harvest timing. Harvesting at later ripening stage is possible if the distance (and transport) to market is not a major challenge. Since the survey showed that market demand is higher for red tomatoes, so harvesting at a later ripening stage e.g. light red, would result in tomatoes arriving on the shelf at this preferred ripening condition, with a shorter distance to the major national market, the risk of in-transit damage and general spoilage is lower hence riper fruit can be transported. ▪ Improved postharvest handling; from in-field harvesting to loading and offloading. Use of improved packaging materials to buffer the effect of poor road infrastructure. With the Lagos state government seeking to pass a bill on the mandatory use of plastic crates for the transportation of fresh produce within Lagos, it is imperative that the operational contexts of the value chain actors (e.g. in the tomato value chain) are taken into consideration, to enable adoption of the improved packaging, these include: - Use of appropriate size containers to prevent overloading of produce e.g. offering a variety of crate sizes to fit different volume needs across the chain. - Use appropriate plastic crates with sufficient ventilation slits. 19 ▪ Additionally, as noted from previous engagements with value chain actors in Nigeria, this study showed that the hauliers played no major role in packaging of tomatoes, with only 20% claiming involvement in re-packaging during the haulage operation. Ownership of packaging therefore rests with the producers and traders and these should be the target for packaging interventions such as crates. ▪ Improved logistics schedule for delivering tomatoes in non-refrigerated vehicles e.g. harvesting in the late afternoon and transporting in the evening to take advantage of ambient cool conditions. This practice already has some adoption in Nigeria, therefore motivating for further adoption, with increased road security at night and better road infrastructure, fresh produce logistics can be significantly improved. ▪ Better quality control of chemicals for insect management in the field, to avoid use of adulterated chemicals. ▪ Better production scheduling to mitigate effect of glut. ▪ Better variety selection and coordination with processing plants, so that farmers are able to sell to both fresh market and processing industry. ▪ Provision of postharvest infrastructure such as evaporative cooling chambers for farmers to be able to harvest earlier and hold inventory on the farm to avoid selling at the low glut prices. If this chamber was at the market it could also facilitate since traders can offer farmers a fair price and sell at a profit when supply is low. With EC technology, farmers could harvest at the breaker stage and store fruit for at least 2 weeks before the fruit turns fully red, which is the market preference. For the questionnaires used, and a combined survey report (the surveys from the South-West and the North), see Annex 1.1 – Annex 1.4. 4. THIRD MISSION TO NIGERIA (6 – 13 JANUARY) A third mission was organized between 6 and 13 January, during which the second living lab workshop took place (8 – 9 January, Kano) and the first feedback workshop on the pilot project in the South-West (13 January, Ibadan). (See sections below). In between these workshops, meetings took place with the president of the Cold Chain Development Association, plant managers of two manufacturers of plastic crates (SHONGAI and CELPLAS), with several representatives of the Nigeria Agribusiness Group (NABG, Best Foods, Naija Pride) and with the director operations of the Nigeria Railway Corporation (NRC). Main findings: cold chain, transport by rail, production of plastic crates ▪ Investments in the cold chain and cooling trucks are mainly done in the chains of poultry and fish, in urbanized regions, not yet in fresh fruit and vegetables. Demand from supermarkets for cooled products is the main driver behind the cold chains. ▪ A trial of cooled transport of tomatoes by the NABG resulted in good quality tomatoes, but also in costs that are too high. The distance to the farms and road conditions do not allow for starting cooled transport from the farmgate; cold stores at aggregation points are needed. ▪ Cooled transport can be problematic due to inspections along the hauling route, when container units are opened, and the cold chain is interrupted. A system is needed in which inspection takes place upon exit and then the containers are sealed. 20 ▪ Cold storage is seen mainly at the end-point of the chains (markets), not upstream at farm level due to high costs and instability of the electric grid. Solar powered cold stores are small and expensive. ▪ The meeting with the Director of Operations of the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) strengthened the impression we had after the meeting with the regional director of the NRC in Kano on October 30, 2017, that the Nigeria railways suffers from chronic underinvestment and abandonment by the government. At this moment, there are no conditions, in terms of availability of suitable rolling stock and organisation, to think of transport of fresh tomatoes from the North to the urban conglomerations in the South – not even as small pilot project 3. Any steps in this direction should come from the market (including the purchase of suitable wagons) and has to be demand-driven. At this moment there are no conditions that this service could be offered by the NRC. After this interview, the project team definitely abandoned the idea of a trial / pilot project with transport of tomatoes by rail (as was suggested in the progress report). ▪ Crate manufacturers SHONGAI and CELPLAS can produce suitable nestable and stackable plastic crates for transport of tomatoes with capacity of 20 – 25 kg, with economic lifetime of 5 years (recycled plastic) or more (virgin prime material). Recycling of used and worn-out crates is also offered by both companies. Prices vary from NGN 1.600 per crate (SHONGAI) – NGN 2.490 per crate (CELPLAS). (The crates of SHONGAI are in fact designed and used for the transport of fish. The crates of CELPLAS were used by PYXERA and also in our pilot projects). Minimum orders are 5.000 crates or more. ▪ The Nigeria Agri Business Group (NABG) is interested in scaling up the introduction of plastic returnable crates, to pursue the standardization of crates and to promote business models for leasing or renting. At this moment the company Connect Rail is hiring crates for NGN 250 per trip. Assuming a capacity of 20 kg per crate, that would imply NGN 500 for 40 kg. The price of a raffia basket for 50 kg tomatoes is 400 NGN, which implies that the transport cost per kg is slightly higher using crates; the losses are less and a higher percentage of tomatoes is of good quality (“class A�). These are the factors to take into account in order to develop a feasible business model. 5. SECOND LIVING LAB WORKSHOP The second living lab workshop took place 8 and 9 of January 2018, in the Tahir Guest Palace in Kano, with 39 participants, including the enumerators (5) and the project team (5). Three presentations were used as tool for the plenary sessions, and several worksheet formats for the group work in each of the three round tables. See Annex 2. 5.1. Agenda The main points of the agenda were: Day 1, Monday 8 January 2018 Plenary session ▪ Explanation of the project, background (see presentation Annex 2.1). 3 In October the project team discussed the possibilities and possible arrangements of a pilot project of transport of tomatoes via rail from Kano to Lagos – and the regional director of NRC referred us to the central office of NRC. 21 ▪ Explanation of the concept of “living lab� including pilot project, stressing the ownership of the participants – the role of the project team is just to facilitate (see presentation Annex 2.3). ▪ Presentation of all participants. ▪ Presentation and discussion of the results of the survey (see presentation Annex 2.2). Round table sessions ▪ Forming of five working groups or “round tables� (named “Yankaba group�, “Zainab’s group�, “Kaura’s group�, “Manu group� and “Zaira-Kaduna group�); appointment of a moderator and reporter for each working group. ▪ Exercise to register the expectations / ambitions of the participants of this workshop. ▪ Mapping of the supply chain and of the interaction of all stakeholders in the chain (“free mapping�). ▪ Mapping of the money flow, information flow and operational flows in the supply chain. Plenary session ▪ Plenary presentation of value chain maps elaborated by the groups. Day 2, Tuesday 9 January 2018 Plenary session ▪ Wrap up previous day. ▪ Explanation of criteria for pilot projects (see presentation Annex 2.3). Round table sessions ▪ Back to the work in round tables (the same “Yankaba�, “Zainab �, “Kaura�, “Manu� and “Zaira- Kaduna� groups). ▪ Identification of bottlenecks and possible solutions in the supply chain. ▪ Identification of losses and main causes. ▪ Zoom in on 2 possible solutions, appreciation of these choices by other groups (with blue stickers), in visiting rounds of 15 minutes each of the whole group (except the moderator) to see and comment the result (the so-called “world café� dynamic). ▪ Work out one worksheet for the first priority project, and one sheet for the second priority project, taking into account SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound). 5.2. Expectations Each group worked out their expectations that were summarized in a plenary meeting as follows: Group / table Region Expectations Kaura group Makoda - Bagwai ▪ New ideas of how to solve problems with the Tuta absoluta worm (low insecticide efficacy) Manu group Dorawa - Sallan ▪ Market exploration (glut problem) ▪ Effective transport network (farm → collection centre) ▪ More varieties are provided (resistant against pests / diseases) Ibrahim group Yankaba market ▪ Loss reduction solutions (Yankaba group) ▪ Reduction of pests / diseases (Tuta absoluta) ▪ Good transportation network 22 Ismael group Dutse Wai - Kulá - ▪ Development of value chain (Zaira-Kaduna) Marare ▪ Improved road network ▪ More processing facilities to buy from traders Zainab group Gasin Malam - ▪ Knowledge on planting for improved post-harvest Daka Soye quality ▪ Access to plastic crates ▪ Cold transportation ▪ Disease resistant seed ▪ Improved access to inputs, e.g. pesticides In the plenary discussion it had to be made clear that several expectations were out of the scope of the project (such as improvement of roads etc.); and that the focus of the project would be merely on the reduction of post-harvest losses. 5.3. Mapping of value chains As a first exercise the participants in the five round tables worked out a “free map� of the supply chain, from production to consumer. Participants were asked to brainstorm and to identify all possible stakeholders and relations. Some worked out a linear map, others a network map, with less or more detail. This exercise was useful to visualize and identify the players and relations in the chain. (See example of a “free map� in Annex 2.5) In a second exercise a more structured map of the chain was elaborated. Participants were asked to identify different inflows and outflows (or processes) of money, information and tomato operations, at the level of farmers, hauliers, traders and retailers. This way an illustration or precision of the relations between the stakeholders of the chain was created, in different dimensions (information, money, goods). (See an example of this mapping in Annex 2.5). 5.4. Identification of bottlenecks, causes of losses and possible solutions The next day, and based on the work of the previous day, the five round tables identified the main bottlenecks in the chains and possible solutions, in a broad approach, in which the main problems in the chain were identified, from lack of credit, bad state of the roads, pest and diseases, lack of access to quality seed to bad loading practices. In a subsequent exercise, participants were asked to zoom in on possible solutions for the post-harvest losses in the tomato chain. See Annex 2.6 and Annex 2.7 for a transcription of these exercises by the three working groups. 5.5. Proposed projects After identifying bottlenecks and causes of losses, the next step was the identification of projects that would contribute to the solution of the bottlenecks in the tomato value chain and especially the post- harvest losses. Members of the groups could indicate their preferences with green dots on the worksheet (stickers). The other two groups reviewed the worksheet and could also indicate their preference with a blue dot. The overall score is in the table below. See Annex 2.5 for an example of the sheets that were used. 23 Round table Priority project Second priority Third priority 1. Yankaba group Total score: 47 Total score: 31 Total score: 5 1. Trial on the use of 13 green dots (own insecticides score) 18 blue dots (other score) 2. Advocacy to 2 green dots (own authorities on score) removing checkpoints 3 blue sots (other score) 3. Small scale methods 15 green dots (own local preservation score) techniques 32 blue dots (other score) 2. Zainab’s group Total score: 23 Total score: 21 Total score: 18 1. Improved drying 10 green dots (own methods score) 13 blue dots (other score) 2. Use of plastic crates 10 green dots (own score) 8 blue dots (other score) 3. Cold storage 10 green dots (own score) 11 blue dots (other score) 3. Kaura’s group Total score: 49 Total score: 18 Total score: 16 1. Introduce new 17 green dots (own methods of drying score) tomatoes 32 blue dots (other score) 2. Introduction of 12 green dots (own plastic crates score) 6 blue dots (other score) 3. Introduction of 13 green dots (own better vehicles score) 3 blue dots (other score) 4. Manu group Total score: 30 Total score: 17 Total score: 11 1. Provision of plastic 6 green dots (own crates score) 5 blue dots (other score) 2. Drying powder to 16 green dots (own reduce moisture score) 14 blue dots (other score) 24 3. Small plastic baskets 8 green dots (own to pick tomatoes score) 9 blue dots (other score) 5. Zaira - Kaduna Total score: 30 Total score: 17 Total score: 11 group 1. Introduction of 6 green dots (own plastic crates score) 5 blue dots (other score) 2. Modular processing 16 green dots (own factory score) 14 blue dots (other score) 3. Cooling vehicle 8 green dots (own score) 9 blue dots (other score) Project Mentioned how many times Score Crates 4 58 (average 14,5) Improved drying 3 119 (average 39,6) Cooling 2 38 (average 19,0) Others (all different) 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 129 (average 21,5) TOTAL 15 344 Four of the five groups mentioned the introduction of plastic crates, and three groups mentioned improved drying methods as possible pilot project to reduce post-harvest losses. These ideas were also the most feasible. Once the choices were clear, each round table was asked to work out the priority project and the second best project a bit more in a project worksheet. (See Annex 2.8 for a summary sheet). 6. PROPOSED PILOT PROJECTS / KICK-OFF WORKSHOP THE NORTH 12 – 16 FEBRUARY In line with the living lab workshop 8 and 9 January, two pilot projects were selected: the introduction of plastic returnable crates in three long haul value chains with two repetitions (6 measurements), and the construction of three raised platform for improved drying of tomatoes, with two cycles of tomato drying (6 measurements). These projects were further planned in a kick-off workshop with stakeholders, which took place on 13 and 14 of February in the Tahir Guest Palace in Kano, led by Wageningen University and the IFDC. The next day 15 of February was used for the training of the 5 enumerators in the methods and formats for data collection. 6.1. Agenda kick-off workshop, 13 – 14 of February 2018 Main points of the agenda of the kick-off workshop were as follows: Day 1, Tuesday 13 February 2018 25 Plenary session ▪ Brief introduction. ▪ Introduction to the objectives of the project: presentation, reflection on the living lab workshop 8 – 9 January. ▪ Explanation of pilot project 1: the use of plastic crates, and discussion of variables to be measured. Round table sessions (1 group for each of the 3 supply chains) ▪ Supply chain mapping, interactions between actors. ▪ Plan for distribution and ownership of the crates and scales. The option was given to return the crates and scales after the pilot project, or to buy them for half of the cost price. To that effect, each of the participants signed a distribution agreement. ▪ Each supply chain: Map the chain as detailed as possible and work out an activity plan for the experiment with plastic crates, including responsibilities, targets, timeline, agreements & commitment. Plenary session ▪ Each group / value chain presenting its plan. Round table sessions, plenary discussion ▪ Discussion of success factors: drivers for success, risks and barriers; how to overcome risks. Day 2, Wednesday 14 February 2018 Plenary session ▪ Wrap up previous day. ▪ Monitoring and targets of crate use (weight, quality, price) ▪ Introduction of pilot project 2: the construction of raised platforms for improved droning of tomatoes on three farms. Day 3, Thursday 15 February 2018 ▪ Meeting facilitators and enumerators: training in monitoring and data collection tools, and in the script for visual registry (short videoclips and interviews – later perhaps to be used as promotional material). 6.2. Pilot project 1: use of plastic crates It was decided that the pilot project with introduction of plastic crates would take place in 3 value chains, during 2 cycles, all to Lagos (long haul). In all chains there were 4 farmers for each wholesaler. Each one received crates (and baskets), but only 1 farmer would be followed in each chain. In total, 12 farmers would participate. On average, between 10 – 20 crates per farmer were distributed. Although no data collection would take place with 9 farmers, they would have the experience of working with crates; and they would share their experience in the feed-back workshop. The returning of the crates was identified as a challenge, but it was decided to wait for the outcome of eventual negotiations between farmers and transporters. An amount of 300 crates (manufactured by CELPLAS) was transported to Kano; 3 analogue scales were bought, to be used for weighing crates and baskets at the farmgate. The team of Wageningen 26 University bought 5 small digital scales, to be used for measurement of the weight of tomatoes with different quality classes at retail level, which requires more precision. It was decided to look for retailers in Lagos who had participated in the first pilot project in December for the South-West, and to include them again in the pilot project with crates, with tomatoes now coming from the North. These retailers already knew what the project was about and collaborated in an earlier stage. For safety reasons it was decided that the enumerators would not travel over land from Kano with the trucks to Mile 12 market; they would travel to Lagos by plane and connect again with the transporter on the market. The quality and weight of the tomatoes packed in raffia baskets were compared to the quality and weight of tomatoes in plastic crates along the chain; the same chain was experimental group and control group at the same time. Three labelled crates were compared with 3 labelled baskets. The following variables were registered, at two different moments 1. Farmer, after harvest, weight of quality A, B, C, D, before loading 2. Wholesaler / collector: weight before loading 3. Agent, weight upon arrival 4. Retailer, weight upon collection 5. Retailer, before sales weight of quality A, B, C, D For an overview of the data collection tool, see Annex 2.10. The enumerators made a WhatsApp group shared with the WUR research group and the project team, to share their impressions with hundreds of pictures and several videos. The hypothesis tested here were the following: ▪ Tomatoes packed in raffia baskets lose quality more rapidly than tomatoes packed in plastic returnable crates. ▪ Due to this loss of quality, the total price paid for tomatoes transported in raffia baskets will be less than tomatoes transported in plastic crates. Factors influencing quality of tomatoes are related to the characteristics of the road and the vehicle, the weather, the distance and time elapsed between harvesting and loading, transport to wholesale markets and retailer. All these data were registered in the data collection tool. The results of the data collection in the field in the 5 supply chains of the pilot project in the South- West (December), and in the 3 supply chains of the pilot project in the North (February – March) were validated and discussed in the feedback workshop held on 13 of January in Ibadan and 23 of April in Kano, respectively. See section 7 here below. 6.3. Pilot project 2: raised platforms for improved sun-dying of tomatoes On three farms in the North, simple raised platforms were built, of 2 x 8 meters, with bamboo, a metal mesh and net (put during the night) to protect the tomatoes from insects. Two drying cycles were carried out, in March – April. The weight and quality of the tomatoes on these platforms were compared to tomatoes dried on the ground. 27 The following variables were tested and compared (ground – table), in two repetitions (total 6 measurements): 1. Weight of the tomatoes, at the beginning and at the end of drying. 2. Visual appearance of dried product at the end of drying. 3. Farmer preference the product from the 2 drying methods. 4. Time of drying (as decided by the farmer, who would determine if the product was suitably dry). 5. The price of the dried product. The exact location of the trial sites was determined with GPS coordinates, in order to monitor the weather conditions at each site. The enumerators made a WhatsApp group to share hundreds of pictures and stories with the project team. The hypothesis tested here were the following: ▪ Tomatoes dried on the ground lose quality and are contaminated. ▪ Tomatoes dried on raised platforms have a better price. The results of the pilot project were discussed in the feedback workshop 23 of April. 7. FEEDBACK WORKSHOPS ON THE PILOT PROJECTS IN THE SOUTH-WEST AND THE NORTH 7.1. Feedback workshop pilot projects South-East, IITA, Ibadan, 13 of January On January 13, a one day feedback workshop took place at the IITA campus, Ibadan, on the pilot project with crates, with a total of 46 participants, of which 35 persons were farmers, hauliers or traders. In addition, a database was available from the Wageningen team and separate reports on four value chains. The Wageningen team summarized their findings in a PowerPoint presentation (Plaisier et al., 2018a, see Annex 2.13). 7.1.1. Agenda The agenda of the workshop was as follows (see Annex 2.11): Plenary session ▪ Introduction ▪ Explanation of the methodology for group work (Annex 2.12) Group work (5 groups, according to the 5 value chains that participated in the pilot project) ▪ Advantages and disadvantages of the use of raffia baskets and plastic crates (results in Annex 2.16). Plenary session ▪ Presentation of results advantages and disadvantages of raffia baskets and plastic crates. ▪ Presentation of findings of the pilot project (Annex 2.13). ▪ Explanation of the methodology for proposing a suitable business model for the introduction of plastic crates. Group work ▪ Working out business model for introduction of plastic crates (results in Annex 2.20). 28 Plenary session ▪ Presentation and discussion of the group work. ▪ What’s next – follow-up and commitments second round (with Wageningen team, June – July). Meeting with enumerators ▪ Evaluation, what went well, what went wrong? 7.1.2. Group work: comparison plastic crates and raffia baskets In the comparison of the plastic crates and the traditional raffia basket, all handling activities were evaluated along the whole chain, from harvest to the retailer; and also taking into account all means of transport: from tricycle, motorcycle, car, minibus, to truck, and some general aspects, such as ventilation, avoid contamination, ease of cleaning and avoid damage to tomatoes. The total score in favour of plastic crates on all these items was overwhelming: 87,4%. Details, see Annex 2.15. Some highlights from the plenary discussion that followed the group work (Plaisier, 2018b): ▪ In general terms, the conclusions of the group work were confirmed in the plenary discussions: an overwhelming preference for the plastic crates. ▪ For some hauliers, returning of the raffia baskets is easier than plastic crates; crates are nestable but nested raffia baskets occupy even less space and can be pressed. ▪ Ownership of the crate is an issue. If the farmer owns the crate he should have enough: a certain number of crates will be circulating in the chain (with tomatoes) but he / she also needs empty crates to harvest. ▪ Sometimes small baskets are used for harvesting, in those cases plastic crates will not be used at that stage. ▪ With crates there is less handling (which is better to preserve quality), these can be used already in the field for harvesting. Crates can be washed, raffia baskets not. Loading and offloading is faster with crates. ▪ Main challenge is the returning of the crates, and the related costs. 7.1.3. Results of the trial After the group work, the Wageningen team presented the results of the measurements (Plaisier 2018a, see Annex 2.13) 4. Between 11 – 23 of December 2017, the crates were introduced in 5 short-haul value chains, in two cycles and measurement rounds, parallel to the use of raffia baskets as control group. A limiting factor was the end of the harvesting season in the South-West: low volumes of tomato available, and invasion of tomatoes from the North in the Mile 12 market (especially during the second cycle), with varieties preferred by the consumer (Royal variety, round tomatoes, as opposed to what is called the Kerewa variety, elongated oval tomatoes). Therefore, only 2 crates and 2 baskets were used as sample in each round and value chain. In the second cycle, the prices went up considerably, just before Christmas. The following five value chains were selected for the pilot project: (1) Value chain 1 4 The presentation was deliberately given after the group work, to avoid influencing opinions of the participants by the outcome of the trial. 29 ▪ Farm location: Oloka village, Ogbomoso, Oyo State ▪ Retail market: Oja Oba, Ibadan, Oyo State (2) Value chain 2 ▪ Location of the two farms: Ipapo, Oyo State ▪ Wholesale market: Sasa, Ibadan ▪ Retail markets: Gbagi, Ibadan, and Ode Aje, Ibadan (3) Value chain 3 ▪ Farm location: Oloka village, Ogbomoso, Oyo State ▪ Wholesale market: Ile Epo Oja at Iyanapaja, Lagos ▪ Retail markets: Ile Epo Oja at Iyanapaja, Lagos, and College B/S Agege (4) Value chain 4 ▪ Farm location: Odo Oba, Ogbomoso, Oyo State ▪ Retail market: Okokomaiko market (5) Value chain 5 ▪ Farm location: Saba village, Iseyin, Oypo State ▪ Wholesale markets: Mile 12, Lagos, and Bodija, Ibadan ▪ Retail markets: Iyana Iba, Lagos, and Bodija, Ibadan The data collection procedure was as follows: (1) Weighing of empty crates and baskets (to obtain the net weight of the tomatoes) (2) Sorting (quality A, B, C), the volume of each quality as weighed, directly after harvest (3) Before loading the crates and baskets were weighed (total weight) (4) At arrival to the wholesale point, the crates and baskets were weighed (total weight) (5) At offloading at the retail point, the crates and baskets were weighed again (6) After sorting by the retailer (quality A, B, C) the different qualities were weighed again, and also the tray for displaying or selling (to obtain the net weight of the tomatoes) By means of load tracking, product loss data were retrieved along the value chains. Both the product losses in the traditional case (raffia baskets) and in the intervention case (plastic crates) were measured simultaneously; the farmer transported both in raffia baskets and in plastic returnable crates. A comparison between baskets and crates was made for each value chain, for total loss and for the loss of “Quality A�. A loss was measured by comparing the start of the value chain (farm) with the end of the value chain (retailer). During the process of tracking the load the teams followed the product batch and made observations that could be relevant for the evaluation of the specific conditions and circumstances in which the product was handled, packed, transported, etc. For each packaging type 1-2 product samples were taken from the entire batch from a specific individual farmer which were labelled for tracking it through the entire value chain. The samples were labelled by means of coloured ribbons, whereby each product sample that was supplied by a specific farmer was marked with a colour by attaching a ribbon to the farmer’s basket and plastic crate. Data retrieval on product losses was done by weighing of product by local enumerators at different points in the value chain by means of scales. When entering the value chain the tomatoes were classified into class A, B, C or D product. Classification of product qualities in the value chains and in Nigeria in general is not transparent. The recording of data during load tracking was done on a data recording sheet (see Annex 2.10). Observations by the enumerators were also recorded on the observations sheet. This sheet contained specific questions regarding specific circumstances at the measurement points, transport, observations by the retailer and other relevant observations. 30 The scope of the value chain defined for this research was from farm-gate (post-harvest) to retailer (pre-sale to consumer). Product losses that occur before harvest and after sales by the retailer were not taken into account. Other variables measured: weather conditions; time of harvesting, loading, offloading, arrival; waiting times at farm, delays during transport; distances to the wholesale and retail market(s); type of vehicles; road conditions; price paid to the retailer of different qualities. Details, see Annex 2.10 and Annex 2.12. The main aggregate results (5 value chains, 2 cycles) are summarized below: Item measured Raffia baskets Plastic crates More “Quality A� remains when using plastic crates 65% 85% Less total weight loss from farmer to retailer with plastic crates 11% 5% From the point of view of quality loss the conclusion is, that crates performed better than the baskets. Quality A was better maintained when the product was packed in plastic crates. More high quality tomatoes and less losses, result in improved income at the retail level. Some of the highlights of the narrative reports of the enumerators (Oluwaseun 2018, Olufolajimi 2018, Akinpelumi 2018, Ogunfusika 2018): ▪ Where available, farmers use the shadow of big trees to keep tomatoes in better conditions while waiting for transport ▪ Lack of irrigation is a limiting factor to plant more tomatoes ▪ In sorting tomatoes on the farm (quality A, B, C), firmness, color and freshness are main criteria. However, there are no uniform standards to classify tomatoes. Quality A: Firm good tomato, good color (two sizes: big and small). Quality B: Firm good tomato, but unripe. Or a smaller red tomato in some cases. Quality C: Still good, but less firm and some spots. Or yellowish red or yellowish green. Or already damaged and watery. Quality D: Damaged tomatoes. ▪ Due to the small quantity of tomatoes, after sorting different qualities of tomatoes are put back in the same crate or basket, but in different layers, with quality A on top, to attract customers. ▪ On some farms harvesting takes place in the middle of the night, for two reasons: (1) to maintain the quality of the tomato, when it is fresh and cool; and (2) to transport it as early as possible to the market, avoiding traffic jam and be on time when the markets open (wholesale markets start at 5 AM, retail market at 6 AM, approximately). ▪ For farmers, organizing transport to bring small volumes of tomatoes to the market can be very challenging. Harvest only can start when transport is arranged and secured. ▪ In these value chains, payment flows are as follows: (1) Farmer pays the driver; or dealer pays but deducts the transport cost from the payment to the farmer; (2) Farmer pays the dealer for the basket provided by him; this is deducted from the payment of the dealer to the farmer; (3) The dealer pays for loading / offloading to the carriers, pays the entry fee to the market (government) and dealers’ association; (4) Retailer to the dealer or wholesaler. Prices paid depend on the quality and the volumes available on the market place (also from the North). (5) Retailer pays loading / offloading to carriers and transport costs from the wholesale location to the retail spot, in case the retail market is located elsewhere. ▪ Farmers like the crates, but there is also concern on the transport that has to be paid for returning the empty crates. ▪ Transporters find it easier to load and carry crates than raffia baskets. ▪ The use of plastic crates is lauded by retailers: quality is preserved, less waste, less “give-away quality C or D�, and easier handling. When they buy tomatoes in raffia baskets they sometimes buy the tomato and the basket. In the case of crates these are simply returned. 31 ▪ Dealers are concerned with perceived less volume of tomatoes transported in crates as compared to tomatoes transported in (overloaded) raffia baskets. ▪ Training to carriers is need to load / offload and carry the baskets and crates with more care. ▪ Main factors that contribute to waste and losses: (1) During transport phases from farm to dealer and from dealer to retailer, especially when the road is in a bad shape; (2) Careless handling during loading / offloading and carrying; (3) When sales are poor, and the product stays long time on the market (in this case the retailer suffers losses). The trial took place under specific circumstances: the end of the season. The trial will be repeated in July 2018, during the high season for tomato production in the South-West. The participants in the workshop validated the results of the trial and confirmed the main conclusions. During the plenary discussion that followed the presentation, the following remarks were made (Plaisier, 2018b): ▪ In some occasions, the retailer starts selling Quality B and C, if the shelf life of Quality A is good enough. Then there is less risk that there will be leftovers. Often, restaurants and hotels prefer Quality C and D, when tomatoes are used for sauces. Better and more expensive quality tomatoes are bought by the middle class. ▪ There was some concern that if quality of the tomatoes improves due to massive introduction of plastic crates, availability of cheap tomatoes of Quality C and D will be less; now bought by poorer segments of urban population. However, if better productivity and less waste will occur, the supply of quality tomatoes will increase and this will result in affordable prices. ▪ At the marketplaces, no weighing scales are used. The raffia basket is a proxy for the weight (+/- 50 kg) and accepted as unit. It is not clear how many crates “fit into a basket� what is the weight of tomatoes in a crate and what should be the price of a crate of tomatoes. 7.1.4. Towards a business model for the introduction of plastic crates In the afternoon, the groups we asked to work out some elements for a suitable business model for the introduction of plastic crates, such as (see Annex 2.20): ▪ Who should invest? ▪ Who should be the owner of the crates? ▪ What to do in the case of losses and damages to the crates? ▪ What are the specific risks related to the introduction of crates? ▪ What about the cost-price structure, especially transport costs and returning crates? ▪ Who should administrate the crates? ▪ How will the benefits be distributed (less losses, more Quality A tomatoes preserved)? In the plenary discussion that followed, the following issues and questions were raised and statements made (Plaisier, 2018b). This is a new theme, and the debate took place in qualitative terms. Apart from the need that was felt to introduce plastic returnable crates, there is no clear consensus on how to organize this; and the consequences for all stakeholders (in terms of operational aspects and administration) are far from clear. ▪ Farmers, traders and retailers should be owner of crates; everyone should have empty crates available to exchange full for empty crates. Everyone benefits, so it would be fair that everyone invests. But what is the farmer sends a new crate and gets an old crate in return? Other groups thought that only farmers should be owners. For a dealer (who buys from many farmers) the amount of crates needed would be too big. ▪ It was felt that economies of scale were needed to be able to make investments: a cooperative of farmers, or traders? 32 ▪ Some kind of financial instrument is needed: subsidy, rental, leasing construction, to make the introduction of crates possible. ▪ Can the crates also be used for other purposes (for example on return trips)? ▪ Standardisation of the crate is needed to build trust, and once the weight of a full crate is known the crate can be used as measurement unit for the weight (between 20 kg – 24 kg). ▪ The crates used in the trial come from CELPLAS and the price is NGN 2600. CELPLAS can take back damaged or worn our crates for recycling. Crates at SHONGAI are somewhat cheaper: NGN 1600, but were designed for fish and meat, not for fruits and vegetables. 7.1.5. Meeting with enumerators In the evaluation session with enumerators, many aspects were discussed. Some of the most relevant for measuring: ▪ The farmer and retailer use different criteria for sorting and grading. Ideally, there should be standards to classify tomatoes (variety size, age, appearance, firmness etc.). But at least for the trials, within one supply chain the farmer and retailer should handle the same classification criteria. ▪ For measuring weights of tomatoes at retail level of different Quality classes, digital and more precise scales are needed. ▪ The weight of baskets of the same size can be very different. All baskets that are used for trials should be weighed. ▪ Safety issue / communication: enumerators in the field and on the road should be reachable 24/7. 7.2 Feedback workshop pilot projects North, Tahir Guest Palace, 23 of April On Monday 23 of April, the feed-back workshop for the pilot projects in the North took place at the Tahir Guest Palace in Kano, with a total of 38 participants, of which 30 farmers, hauliers and traders. The team of the Wageningen University summarized their findings in a Powerpoint presentation (Plaisier et al., 2018d, Annex 2.15). All sheets to be presented that day, including the analysis of the database and clips, were put together in one Powerpoint presentation (Annex 2.16). 7.2.1. Agenda The agenda of the workshop was as follows (see Annex 2.14): Plenary session ▪ Introduction ▪ Explanation of the methodology for group work (Annex 2.16) Group work (6 groups, according to the 3 value chains and 3 groups that participated in the pilot project drying) ▪ Advantages and disadvantages of the use of raffia baskets and plastic crates (results in Annex 2.16). ▪ Advantages and disadvantages of the use of raised platforms for drying tomatoes (results in Annex 2.16) Plenary session ▪ Presentation of results advantages and disadvantages of raffia baskets and plastic crates by 3 groups. 33 ▪ Presentation of results advantages and disadvantages of the use of raised platforms for sun-drying of tomatoes by 3 groups. ▪ Presentation of the results of the pilot project with crates (Annex 2.16). ▪ Presentation of the results of the pilot project with raised platforms (Annex 2.16). ▪ Explanation of the methodology for proposing a suitable business model for the introduction of plastic crates, and for scaling up of improved raised platforms for sun-drying of tomatoes. Group work ▪ Working out business model for introduction of plastic crates and indications for cost / benefit analysis for scaling up of drying with raised platforms (results in Annex 2.21 and Annex 2.22). Plenary session ▪ Presentation and discussion of the group work. 7.2.2. Group work: comparison plastic crates and raffia baskets / drying tables and drying on the ground The workshop started with participants grouped according to those who either executed a pilot project in the same value chain i.e. for transportation of tomatoes in plastic crates the farmer, transporter, dealer and retailer were seated together, or according to those executed similar pilot projects i.e. for drying tomatoes on a raised platform, farmers from the same region who did this pilot were seated together. Pilot project plastic crates For the group work, the same methodology was used as in the feedback workshop in Ibadan. The feedback from participants and reflected that, overall, the use of plastic crates received an overall score of 94.7% while raffia baskets scored 5.3% based on the parameters of comparison. Participants preferred the crates due to ease of handling, re-usability and easy to clean. Participants did, however, mention the challenge of returns as a concern for using of crates, while others also mentioned that raffia baskets can hold more tomatoes. Transporters also mentioned that transporting in crates results in less investment in sticks and grass used to create shelves in the vehicle to separate layers of raffia baskets. For details of the scores, see Annex 2.17. Pilot project raised platforms for improved sun-drying The feedback from participants, based on the different parameters of comparison, was that drying of tomatoes on raised platforms received an overall score of 73.3%, while ground drying received an overall score of 22.2%. Farmers preferred the visual quality of the tomatoes from the raised platform, mentioning that the product from the ground had more sand and foreign material. Farmers also mentioned that the product from the ground was more accessible to rodents and this was even noted during the pilot. Farmers however mentioned the lower cost associated with drying on the ground and the ease of expansion of surface area used for drying, as factors where drying on the ground had an advantage 34 over raised platform drying. However, the traders from Lagos in the audience were very impressed by the raised platform product and expressed interest in selling this product in their markets, mentioning that the reason why dried tomato was unpopular in the South of the country was because of the poor quality product which when cooked resulted in “dark stews, with a lot of sand, regardless of how much it was washed�. Participants observing dried products from the two tested techniques. In the picture on the right the product on the yellow plate is from the raised platform while on the sky blue plate is from the ground. For details of the scores, see Annex 2.19. 7.2.3. Results of the trials Pilot project plastic crates During the pilot projects, the team of enumerators collected data as described in the methodology section. This data was analysed and presented to the participants during this feedback workshop. After the group work, the results of the measurements by the Wageningen research team were summarized (Plaisier et al, 2018d, see Annex 2.15) 5. For the trial in the North, the same procedure was followed as in the trial in the South-West. (See section 7.1.3). This procedure was implemented in February / March 2018 in the North Nigeria, in the region around Kano, and included the measurement of quantitative and qualitative product losses in selected value chains, and the observation of specific factors and conditions that may have or may not have affected the specific performance in these value chains. The three long-haul value chains that were selected were located in Kano state as area for sourcing the tomatoes for the markets in Lagos: (1) Zaria value chain, Kaduna: ▪ Farm location: Galma Dam, Zaria area Kaduna ▪ Collection Centre: Dutse Wai Market, Zaria Kaduna 5 The presentation was deliberately given after the group work, to avoid influencing opinions of the participants by the outcome of the trial. 35 ▪ Wholesale market: Mile 12, Lagos ▪ Retail market: Okomaiko, Lagos (2) Baba Ruga vakue chain, Kano ▪ Farm Location: Tomas Irrigation farm, Babbar Ruga ▪ Collection Centre: Laberiya/Babba Ruga ▪ Wholesale Market: Agege Lagos ▪ Retail Market: Agege community (3) Dakasoye value chain, Kano ▪ Farm Location: Dakasoye Farm ▪ Wholesale Market: Mile 12 Market Lagos ▪ Retail Market: Iyana Ipaja, Lagos Unfortunately in one value chain case the ribbons from two baskets were removed, or became detached from the baskets, in which cases the samples could not be tracked anymore. In these cases the corrupted measurement data were taken out from the datasets. Two samples of baskets in value chain 3 round 1 were tracked and measured from farmer to agent, but not to the retailer. Therefore being an incomplete measurement, these sample baskets have not been included in the comparison between baskets and crates regarding the calculation of total loss and loss of quality A. From the point of view of quality loss the conclusion is, that crates performed better than the baskets. Quality A was better maintained when the product was packed in plastic crates. In terms of total product loss there was no significant difference between baskets and crates. One explanation for this small difference can be that the people loading and unloading the product were not properly instructed how the crates should be stacked for transport and handled while unloading and carrying to the next transfer point. A video footage from the unloading of tomatoes at the wholesale market in Lagos show that crates filled with product were stacked on top of the tomatoes, and so damaging the product. It is not unlikely that this improper way of stacking the crates has caused product losses. In value chain 2, round 1, the results show a better performance of the baskets than of crates. This clearly deviates from the results from the other value chains / rounds. It is possible that this has to do with the fact that 2 out of 3 basket samples in this round were removed from the dataset because these samples had become unreliable for further measurement. The comparison of data from the 3 sample crates with only 1 sample basket is therefore inconclusive. It shows the significance of having sufficient and equal number of samples per type of packing. The analysis of the composition of the baskets and the crates in terms of product qualities showed a similar distribution of qualities for both baskets and crates at the farm (82% quality A). At the end of the chain the percentage of quality grade A tomatoes was higher for the crates (77,2% quality A in the crates and 62,7% in the baskets). More high quality tomatoes and less losses, result in improved income at the retail level. Given the market prices at that moment of sales this would mean that the retailer would have received a 8,2% higher market value for product from the crates than for product from the baskets. The main aggregate results (3 value chains, 2 cycles) are summarized below: Item measured Raffia baskets Plastic crates More “Quality A� remains when using plastic crates 62,7% 77,2% Less total weight loss from farmer to retailer with plastic crates 7,4% 6,7% 36 Other variables measured: weather conditions; time of harvesting, loading, offloading, arrival; waiting times at farm, delays during transport; distances to the wholesale and retail market(s); type of vehicles; road conditions; price paid to the retailer of different qualities. Details, see Annex 2.10 and Annex 2.12. The results presented showed that, on average, it took more than 75 hours for the product to move from the field to final destination market. From field to market the plastic crates were able to retain 16% more A grade quality tomatoes than the raffia baskets. The use of plastic crates also resulted in easier handling of product across the chain and more standardization in weighing of product across the chain. During the plenary discussion that followed the presentation, the following remarks were made (Sibomana, 2018): ▪ Plastic crates contained less damage and deformed tomatoes ▪ Percentage of grade A tomatoes was higher for crates than baskets ▪ Better quality of products (in crates) resulted in higher sales prices The enumerators also noted that loaders needed to be trained on how to stack plastic crates properly, because it was noted that crate stacking was misaligned resulting in crates placed directly on tomatoes. Pilot project raised platforms for improved sun-drying The pilot project for improved sun-drying of tomatoes on raised platforms as proposed by the stakeholders in the North in the living lab of 8 – 9 January and the kick-off workshop 14 - 15 February, was implemented in April, 2 drying cycles in each of the 3 sites: (1) the Babbar Ruga site; (2) the Yankaba site; and (3) the Garun Malla site. The treatment was drying tomatoes on a raised platform, and the control was drying of tomatoes on the ground, the traditional way. The following parameters were monitored for both groups on the three sites and two cycles: ▪ The weight of tomatoes at the beginning and end of drying ▪ The visual appearance of dried product at the end of drying ▪ The farmer preference for the product from the 2 drying methods ▪ The time of drying (as decided by the farmer, who would determine if the product was suitably dry) ▪ The price of the dried product Parameter Site Babbar Ruga Yankaba Garun Malla Initial weight cycle 1 40,0 kg 104,5 kg 45,0 kg Final weight cycle 1: raised platform 3,0 kg (4,6 mudu) 14,0 kg (21,5 mudu) 2,5 kg (3,8 mudu) Final weight cycle 1: ground 3,5 kg (5,4 mudu) 16,5 kg (25,4 mudu) 2,9 kg (4,5 mudu) Drying time cycle 1 7 days 5 days 6 days Farmer preference cycle 1 *) Raised platform Raised platform Raised platform Conversion cycle 1: raised platform 1 : 0,0750 1 : 0,1339 1 : 0,0555 Conversion cycle 1: ground 1 : 0,0875 1 : 0,1578 1: 0,0644 Initial weight cycle 2 40,0 kg 61,5 kg 53,5 kg Final weight cycle 2: raised platform 2,3 kg (3,5 mudu) 4,0 kg (6,2 mudu) 3,0 kg (4,6 mudu) Final weight cycle 2: ground 1,8 kg (2,8 mudu) 4,0 kg (6,2 mudu) 3,5 kg (5,4 mudu) Drying time cycle 2 6 days 4 days 7 days 37 Farmer preference cycle 2 *) Raised platform Raised platform Raised platform Conversion cycle 2: raised platform 1 : 0,0575 1: 0,0650 1 : 0,0560 Conversion cycle 2: ground 1 : 0,0450 1 : 0,0650 1 : 0,0654 Price paid raised platform (1 & 2) 700 NGN / mudu 800 NGN / mudu 550 NGN / mudu Price paid ground (1 & 2) 500 NGN / mudu 600 NGN / mudu 425 NGN / mudu *) In all cases preference for raised platform for better visual appearance 1 kg = 1,533 mudu / 1 mudu = 0,652 kg The results presented showed that from all sites the visual appearance was better for the product dried on the raised platform than on the ground. The average increase in price was NGN 269 (US$ 0,74) per kg of product dried on the raised platform compared to the product dried on the ground. This difference in price was higher in one of the sites that is located within a more urban area and sells at an urban market, with a price difference of NGN 308 (US$ 0,85) more per kg of raised platform dried tomatoes compared to on-ground dried tomatoes. The drying time ranged between 4 - 7 days and did not differ according to drying technique. The product dried on the ground often had higher mass at the end of drying (average of 0,5 kg more than raised platform), this was found to be due to more sand and foreign materials in this product. Furthermore in Babbar Ruga (one of the drying sites), the enumerator observed lizards accessing the product on the ground during drying. 7.2.4. Towards a business model for the introduction of plastic crates In the afternoon, the groups we asked to work out some elements for a suitable business model for the introduction of plastic crates, such as (see Annex 2.21): ▪ Who should be the owner of the crates? ▪ What should be the characteristics of the return model? ▪ What are the specific risks related to the introduction of crates? ▪ How to handle penalties, in case of losses or damage of the crates? ▪ Who should administrate the crates? ▪ What are the main elements for an operational model? Participants were asked to reflect on their experiences during the workshop and determine what would be the most practical model for operationalizing these interventions, with these questions as guidance. In the plenary discussion that followed, the following issues and questions were raised and statements made (Sibomana, 2018). The results from the business models revealed that each group had a different perspective on ownership, returns and overall operational model. Two out of the three groups had a relatively similar concept on ownership, with one group proposing ownership by the dealers and the second group proposing ownership by a third party crate-hiring service. The third group proposed ownership by farmers, wholesalers and retailers. The returns model proposed by the first and second group involved complete execution by the dealer or third party, while the third group proposed a returns model which included exchange of crates at each point in the chain. Overall, the operational model for the groups that suggest a dealer or a third party crate-hire service was similar, whereby the farmers would contact this agent for hiring the crates and this agent would manage the rest of the crate logistics, while the operational model for the third group suggested a 38 cooperative framework where farmers, wholesaler and retailers co-invest in purchasing the crates and managing the subsequent logistics in the chain. 7.2.5. Towards scaling up of improved dried platforms Three groups also participated in this activity and the business proposals of scaling up were discussed. The participants proposed using the raised platform for drying between 30 – 50% of their produce depending on the fresh market condition (i.e. price fluctuation on the fresh market). Participants further suggested using the raised platform between 20 times (for individually owned units) and 48 times (for communally owned units) per year. With regards to ownership, two of the groups proposed individual ownership of the raised platform dryer, to avoid “clash of interest/scarcity of the drying facility�, “negative attitudes towards public owned property�, while the third group proposed a communally owned raised platform drying unit, with multiple tables. The proponents of the communally owned drying facility suggested benefits such as “easily accessible�, “job creation for the youth�. Furthermore, this group proposed raising funding for this communal facility from a wealthy community member. In the plenary session also some aspects of the costs / benefits of the introduction of raises platforms were discussed, further elaborated here below: ▪ The average cost of a raised platform 2 x 4 meters (8 m2) implemented as pilot project was US$ 90 approximately (NGN 32.215). ▪ The economic lifetime of a raised platform is estimated to be (at least) 3 years by the farmers (depreciation NGN 10.738 or US$ 30 per year). ▪ The capacity of each platform is at least 104,5 kg (Yankaba case), for an output of 14,0 kg dried tomatoes (21,4 mudu), maybe more, for each drying turn (parameters Yankaba case). ▪ This volume can be sold with an additional value of NGN 200 per mudu, that is 21,4 x NGN 200 = NGN 4.280 increased gross revenue per platform (as compared to ground drying) and per drying turn. ▪ In each season it is estimated that tomatoes can be dried 20 – 25 times. Total capacity of the drying platform per season is therefore between 2.090,0 kg and 2.612,5 kg fresh tomatoes. ▪ For one whole season and one raised platform of 2 x 4 meters this would imply an additional revenue of between NGN 85.600 and NGN 107.000 (between US$ 239,14 and US$ 298,92). For three seasons (the estimated lifetime of the rustic drying platforms) the additional revenue would be between NGN 256.800 and NGN 321.000 (between US$ 717,43 and US$ 896,76), per platform. ▪ The survey in the North showed an average area of 3 hectare dedicated to tomato in the dry season, with an average yield of 14 MT per hectare = 42 MT total output. ▪ It is estimated that each year, between 30% and 50% of the tomato harvest can be dried. ▪ The average conversion rate is 0,08360 kg of dried tomatoes for each kg of fresh tomatoes (the sum of fresh tomatoes (344,5 kg) and dried tomatoes (28,8 kg) of all 3 sites and 2 cycles for raised platform drying). ▪ Drying between 30% and 50% of the total volume of an average harvest in the dry season, is a total volume of between 12.600 kg and 21.000 kg. For this volume, between 5 and 10 platforms of 2 x 4 meter are needed per season on an average tomato farm. ▪ With the average conversion rate handled, the total potential output of dried tomatoes per season is between 1.053 kg and 1.755 kg (between 1.616 mudu and 2.693 mudu), or an additional gross revenue of between NGN 323.200 and NGN 538.600 (between US$ 902,37 and 39 US$ 1.504,70) if improved sun-drying on raised platforms is applied, as compared with traditional drying om the ground. These figures show that the installation of raised platform is a very profitable innovation that can be recommended without reserve. It is also an investment that is accessible for most farmers, due to its low cost. 7.3 Crates – in search for a business model The way the tomato value chains are structured is an important starting point for the elaboration of a feasible business model that should be an incentive for the massive introduction of plastic returnable crates. (See Annex 2.23 for some elements. Figures copied or adapted from Coffey International, 2013). The supply chains of the supermarkets are more straightforward, and offer better possibilities to introduce plastic returnable crates. The relations between stakeholders, mainly farmers, wholesalers and supermarkets, are quite strong and this opens opportunities for contracts, better quality management and the returning of crates. (See figure “Comparison of Supply Chain Trading�). However, although growing, the supermarket supply chains only represent a small proportion of the tomato market. The traditional supply chains are more complex, with farmers, dealers, wholesalers and micro-retailers as main actors; often with other intermediaries in between: aggregators (between farmers and dealers) and agents (between dealers and wholesalers). Relations and commitments between these stakeholders are weak, and in addition, the supply chains are extremely fragmented: the stakeholders are small farmers, small dealers, small transporters, small wholesalers, small retailers. The fragmented nature of the tomato supply chains makes introduction of plastic returnable crates extremely difficult, due to two reasons: (1) the lack of economies of scale, the absence of big players who could play a central role; and (2) the weak integration of stakeholders, which makes the returning of crates a complex issue: farmers easily switch to other dealers, dealers switch to other wholesalers or other retailers. In its research on the mapping of the tomato value chain in the 12 main tomato producing states in the North and middle of Nigeria, GEMS4 identified 515 tomato clusters in the wet season and 609 tomato clusters in the dry season (GEMS4, 2016b). This mapping took place as a first approach to identify the number of plants needed in each State to process excess of tomatoes in the glut period and prevent post-harvest losses. These clusters are virtual clusters, not real groupings of value chains or farmer organizations in practice. The main elements or issues of a workable business model that were discussed in the feedback workshops on January 13 and April 23 are similar to the elements that were presented in the workshop organized by GAIN (see Section 2.3.1 of this report), and the presentations of the keynote speakers (Tobe, 2017 and Ogundele, 2017a). ▪ Distribution model: Ownership model by a stakeholder (grower or trader) or a model where crates are not owned by farmers or traders, but rented or leased by a third party, a logistic service company. ▪ In the case of an ownership model by farmers or traders, some form of organization is needed, since there is lack of economies of scale everywhere in the tomato chain. ▪ The number of crates needed is a multiple of the turnover (perhaps 4 – 5 times), since a certain amount of crates will be at the farm for harvesting, another part waiting to be transported at 40 aggregation centers, another part will be underway on trucks loaded with tomatoes, another part will be at the markets with the retailers or in the distribution centers of the supermarkets, and another part will be empty on the trucks way back. ▪ Due to the amount of crates needed, finance is needed for the operators (and perhaps for the manufacturers), preferably with guarantee fund as instrument (for example from NIRSAL) to keep interest rates affordable. However, taking the crates as collateral is complicated, because they can get lost or will be worn out. Some form of a risk insurance would imply an additional cost. ▪ The basis of a workable business model is the reduction of post-harvest losses, from an estimated 40% to 5% or less. Other factors to be included in a business model: the raffia basket can only be used once (at a cost of NGN 400 per basket; the minimum lifetime of a plastic returnable crate is 3 years, the price NGN 2700 per crate. The loading capacity of a truck is 450 baskets of 50 kg (22.500 kg tomatoes) and a bit less in the case of crates: 700 crates of 25 kg (17.500 kg tomatoes). ▪ The preferred crates are stackable and also nestable. However, especially on long haul supply chains the trucks prefer not to go back empty. At least half of the loading capacity will be needed for returning empty crates and this cost should be included in the transport costs of tomatoes packed in crates. ▪ The crates should be properly handled and also be cleaned upon return. ▪ Standardization of plastic returnable crates is desirable, so that a the crate becomes synonymous to a weight of 25 kg. ▪ Transport costs of tomatoes per kilo in crates are far higher than transport costs of tomatoes per kilo in raffia baskets. The owner of the crates must buy at least a number of crates equal to 4 times the turnover. For one truckload (with capacity of 700 crates) this means 2800 crates. The owner of the crates needs to recover his investment; the truck load is less in the case of crates: 17.000 kg, as compared to 22.500 kg in the case of raffia baskets; the transporter would charge the same amount for the trip, and charge for at least half the load bin for returning empty crates. This makes the price per kilogram for transporting tomatoes in crates, considerably higher. ▪ Regulation by authorities (obligation to use crates, starting with pilot markets and selected aggregation hubs) would be a great support as incentive to promote massive introduction of plastic crates. Based on parameters of the GAIN workshop of May 2017 (weight and costs of baskets and crates, loading capacity of trucks) and our own survey and pilot projects (average yield of tomato, prices of Class A and Class B tomatoes) a business model for the use of plastic crates is elaborated in Annex 2.24. Basic assumptions of the model : ▪ An economic lifetime of the crates of 4 years; used 20 times per year (total 80 times). ▪ Out of 10 tomatoes, only 6 arrive in a good shape at the retailer with the use of raffia baskets; out of 10 tomatoes, 9 tomatoes arrive in a good shape when plastic returnable crates are used (Ogundele, 2017a). ▪ Module of 4 x 700 crates (700 crates is the loading capacity of a truck). ▪ Acquisition of 2.800 crates with a loan of 3 years at 10% interest. ▪ The owner of the crates recovers the loan (value of the crates) via transport costs; these are 1,5x higher than normal because the costs for returning empty crates is included. ▪ The transporter wants the same price for transporting tomatoes (NGN 180.000 per truckload); this results in a higher transport price per kg, because a truckload of 450 baskets is 22.500 kg and a truckload of 700 crates is 17.500 kg. The model shows that in spite of a higher transport cost, the gross margin for the farmer is higher, because there is a higher percentage Class A tomatoes with the use of plastic crates. The model also shows that with extension of the economic lifetime with two more years (after payment of the loan in 3 years), a considerable additional profit can be made by the owner of the crates. The crates and the 41 loan are paid, and additional profit can be considered as buffer to pay for the risk of loss or damage or crates, or to invest in renewal of the stock of crates, but now mainly with own capital. The massive introduction of plastic crates would have consequences for the fate of the basket weavers. It is estimated that the possible impact would be moderate. The raffia baskets still could be used on local markets and for other purposes. For the majority of the artisans, the activity of basket weaving is not a full time job but a complementary activity. Some basket weavers could step in the business as service provider for plastic crates (GAIN 2017b; Uzoigwe et al., 2014). 7.4. Towards improved sun-drying of tomatoes The pilot project on improved sun-drying of tomatoes on raised platforms was proposed by the stakeholders in the Northern region in the living lab workshop of 8 – 9 January in Kano. For the stakeholders involved in the project, this was a new technology. However, in the past, many studies and pilots of small-scale dryers have been carried out by universities and government ministries, but these prototypes were generally unreachable for the small farmer (GKI, 2016). The theme of improved drying of tomatoes was subject of several studies commissioned by GAIN and PYXERA. (GAIN 2017c, GAIN 2017d; GKI, 2016). Drying of tomatoes is seen as a good alternative for conservation and reduction of post-harvest losses and waste, especially in the glut period and volatile fresh market, as means to stabilize smallholder tomato farmer income. Drying is the oldest preservation technique for agricultural products and represents an excellent way to preserve nutritional content, especially for tomatoes. Drying uses a heath source to vaporize moisture in products, which prevents the growth of bacteria, yeasts and molds, and lengthens shelf life. Drying also reduces the weight and volume or the product, which makes it easier to pack, store and transport. (GKI, 2016). There is a well-established international market for dried tomatoes, and demand for dried tomatoes from Nigeria is growing in Niger and Benin, and in Nigeria itself. Traditionally, tomato farmers in Nigeria have dried tomatoes in the sun, on the ground or on roofs, with high levels of spoilage and contamination. With a rising demand for this product, improved drying methods can be introduced. However, before selecting a drying technology, several considerations have to be made (GKI, 2016): (1) Not all tomato varieties are suitable for drying; (2) The particular motives and goals of farmers to dry tomatoes; (3) Training of farmers in food safety issues and proper management of the selected drying technology; (4) The effective market demand and preferences for dried tomatoes; (5) Transaction costs and incentives to introduce improved technology; (6) Specific contextual factors of the smallholder reality. As next step in their study, ten proven drying technologies are reviewed, which fall into five categories (GKI, 2016): (1) Open sun or natural drying (still the most used method in Nigeria to date); (2) Direct solar drying (on a platform with a cover – this is the category applied in our pilot projects); (3) Indirect solar drying (circulation of hot air); (4) Hybrid solar drying (a mix of direct and indirect solar drying); and (5) Mechanized drying (using fuel or electricity as source for producing heat). Several technologies can be applied on small, medium or industrial scale. A feasibility assessment on the different technologies concluded that introduction of small-scale solar dryers is the best option at this moment As next step, different scenarios were worked out: develop an customized solar dryer model with Nigerian partners (takes time, but would be adapted to local contexts); or source ready-made solar dryers from manufacturers abroad (international sourcing, immediate availability, perhaps less adapted to local conditions and also more expensive) (GKI, 2016). 42 The studies carried out by GAIN focus on the nutritional value of dried tomatoes, applying different drying technologies. Tomatoes are rich in minerals, vitamins, sugars, dietary fiber, vitamins B and C, iron and phosphorous, and a source of carotenoids or proto vitamin A (GAIN, 2017c, 2017e). Drying tomatoes offers potential for improving the supply of tomatoes and prevent their loss, but the implications for nutrient content and retention have not been clear. The study commissioned by GAIN tried to find answers on the following questions (GAIN 2017c, 2017e): (1) What is the nutritional composition of fresh and dried tomatoes? (2) What is the effect of variety, pretreatment and drying methods on the composition and retention in dried tomatoes? (3) How well were the nutrients in dried tomatoes retained when they were stored in different packaging materials? Samples of four different tomato varieties were taken (UC82B, Roma, EVA-F1, Kerewa), prepared (pre- treated with a low concentration of potassium metabisulphite) and dried with 3 methods (sun, cabinet, oven) and stored during 6 months with different methods: glass jars, plastic containers, LDPE plastic bags and HDPE plastic bags. Nutritional contents were analyzed for both fresh and dried tomatoes. Some varieties retained the nutritional value significantly better; and overall, oven drying (short period) retained the nutritional value better than sun-drying methods (which requires a longer drying period); although cabinet drying gave also reasonable results with some nutrients. Storage methods were also important for retaining nutrient content (tends to decrease) and moisture content (tends to increase over time, which shortens shelf life). Storage in glass jars gave the best result. (GAIN 2017c, 2017e). 8. FOURTH MISSION TO NIGERIA (21 – 28 APRIL 2018) 8.1. Consultation of development organizations During the fourth mission to Nigeria the project team consulted the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), the development organisations GIZ (Germany), OXFAM (United Kingdom) and IFDC (United States), the state Bank Of Industry (BOI) and the World Bank, all located in Abuja. The purpose of these consultations was to assess the opportunities for follow-up or scaling-up activities of previous and on-going initiatives in the tomato value chain, such as those developed by DFID/GEMS4, GAIN/ PLAN, PYXERA/Yieldwise, IFDC/2SCALE, NAGB, NCDA and including our own project and WUR project. ▪ The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development was involved in previous projects to promote the introduction of plastic returnable crates and supports these initiatives. However, the Ministry lacks instruments to promote the introduction of crates at a massive scale. ▪ The IFDC is looking for ways to stay involved in the second stage of the 2SCALE program, that will start in 2019. This offers a framework for continuity of the work to promote innovations in the tomato value chain to reduce post-harvest losses. ▪ The Bank Of Industry (BOI) is interested to finance the large scale introduction of plastic returnable crates, whenever there is a business case and collateral or guarantee for pay-back of loans. ▪ GIZ is preparing for a new cycle of investment and is considering the tomato value chain as a serious option, within. GIZ commissioned a study of the tomato sector in Nigeria and the main bottlenecks and challeges to guide their decision (EATS Consortium, 2018). 43 ▪ The World Bank is preparing a new program, called Nigeria Rural Access and Agricultural Marketing Project (RAAMP), with a provisional budget of USD 768 million (co-financed by the French Agency for Development (AFD), to build rural roads, bridges and infrastructure for agricultural trade hubs in 12 states 6. This program focusses on connecting rural communities to local agricultural markets - roadside agro-logistics hubs – to support the ongoing agricultural transformation. RAAMP will facilitate the provision of services that will enhance agricultural productivity, help build rural agricultural value chains, and help producers market agricultural products competitively. (World Bank, 2017). Apart from the components to invest in infrastructure and connectivity (rural roads, bridges, logistic agri-hubs), the program has an institutional component to strengthen capacity of the States to maintain the roads and road safety, and for a fund for Technical Assistance (TA). ▪ In June, consultations and exchange of information took place with the Agriculture Logistics and Transport Services Accelerator (ALTSA), a joint initiative by ENCLUDE (formerly ShoreBank International and Triodos Facet), and JMFS Agribusiness, a company led by the former main consultant of the GEMS4 tomato value chain program (Richard Ogundele). The concept is focussed on reduction of post-harvest losses and SME development in the LAKAJI (Lagos Kano Jigawa) and PHAKAJI (Port Harcourt Kano Jigawa) corridors, especially logistics companies, such as pack houses, cold hubs, road transport companies, crate rental companies, rail transport companies, distributors and the like. The concept has been elaborated and the logical framework; and the consortium is looking for more finance and partners (Ogundele 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d, 2018e). 8.2. Video production In April the project team contracted a small video company to produce a documentary about the research project. At this moment a first version of the documentary is ready. The documentary should be used in future promotional activities, workshops and training sessions. 6 To date 21 States showed interest to participate in this program, but due to recourse limitations, probably a limited number of 12 States will benefit, according to selection criteria to be formulated by the Nigerian government. The 21 States that showed interest are: Abia, Akwaibom, Ebonyi, Bauchi, Benue, Delta, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Oyo, Ogun, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Ondo, Equity, Zamfara, Jigawa and Anambra. 44 9. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 9.1. Post-harvest losses and the tomato sector and upscaling proven innovations The main subject of the present project was to study causes and possible solutions to reduce post- harvest losses in the tomato value chains. Two innovations were tested and assessed by stakeholders in a “living lab� action research methodology: the introduction of plastic returnable crates and the use of raised platforms for sun-drying of tomatoes. Both innovations have great proven potential to reduce post-harvest losses in tomato value chains, and were welcomed by the stakeholders as alternative for raffia baskets and traditional sun-drying on the bare ground, respectively. Reduction of post-harvest losses by upscaling these innovations would be an important step in the improvement of the tomato value chains in Nigeria and improvement of food security of both urban and rural populations. However, reducing losses and waste is not enough to raise income of small farmers and at the same time, bring a quality tomato to the urban consumer at affordable prices. Nigeria ranks number 4 in the world in harvested area (after China, mainland China and India); and number 14 in production. However, in terms of yield per hectare Nigeria is among the lowest in the world, with a ranking number 172; only Samoa, Bhutan, Angola and Somalia have worse scores (FAOSTAT, 2016). The highly fragmented nature of the tomato value chains (small producers, small dealers and wholesalers, small transporters, small retailers) and the lack of organization is in itself a bottleneck for upscaling proven innovations. Apart from this factor, there are other structural and political constraints that affect productivity in agriculture, transport and trade, as outlined in Section 2 of this report and Section 3 and 4 of the Inception report (Clercx & Sibomana, 2017). The characteristics of possible business models for the introduction of plastic returnable crates (owned by farmers or traders, or rented by third party service companies) were outlined by the participants in our workshops and in other workshops (see Section 2.3.1 and Section 2.3.5 of this report). Unless strong farmer organizations or trade associations can be set up, who would be owner of the crates, the model of third party service companies renting out crates seems the most attractive model. In Section 7.3 of this report we examined some traits of a possible model and feasible business case in a somewhat theoretical exercise. However, tomato value chains are heterogeneous and differentiated. Long haul or short haul, aggregation markets or more direct chains, road conditions, type of transport (trucks, pick-ups, small vans, rail, waterways …) are some of the factors that are important. The elaboration of realistic business cases for different clusters, geographical locations and final destination markets is a pending task. (Ogundele 2018c, 2018d). In the elaboration of a business case, not only the acquisition, rental and lifetime of crates should be taken into account, but also a suitable infrastructure (to store and clean the crates) transport services (to bring clean crates to the farms) administration costs, interest (if a start-up company needs a loan from a bank for its investments) and training and technical assistance, for proper handling of plastic crates. 9.2. The living lab methodology as tool for improvement of value chains In the inception report, we stated that … “This project hypothesizes that a multi-stakeholder engagement approach will effectively identify relevant and significant value chain constraints from 45 farm-to-market and use the insights of the agri-value chain participants to develop context-relevant recommendations for mitigating postharvest losses in Nigeria� (Clercx & Sibomana, 2017). The results of the “living lab� action research methodology, which included surveys in the South-West and the North, and three multi-stakeholder workshops in each region, (1) to identify and map the bottlenecks and challenges, (2) to propose solutions and work out one or more concrete pilot projects, and (3) to evaluate these projects after implementation, respectively, showed that this was a useful instrument to engage stakeholders with different interests (farmers, dealers and wholesalers, transporters and retailers) with solutions to improve the performance of the chain, acceptable for all. When it comes to “game-changing� projects and business models such as a massive introduction of plastic crates, multi-stakeholder consultations in similar settings with leaders and key players could be considered, to create consensus, awareness and support. 10. IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES AND PROJECT RESULTS In the inception report, the project team formulated immediate objectives and expected results / outcome, and proposed activities and outputs to meet these objectives. Also a series of intermediate products were listed as part of the outputs. In Annex 9 we present an overview of our logical framework to facilitate evaluation on achieved results and possible follow-up steps. 11. PROSPECTS – NEXT STEPS During this research valuable contacts were established in and outside Nigeria, the basis for exploring opportunities for future collaboration and projects. ▪ The project team worked closely together with the research team of the Wageningen University. This team designed the data collection tool and analysed the data of the pilot projects on the introduction of plastic returnable crates. Following their own agenda, this team carried out a repetition of the pilot project with the crates in the South-West, and to this effect organized a workshop in Ibadan, 18 and 19 of July. (Plaisier & Dijkxhoorn, 2018e). Our project team and the WUR team drafted an article together for a special issue of the magazine “Sustainability� of the Wageningen University, focussed on the evaluation of the “living lab� methodology as helpful tool for analysing and transforming value chains (forthcoming). The WUR is planning a final workshop of their project in September or October. ▪ The project team presented an article and will give a presentation on the project on the International Horticultural Congress in Istanbul, 12 – 17 of August (details, see Annex 7). ▪ The final version of the video production will be ready in the course of August and publicly available for promotional work by development organisations in Nigeria. ▪ In May this year, the Netherlands Government presented the new policy for foreign trade and development cooperation, in which West Africa (Nigeria included) is one of the focus regions. (MINBUZA, 2018). Within this new policy framework, the Sustainable Development Goals Partnership (SDGP) facility was launched, focussed on the promotion of sustainable entrepreneurship (Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), 2018). Perhaps it is possible to work out 46 a project proposal together with the ALTSA initiative (Agriculture Logistics and Transport Services Accelerator by ENCLUDE and JMFS Agribusiness), and establish synergy with the new RAAMP project of the World Bank and the French Development Agency (see Section 8.1 of this report). ▪ The Development Related Infrastructure Investment Facility (DRIVE) from the Netherlands government could be an interesting instrument to promote investments in medium sized projects (value between EUR 5 million and EUR 60 million) that contribute to improvements of the food chain and help reduce post-harvest losses. For a summary description of the instrument, see: http://english.rvo.nl/subsidies-programmes/development-related-infrastructure-investment- vehicle-drive. Nigeria is classified as Lower Middle Income Country (LMIC), defined by an average per capita income that ranges from US$ 1,026 – US$ 4,035, (https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519), which means that in the DRIVE facility Nigeria can opt for 15% subsidy of eligible costs of a project. The facility consists of a combination of grants, loans and guarantees. In this case a private company should be interested to construct public infrastructure, for example a cold store, market place etc. 47 OVERVIEW OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1 Questionnaires used and combined survey report Annex 1.1 - Producers (separate PDF file). Annex 1.2 - Traders (separate PDF file). Annex 1.3 - Hauliers (separate PDF file). Annex 1.4 - Combined survey report surveys in the South-West and the North (separate PDF file) ANNEX 2 Workshop presentations and worksheets Second Living Lab Workshop, 8 - 9 January 2018, Kano Annex 2.1 - Brief explanation on the project 8 – 9 January 2018 Kano (separate PDF file). Annex 2.2 - Baseline presentation 8 – 9 January 2018 Kano (separate PDF file). Annex 2.3 - Workshop methodology and Worksheets 8 – 9 January 2018 Kano (separate PDF file). Annex 2.4 - Baseline validation questions, 8 – 9 January, Kano Annex 2.5 - Examples of worksheets used, 8 – 9 January, Kano Annex 2.6 - Main bottlenecks in the tomato value chain, 8 – 9 January, Kano Annex 2.7 - Bottlenecks, proposed solutions, proposed pilot projects, 8 – 9 January, Kano Annex 2.8 - Priority projects, and second best projects elaborated by the round tables, 8 – 9 January, Kano Annex 2.9 - Summary of evaluation, 8 – 9 January, Kano Kick-off workshop, 13 – 14 February 2018 Annex 2.10 - Measurement tool introduction of plastic crates, 13 – 14 February, Kano Feedback workshops, IITA Ibadan 13 January 2018 and Tahir Guest Palace Kano 23 April 2018 Annex 2.11 - Agenda feedback workshop 13 January 2018 (separate PDF file), Ibadan Annex 2.12 - Post harvest loss reduction in Nigeria 13 January 2018 (separate PDF file), Ibadan Annex 2.13 - Raffia vs plastic comparison, 13 January 2018 (separate PDF file), Ibadan Annex 2.14 - Agenda feedback workshop 23 April 2018 (separate PDF file), Kano Annex 2.15 - Unified presentation Kano 23 April (separate PDF file), Kano Annex 2.16 - Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 5 value chains, South-West, Ibadan Annex 2.17 - Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 3 value chains, North, Kano Annex 2.18 - Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 8 value chains, summary sheet, Ibadan- Kano Annex 2.19 - Comparison sun-drying on the ground versus sun-drying on raised platforms, Kano Annex 2.20 - Elements for a business model for plastic crates, South-West, workshop 13 of January 2018, Ibadan Annex 2.21 - Elements for a business model for plastic crates, North, workshop 23 of April 2018, Kano Annex 2.22 - Elements for a business model for improved sun-drying on raised platforms Annex 2.23 - Cost price structure across the chain (see also separate Excel file) Annex 2.24 - Business model crates (see also separate Excel file) 48 ANNEX 3 Overview of activities and meetings ANNEX 4 Overview workshops ANNEX 5 References (updated) ANNEX 6 Abbreviations ANNEX 7 Abstract presented to the IHC Congress Istanbul ANNEX 8 Presentation keynote speaker Agribusiness & Food summit, 27 of April 2018, Lagos (Separate PDF file) ANNEX 9 Logical framework 49 ANNEX 2.4 Baseline validation questions, after presentation of survey results, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano During and after the presentation of the baseline validation (the discussion on the results of the survey among farmers, hauliers and traders), the next survey themes were discussed in a plenary meeting. 1. What is your opinion on the value of associations? ▪ Foreign intervention programmes (World Bank, NGOs) provide limited say in the organisation ▪ Most leaders of associations are fighting for themselves, and not for the farmers ▪ In some regions it works: when people are better informed ▪ In Kano, association brings benefits (or practise it) but the results are disappointing 2. What type or irrigation systems do you use? * Note: Production wet / dry season per hectare is higher than figures showed (167 - 250 baskets / ha) ▪ Water form dams (CBADAN) ▪ Most use own wells (narrow pipes) ▪ In Kano access to water is easy – in other regions you need very deep wells ▪ Kaduna is challenged with water sources – need to invest in boreholes ▪ Kano – Kadawa area uses irrigation from the Danief (?) channels 3. Where do you get your seed from? Why is there no adoption of hybrid seed? ▪ 3 varieties = correct ▪ Seed is obtained from companies and the market ▪ Hybrid seeds are quite expensive ▪ The yield of hybrid seeds does not correlate with higher prices; there is no higher price on the market for these varieties ▪ Demo program (‘FADAMA’) is subsidized, so they buy and know what they get. Others don’t have access to the demo / pilot 4. Do you agree with yield limitations? ▪ FADAMA program demonstrations on different places 5. Is chemical control of diseases done correctly? Did you receive training on this? ▪ Supplies of pesticides demonstrate use, but don’t guarantee effect (- mostly disappointing) ▪ Cian and Cihana (?) are good products, but most farmers choose the cheapest variants ▪ Demonstrations from agro dealers, but efficacy is a problem; adulteration of products is also a challenge; also farmers are buying not fully packed products 6. How do you do grading? Do you agree that grading is the main post-harvest activity? ▪ Anyone is harvesting not red tomatoes? The answer is no. Tomatoes for Lagos: are harvested light red ▪ From green to red = in basket from bottom to top to prevent post-harvest losses 7. Backhaul: Do you agree with the high percentage of backhaul? Do you also return with packaging material? ▪ Yes ▪ Backhaul: agriproducts, or whatever they can get, apples, tiles, fertilizer. NO basket backhaul. Crates: YES. 50 8. Glut period: When do farmers have most production? (November – February) When do traders get largest volumes of tomatoes? (Same period) ▪ Selling - buying- location: created a lot of discussion ▪ “Kano + Zaira traditional thing� Big farmgate selling directly to Lagos ▪ Why no crates: Mindset Zaria; and price: Buy 1.50 raffia; Rent 2.50 plastic crate 9. Actor interactions: What sort of infrastructure is missing at post-harvest level (farmers / traders)? ▪ Instead of 12 hours, it takes 2 days to get to Lagos ▪ Processing factories closer to the farm needed What transportation improvements are needed (traders?) ▪ Poor vehicles and poor roads lead to accidents and break down of vehicles ▪ Checkpoints and bribes and revenue collection cause delays and affect income ▪ Lack of security Any other challenges? What are examples of poor handling? ▪ Grading should be taken more serious ▪ Better to grade green – pink red instead of A – B – C (see what you get) 51 ANNEX 2.5 Examples of worksheets used (a complete set of all sheets is in the DROPBOX), 8 - 9 January 2018, Kano Method sheet for mapping value chain and losses 52 “Free mapping�, Manu group 53 Zainab’s group mapping of information, product and money flows 54 Zainab’s group: Identifcation of bottlenecks, solutions, beneficiaties and pilot projects 55 ANNEX 2.6 Main bottlenecks in the tomato value chain, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano Bottlenecks in the value chain, summary of the five groups: Yankaba, Zainab, Kaura, Manu and Zaira-Kaduna Bottleneck Which supply chain Possible solutions What is required What are the risks partners are involved 1 Diseases / pests, Tuta Farmers / traders Quality insecticide and Disease resistant seed, Total breakdown of tomato absoluta pesticide improved farming practices farming 2 Bad road network Farmers, transporters and Road repairing and good Total renovation of road Loss of investment by traders road maintenance network, and alternative transporters and traders transportation 3 Delay in delivery Transporters, traders Removal of check points, Government intervention in Frustrating transporting and road repairs checking illegal checkpoints business 4 Poor quality seed Farmers Provision of quality seed Government should Increasing loss to tomato introduce seed quarantine farming business and good seed with subsidy 5 Insecurity (robbers and Transporters and traders Government intervention is Increase security personal is Destruction of lives and kidnappers) required here the main road properties is a threat to any business activity 6 Market glut Farmers and traders Provision of tomato Encouragement from Loss of produce by farmers processing companies government public partners 7 Availability of good seeds Farmers Reduction of price of seeds Government assistance to Getting the seeds to the provide policies and right hands availabilities of seeds 8 Qualitative pesticides Farmers Knowledge on the types and Government assistance Getting the inputs to the quality of pesticides, know- right hands how 9 Stability of the market Farmers, dealers, hauliers Availability of processing Local investors, Operators for the companies at good locations government, foreign processing machines investors should come in 56 10 Lack of processing Farmers, dealers Availability of processing Local investors, Operators for the companies companies at good locations government, foreign processing machines investors should come in 11 Lack of infrastructure Transporters and dealers Improve on infrastructure Proper revenue collection Lack of cooperation from such as roads citizens 12 Insecurity Transporters Tighter security law Better trained law enforcement enforcement agents 13 Law enforcement check Transporters Knowing the right channel Better trained law Lawlessness on the part of points of payment of revenue enforcement agents law enforcement personnel 14 Lack of proper drying Farmers and dealers Government intervention Availability of machinery Availability of operators equipment and technical knowhow 15 Lack of qualitative farm Farmers Availability of good seed, Government intervention Implementation of policies produce fertilizer and good rates and availability, price pesticides control 16 Lack of cold storage facilities Farmers, dealers Local and foreign investors Purchase of these facilities 17 Lack of cooling vehicles Transporters Local and foreign investors Purchase of these facilities 18 Poor harvesting practices Farmers Adoption of modern Training and monitoring Low literacy levels, low harvesting methods acceptance of modern practices 19 Spoilage on transit Transporters / hauliers Provision of modern Subsidized acquisition of High cost of transportation transportation facilities modern vehicles 20 Glut Dealers, farmers Processing to extend usage Processing plants / storage High costs, requires long period facilities term investments 21 Check points / road blocks / Hauliers To review and harmonize Policies by stakeholders / Bureaucracy / abuse extortion tax policies, eliminate government unnecessary duties 22 Loading / offloading Hauliers / dealers Special arrange for passages Government policy / more Lack of due attention, for trucks infrastructure bureaucracy / red tapism 23 Perishability Farmers, hauliers, dealers Provision of crates, cooling Training in use of cooling Farmers may not use it system system 57 24 Lack of market Farmers, hauliers, dealers Processing factories / Provision of crates / Heavy investments linkages with market points Exploring markets in the required, may discourage North / Tax holiday. investors 25 Expensive varieties Farmers Subsidy Government and NGO Government may not involvement provide subsidy 26 Poor transport Dealers, farmers, hauliers Alternative transport routes Infrastructural investment Heavy capital investment 27 Too many checkpoints Haulage Removal of these Government policy Government may not do it checkpoints 28 Road insecurity Haulage, farmers Provide security Government policy Government may not do it 29 Poor handling Farmer Sensitization Extension agents and NGO Historical inertia involvement 30 Lack of planning of planting Farmer Sensitization of planting NGO of extension officers NGO may not be involved season time 31 Overloading of baskets Haulage, farmers Sensitization NGO and road safety Road safety may not do it commission 32 Lack of transportation from Farmers Provide good roads It requires government to It damages vehicles when farmgate to the collection build the road the road is flooding or the centre or market road is small 33 Lack of integrity or trust of Farmers Believes in the traders and Ensure the traders have The money invested may traders traders good will good will not return 34 Lack of good seeds bring Farmers Provision of good seeds Get a good company with There may be high post- about losses quality quality seeds harvest loss 35 Unavailability of buyers of Farmers Provision or availability of Government or private Post-harvest losses of product processing companies or investors should invest in tomato production factories tomato processing 36 Scarcity of trucks or other Traders Government should The cooperative should It leads to loss of tomato means subsidize vehicles request from government production 37 Lack of means of Traders Exportation of produce by Government should inform Lack of export means brings exportation the government or private producers on the benefit of glut to the market company export trade 58 38 Limited processing factory Traders Provision of processing Government should attract Unavailability of processing factories nearby the investors leads to losses markets 39 Gluts in the market Traders Farmers should be taught Government should provide Great losses to the value how to farm other produce information on other chain products 40 Lack of good roads Hauliers Government should provide The Union should complain It leads to loss of farm good roads or give right to or request for the produce and damage to the traders to build roads maintenance of roads vehicles 41 Security challenge Hauliers Security should be up and Provide means of security Delay on the road at check functioning people with good points causes losses equipment and work with integrity 59 ANNEX 2.7 Bottlenecks, solutions, proposed pilot projects, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano No. Group Bottlenecks Solutions Pilot project Score 1 Yankaba Diseases / pests (Tuta Quality insecticides and good Trial on the use of insecticides, ▪ 13 green dots group absoluta – “ebola� of education on the use of insecticide sensitization meeting with agro dealers (own score) the tomato and farmer groups ▪ 18 blue dots (other score) Poor road network and Stakeholders in tomato production Paying advocacy visit to authorities ▪ 2 green dots security / delays including NGOs should pay an concerned (removing / minimizing (own score) advocacy visit to legislators / security checkpoints) ▪ 3 blue dots executives on this issue for quick (other score) government intervention Market glut Government should intervene in Small scale methods and local ▪ 15 green dots encouraging individuals and other preservation techniques should be (own score) partners in establishment of tomato introduced to farmer groups ▪ 32 blue dots processing companies and local (other score) technology on the preservation of tomatoes should be introduced 2 Zainab’s Lack of proper drying Solar generated drying system / Beneficiaries: Farmers and dealers ▪ 10 green dots group equipment Metal table covered with net and (retailers) (own score) wire mesh, using bamboo poles / Provision of solar generated equipment ▪ 13 blue dots sheets for drying (in table form) Metal table (covered with net for cleaner (other score) and more hygienic product) Providing bamboo sheet tables Availability of plastic Advocating or sharing of ideas on the Beneficiaries: Farmers, dealers (retailers) ▪ 10 green dots crates and measuring importance of using crates and and hauliers (own score) scales measuring scales (words of mouths Availability and providing plastic crates ▪ 8 blue dots across the supply chain instead of and measuring scales (other score) just trainings) Cold storage, cold hubs Using compressors of air Beneficiaries: Farmers and dealers ▪ 10 green dots conditioning to make cold rooms and (own score) 60 facilities to increase shelf life at a Providing cooling facilities or building ▪ 11 blue dots regulated temperature with just warm air and also: providing (other score) Building facilities with wire mesh and cooling facilities with air conditioning net compressors 3 Kaura’s Glut – excess supply Introduction of small-scale modern Introduce new methods of drying, ▪ 17 green dots group processing technologies e.g. drying, grinding and packing using portable (own score) grinding, packaging to increase shelf equipment and machineries, this may be ▪ 32 blue dots life for at least 3 months scouted for immediately (other score) Poor harvesting and More training and physical Mobile on-site training during harvest ▪ 12 green dots transportation practices monitoring during harvesting and introduction of the use of plastic (own score) activities, to reduce farm and transit crates at subsidized prices during the ▪ 6 blue dots wastage pilot project (other score) Spoilage on transit Suggestions and follow-ups with Providing specially marked and duty ▪ 13 green dots relevant stakeholders to avoid resistant vehicles for transporting of (own score) unnecessary delays caused by road tomatoes in a pilot scheme ▪ 3 blue dots blocks and tax agents (other score) 4 Manu Perishability of Provision of crates, cooling system A technology that can quickly dry ▪ 6 green dots group tomatoes and quick drying methods tomatoes within one or two days, e.g. (own score) the use of solar tables or solar shades, ▪ 5 blue dots metal tables (farmers and traders) (other score) Poor transport network Reduce damage of tomatoes on the Provide drying powder to be applied on ▪ 16 green dots way the loaded truck to reduce moisture (own score) content of the tomatoes, so as to reduce ▪ 14 blue dots damage in transit (farmers, hauliers, (other score) traders) Poor handling Provide small plastic perforated Provision and training on the use of small ▪ 8 green dots baskets for picking tomatoes on the perforated baskets to be used by farmers (own score) farm and traders for picking tomatoes from ▪ 9 blue dots one point to another and for (other score) measurement 5 Zaira- Poor packaging of Provision of crates which can be The use of plastic crates starting with ▪ 6 green dots Kaduna tomatoes used in a cooling system also selected farmers and traders at (own score) group community level to the market 61 allowing fresh tomato and good ▪ 5 blue dots spacing, it prevents post-harvest loss (other score) Lack of processing Provision of modular processing Provision of modular processing factory ▪ 16 green dots factories factories close to the farmers, that can absorb available product from (own score) traders and the hauliers. This will the market after post-harvest at a ▪ 14 blue dots also prevent post-harvest losses. particular location / Training the value (other score) This project / program should be a with modern technologies which is source of information to the workable in processing tomatoes locally government to provide support and and affordable grants to processing factories / companies Unavailability of There should be provision of modern There should be provision of a cooling ▪ 8 green dots modern vehicular cooling trucks which preserve vehicle to run a test and see the (own score) facility for transporting tomatoes and also lead to workability / reality of continuing with it ▪ 9 blue dots from collection centre / prevention of post-harvest losses if it is acceptable, if it is discovered it is (other score) farm to the market good, top go on with it if it is affordable 62 ANNEX 2.8 Priority projects and second best projects of the round tables, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano Yankaba group: priority project Pilot project name Expected results (The envisaged results of the pilot project based) Drying – 2 methods Reduce losses during storage Easy handling and transporting Pilot project participants (Who can contribute to the project with knowledge or knowhow) Farmers and traders - Yankaba (Shehu Abdulahi) - Maraba (Bellovmar) - Gadar Kazaure (Uba Sirina) Actions / steps (What steps need to be taken in order to reach the envisaged results) Harvest → Cutting / opening off of the fruit → spreading the fruit on the sand or any proper site → the dried fruit is later collected and packed in a double bag for storage (the double bagging will preserve the colour) → the double bagged produce will be loaded for transport to the market (Niger, several markets) Duration (What is the timeline of the activities) Three weeks duration from farm to cutting to drying and bagging. Depending on the weather it dries off quickly during harmatian period Current situation (What is the starting point, what bottlenecks need to be solved) Delivery (When?) The starting point is the period of tomato glut. The bottleneck is the cost of labour, this is high, and the product is not Within one month widely accepted in the Southern part. Another method of drying is the drying of the fruit into powdered form. The fruit is grinded into liquid form, then a cotton bag is prepared, the grinded fruit is put into the cotton bag, which is hung to drop the liquid out until the moisture is completely drained off. The grinded dry fruit is then removed from the cotton bag and spread on a clean mat in a shaded area until it is completely dry. The dry powder of the fruit is packed into an air tight bottle for future use. The collected liquid is used as a soup sweetener. 63 Zainab’s group: priority project 1 Pilot project name Expected results (The envisaged results of the pilot project based) Drying processing - Reduction of post-harvest losses - Provision of employment for the communities Pilot project participants (Who can contribute to the - Opportunities for export project with knowledge or knowhow) - Processing in a more hygienic and healthy way to improve an old practice (drying on Trade associations the ground) Government - Reduction of cost implication on transportation for long trips Associations of farmers, of hauliers, of dealers - Having better storage processes for longer periods of time (during glut period when the prices are low) Actions / steps (What steps need to be taken in order to reach the envisaged results) Solar generated drying systems / or metal, wire, bamboo tables / or cost-effective machines (locally made machines / or air drying → Cutting into small pieces at the farm → Spreading on the drying equipment → Drying takes a couple of days (4 days to a week) → Packaging → Delivery Duration (What is the timeline of the activities) A week (7 days) Current situation (What is the starting point, what bottlenecks need to be solved) Delivery (When?) Harvesting from the farm → Open drying, lack of availability of equipment for drying Two months, April 2018 64 Zainab’s group: priority project 2 Pilot project name Expected results (The envisaged results of the pilot project based) Provision of plastic crates and scales - Reduction of post-harvest losses - Duration for use of crates are longer (reuse) Pilot project participants (Who can contribute to the project with knowledge or knowhow) Trade associations Government Associations of farmers, of hauliers, of dealers Actions / steps (What steps need to be taken in order to reach the envisaged results) Plastic crates (at subsidized rate) → If readily available: handling of produce will be made easier: ease to carry for farmers, hauliers and traders) → The scale will make it easier to get an exact weight per crate and the total amount → After that, from farm to transporter to traders with ease → Easy management and handling of produce (tomatoes) Duration (What is the timeline of the activities) One day Current situation (What is the starting point, what bottlenecks need to be solved) Delivery (When?) Harvest → Availability of the plastic crate and scale 1 month 65 Kaura’s group: priority project 1 Pilot project name Expected results (The envisaged results of the pilot project based) Plastic crates Effective reduction of post-harvest wastages from farms in the collection centres Acceptance and adoption of the use of plastic crates in the immediate vicinity Pilot project participants (Who can contribute to the Making the plastic crates available for users willing to adopt project with knowledge or knowhow) Munkebe farmers Biruga – Makoda Joben Marke farmer (tomatoes) B Tofa Kunguyar Yangwati, Laberiya – Tomas - Makoda Kunguyar Dillalain Tamafir, Na Badume - Bicki Actions / steps (What steps need to be taken in order to reach the envisaged results) Procuring the plastic crates for sampling → Introducing and demonstrating the usage / handling → Assessing the acceptability and availability → → Evaluating and reviewing the performance and the usage → Designing of a sustainability plan Duration (What is the timeline of the activities) Steps above: 2 weeks → 3 weeks → 3 weeks → 2 weeks → 2 weeks (totalling 3 months) Current situation (What is the starting point, what bottlenecks need to be solved) Delivery (When?) Raffia baskets are used for collection, transportation and measurement of tomato quantities, leading to substantial loss 3 months ending May 2018 of produce 66 Kaura’s group: priority project 2 Pilot project name Expected results (The envisaged results of the pilot project based) Drying of tomatoes (processing) More hygienic dry tomatoes Less expensive tomatoes in times of shortages Pilot project participants (Who can contribute to the Simple methods of processing / drying project with knowledge or knowhow) Farmers Traders Consumers / users Actions / steps (What steps need to be taken in order to reach the envisaged results) Get more details of the bagging method of drying → Introducing the method and training / demonstration in several places within the survey areas → Standardization of the method in terms of items to be used → Evaluating and reviewing → Draw a sustainability plan Duration (What is the timeline of the activities) Steps above: 2 weeks → 4 weeks → 3 weeks → 2 weeks → 1 week (totalling 12 weeks) Current situation (What is the starting point, what bottlenecks need to be solved) Delivery (When?) Traditional method of spreading cut tomatoes on bear sand is a very unhygienic manner, posing a lot of health hazards - and wastages 67 Manu group: priority project Pilot project name Expected results (The envisaged results of the pilot project based) Drying of tomatoes (processing) Reduce wastages Reduce drastically the moisture content of the tomatoes Pilot project participants (Who can contribute to the Quick drying of tomatoes so that it can be stored for a long period of time without project with knowledge or knowhow) wastage until market prospects improve Farmers Improved drying panels, with solar energy; improved drying panels Traders Free of sand and stones Consumers / users Actions / steps (What steps need to be taken in order to reach the envisaged results) Harvest → Cutting tomato into pieces → Drying on drying panels – takes about 2 days → Packaging free of stones and sands → Delivery with less moisture Duration (What is the timeline of the activities) One month Current situation (What is the starting point, what bottlenecks need to be solved) Delivery (When?) Ground drying as open air drying which takes about 7 days to get dried. Attracts stones, flies and sand 2 months (March) 68 Zaira – Kaduna region pilot project Pilot project name Expected results (The envisaged results of the pilot project based) Usage of plastic crates It will enhance proper handling and packing It will prevent post-harvest losses because the plastic baskets have air space to prevent Pilot project participants (Who can contribute to the quick rotting project with knowledge or knowhow) It will increase the value of the produce in the market / bring more economic income Farmers – Marare and Kuli It will bring about actual ton carriage per truck and reduce overloading Hauliers – Dutsen Wai market In will enhance smooth journeys and reduce rate of accidents which results in Traders – Dutsen Wai market reduction of post-harvest losses Actions / steps (What steps need to be taken in order to reach the envisaged results) Harvesting of tomatoes – Sorting of tomatoes – Selecting of tomatoes – Grading of tomatoes; all this will be done using plastic crates → Practice of the use of plastic crates will lead to future permanent use and reduce loss → With the help of government agencies cooperatives if there is availability of plastic crates and sufficient use of it, will increase income to traders and farmers → With the aid of weight usages, it will lead to reduction in overloading of trucks → The proper identification of actual weight of tonne per truck leads to perfect journey and good vehicle conditions Duration (What is the timeline of the activities) 3 – 4 days Current situation (What is the starting point, what bottlenecks need to be solved) Delivery (When?) Presently the value chains are using raffia baskets, 99% of the value chains are into this practice. The starting point of 30 of April its usage is the farm and packaging at the farmgate to sorting and grading at trading points, that is the market and the inefficient travel for the haulier 69 ANNEX 2.9 Summary of evaluation of the workshop, 8 – 9 January 2018, Kano Evaluation: summary Criteria 1 = Very bad 2 = Bad 3 = Ok 4 = Good 5 = Excellent TOTAL - Venue 1 6 25 32 - Food / drinks 1 5 26 32 - Workshop 32 32 - Moderator 4 28 32 TOTAL 0 0 2 15 111 128 Percentage 0,0% 0,0% 1,6% 11,7% 86.7% 100,0% What did you gain? More knowledge | Knowledge benefits and exposure | I gained a lot, and have more knowledge | (Open question) I acquire knowledge which I will use to teach people when I go back | Learned a lot about measures to take to reduce post-harvest losses | Very hard working Look forward to more, many issues with regard to post harvest losses control measures Gained insight into the problems of tomatoes value chain 70 ANNEX 2.10 Measurement tool introduction of plastic crates, kick-off workshop, 12 – 14 February 2018, Kano Explanatory notes to the worksheets: a. This file contains a set of 2 registration forms (see the next tabs): 1. form for recording the measured data in the pilot. (tabcolor: orange) 2. form for the recording of additional information on specific questions. (tabcolor: green) b. BOTH registration forms have to be filled out for each round of measurement and for each value chain (VC). c. On the top of the forms there are information fields that have to be filled out for each value chain, so that we know to which VC and specific measurement round the data apply. For example: NAME FARMER : In this case you fill out the name of the farmer where the product is weighed in the empty textbox. d. IMPORTANT! The tabsheets can be copied only when these information fields are EMPTY! When an information field contains a value or text the button will be blocked. e. It is therefore advised TO LEAVE ONE SET OF REGISTRATION FORMS (orange and green) EMPTY so that you will always have one set of forms available for copying. f. The form is set up based on the assumption that per VC and per round there will be 3 sample baskets that will be tracked and measured throughout the VC, as well as 3 crates. g. The form contains some field that are shaded black. This is to indicate that these cells are not applicable to the specific question, and therefore do not have to be filled out. 71 VALUE CHAIN nr.: NAME FARMER : VILLAGE or CITY: ROUND nr.: NAME COLLECTOR: VILLAGE or CITY: NAME of ENUMERATOR: DATE: NAME WHOLESALER: VILLAGE or CITY: COLOUR NAME RETAILER: MARKET: LABEL: 1: FARMER 2: COLLECTION POINT (before 3: WHOLESALER / DEALER (at 0: BASELINE: FARMER 4: RETAILER (at arrival) 5: RETAILER (before sales) (before loading) loading) arrival) BASKET sample#1 Dealer pays Retailer pays Retailer pays Buyer pays QUALITY WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): QUALITY WEIGHT (kg): farmer (NAIRA): dealer (NAIRA): dealer (NAIRA): retailer (NAIRA): A1 2 12 11 10 9 A5 B1 3 B5 C1 4 C5 D1 5 D5 unsold 14 unsold -14 unsold 14 unsold -14 TOTAL 14 12 - - - - 1: FARMER 2: COLLECTION POINT (before 3: WHOLESALER / DEALER (at 0: BASELINE: FARMER 4: RETAILER (at arrival) 5: RETAILER (before sales) (before loading) loading) arrival) BASKET sample#2 Dealer pays Retailer pays Retailer pays Buyer pays QUALITY WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): QUALITY WEIGHT (kg): farmer (NAIRA): dealer (NAIRA): dealer (NAIRA): retailer (NAIRA): A1 A5 B1 B5 C1 C5 D1 D5 unsold - unsold - unsold - unsold - TOTAL - - - - - - 1: FARMER 2: COLLECTION POINT (before 3: WHOLESALER / DEALER (at 0: BASELINE: FARMER 4: RETAILER (at arrival) 5: RETAILER (before sales) (before loading) loading) arrival) BASKET sample#3 Dealer pays Retailer pays Retailer pays Buyer pays QUALITY WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): WEIGHT (kg): QUALITY WEIGHT (kg): farmer (NAIRA): dealer (NAIRA): dealer (NAIRA): retailer (NAIRA): A1 A5 B1 B5 C1 C5 D1 D5 unsold - unsold - unsold - unsold - TOTAL - - - - - - 72 VALUE CHAIN nr.: ROUND nr.: DATE: NAME of ENUMERATOR: at at at Observations research-team AT THE MEASUREMENT POINTS: COLLECTION FARMER WHOLESALER POINT Tomato VARIETY Weight of the empty BASKET kg Weight of the empty CRATE kg Time of HARVESTING of the product hh:mm Presence of a SHED or COVER at loading point YES or NO Way of product HANDLING of the product with care: YES or NO Duration time of LOADING of the product minutes Way of STACKING product in vehicle write down a value from 1 to 5 (see explanation below) in the appropriate green cell (C15,D15,E15): 1=VERY POOR: ma nyproducts da ma ged duri ng s tacki ng of ba s kets /cra tes ; pa cka gi ng di rectly on top of product 2=POOR: ma ny products da ma ged duri ng s tacki ng of ba s kets /cra tes ; mea s ures a re taken to a voi d further da ma ge duri ng tra ns port 3=REASONABLE: s ome product da ma ged duri ng s tacki ng of ba s kets /cra tes ; product properl y s tacked, mi ni mi s i ng da ma ge duri ng tra ns port 4=GOOD: s tacki ng of ba s kets /cra tes i s done wi th ca re a voi di ng product da ma ge; mi nor ri s k of product da ma ge duri ng tra ns port 5=VERY GOOD: very wel l s tacki ng of ba s kets /cra tes wi th good tempera ture control i n the truck duri ng tra ns port. ambient (air) TEMPERATURE (�C) in �C WEATHER at time of measurement describe the weather at the time of measuring ( sunny, cloudy, no/little/heavy rain, ...) 73 FARMER → COLLECTION WHOLESALER Observations research-team DURING TRANSPORT: COLLECTION POINT → → POINT WHOLESALER RETAILER VEHICLE type open/closed truck, large/small truck, mini-van, pick-up, etc. Vehicle LOADING CAPACITY tonnes TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED compartment YES or NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO transport DISTANCE km WAITING TIME between harvest & loading hours/minutes WAITING TIME between arrival & loading hours/minutes Time of DEPARTURE of transport day:hh:mm Time of ARRIVAL of transport day:hh:mm Transport DELAY YES or NO, hours/minutes reason(s) for the delay: f.e. number of stops, road blocks, bad quality roads, traffic jams, police stops / fines, a.s.o.: QUALITY of the ROAD write down a value from 1 to 5 (see explanation below) in the appropriate green cell (C39,D39,E39): 1=VERY POOR: sandy road, many potholes, road damages, only very slow driving is possible 2=POOR: sandy road, some road damages, moderate driving is possible 3=REASONABLE: paved road, with potholes, road damages, swift but careful driving is possible 4=GOOD: paved road, with occassionally (minor) road damages, speedy driving generally possible 5=VERY GOOD: paved and smooth road, highway speed Are the tomatoes loaded to another BASKET YES or NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO 74 Observations research-team AT RETAIL LEVEL: AT RETAILER After sales: did the retailer observe differences in QUALITY between basket and crate? (YES or NO) YES / NO If YES, please explain: After sales: did the retailer observe differences in PRICE between basket and crate? (YES or NO) YES / NO If YES, please explain: OTHER OBSERVATIONS by the enumerator: 75 ANNEX 2.16 Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 5 value chains, South-East, workshop 13 January, IITA, Ibadan Value Chain Number / Name: 1 Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets Explanation / Remarks compare to Plastic Crates Raffia Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Better Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 Easier to move around on farm the small size baskets Sorting ?? 1 Easier spread and ventilated Walking over the farm 1 Smaller baskets however are easier for moving around From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 Crates easier to handle and carry by vehicles / my motorcycle Stacking in Storage area 1 Crates easier to arrange and stack From Collection Point to vehicle 1 Easier to handle and arrange Transport Farm to Market / Loading on vehicle 1 Quote: 'I don't need to use sticks to support Wholesale the crates, unlike for baskets that squeeze the tomatoes. I like it' Stowage in the vehicle 1 Offloading from vehicle 1 Crates very good to handle Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 Crates carry better by the movers. With baskets they squeeze the tomatoes Stacking / Display 1 Dealers cannot easily see through the tomato qualities in crates when stacked Transport from Wholesale Are to Bringing to Vehicle NA Retail 76 Stowage in the vehicle NA Offloading from vehicle NA Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area Crate better to handle Repacking 1 Handling in General Carrying 1 Crates very easy to handle Repacking 1 Nesting empty crates 1 We can compress empty baskets easier than crates Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading Stowage Offloading Motorcycle Loading Stowage Offloading Car Loading 1 It is better to arrange and stack for us while loading Stowage 1 Easier but: cars can take more quantities / tons in baskets than in crates Offloading 1 Easier and faster to offload crates Minibus Loading Stowage Offloading Truck Loading ` Stowage Offloading Shed / Warehouse Bringing in Stacking filled with Tomatoes Stacking Empty 77 Taking out Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 We can't compress crates -> easier to return baskets General Ventilation 1 Crates ventilate better Avoiding Contamination 1 Ease of Cleaning 1 Easy to wash, we don't wash baskets Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 Neatly handled crates don't damage tomatoes Other Total Counts 4 2 17 Percentage 17,4% 8,7% 73,9% Value Chain Number / Name: 2 Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets Explanation / Remarks compare to Plastic Crates Raffia Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Better Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 A smaller container is used that is emptied into basket or crate Sorting ?? 1 The Crate has no sharp edges which might puncture the tomatoes Walking over the farm 1 The Crate has a handle From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 It is easier to carry 2 crates at a time Stacking in Storage area 1 Crates are stackable without damage From Collection Point to vehicle 1 Crates are easier to handle 78 Transport Farm to Market / Loading on vehicle 1 Baskets can be squeezed a bit together so Wholesale that more can be loaded in a vehicle Stowage in the vehicle 1 Baskets can be squeezed a bit together so that more can be loaded in a vehicle Offloading from vehicle 1 It is easy to carry 2 crates without damaging Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 Same as above Stacking / Display 0,5 0,5 Baskets easier for Display, Crates for Stacking. It is easier to package the content of baskets. Transport from Wholesale Are to Bringing to Vehicle 1 Crates can be handled easily Retail Stowage in the vehicle 1 Crates are stackable without damage Offloading from vehicle 1 Crates can be handled easily Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 1 Crates can be handled easily Repacking 1 The wastage with Crates is minimal Handling in General Carrying 1 Crates have handles Repacking 1 Crates have minimal waste Nesting empty crates 1 Baskets are better stackable when empty Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading Stowage Offloading Motorcycle Loading 1 Crates have broader base and is stackable Stowage 1 Crates have broader base and is stackable Offloading 1 Crates have handles Car Loading 1 Crates are stackable Stowage 1 Raffia baskets can be squeezed a bit increasing vehicle capacity Offloading 1 Crates are stackable 79 Minibus Loading 1 Crates are stackable Stowage 1 Raffia baskets can be squeezed a bit increasing vehicle capacity Offloading 1 Crates are stackable Truck Loading ` Stowage Offloading Shed / Warehouse Bringing in Stacking filled with Tomatoes Stacking Empty Taking out Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 From dealer to farmer 1 From retailer to dealer Note: retailers and farmers should own Plastic Crates: Farmers and Retailers. The Plastic Crates should be exchanged between these 2 Actors. The dealer is just an intermediary. General Ventilation 1 Avoiding Contamination 1 Ease of Cleaning 1 Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 Other Total Counts 5,5 1 27,5 Percentage 16,2% 2,9% 80,9% 80 Value Chain Number / Name: 3 Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets Explanation / Remarks compare to Plastic Crates Raffia Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Better Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 It has easy measurement, easy handling Sorting ?? 1 Different Crates can easily be got together Walking over the farm 1 Baskets are easier handled because of weight (small ones) From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 Handling Stacking in Storage area 1 Setting of Crates From Collection Point to vehicle 1 No need for planks, already stabilized stacking Transport Farm to Market / Loading on vehicle 1 No need for bracing with planks, easily Wholesale stacked Stowage in the vehicle 1 Easily stacked Offloading from vehicle 1 Easy handling Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 Handling Stacking / Display 1 Saves space, good stacking Transport from Wholesale Are to Bringing to Vehicle 1 Easily carried by carriers Retail Stowage in the vehicle 1 Stacking, preventing of damages Offloading from vehicle 1 Handling Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 1 Handling Repacking 1 Keeping tomatoes intact Handling in General Carrying 1 Reduces waste, has measurement, handling 81 Repacking 1 Fascinating, looks more attractive Nesting empty crates 1 Easily arranged Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading 1 Handling and carrying easy Stowage 1 Can be well arrangement Offloading 1 Good handling Motorcycle Loading Stowage Offloading Car Loading 1 Cannot be compressed Stowage 1 Arrangement Offloading 1 Easy carriage Minibus Loading 1 Reduces waste arrangements Stowage 1 Easy stowage Offloading 1 Easy handling and carriage Truck Loading ` Stowage Offloading Shed / Warehouse Bringing in Stacking filled with Tomatoes Stacking Empty Taking out Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 Easy setting General Ventilation 1 Spacious Avoiding Contamination 1 Baskets can pierce the tomatoes Ease of Cleaning 1 Can easily be washed Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 Baskets are piercing tomatoes and compressing them Other Wheelbarrow 1 Can be well used 82 Carriers 1 Easy carriage on the head Total Counts 1 0 34 Percentage 2,9% 0,0% 97,1% Value Chain Number / Name: 4 Ayomide Group Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets Explanation / Remarks compare to Plastic Crates Raffia Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Better Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 Crate would be convenient Sorting ?? 1 To prevent baskets from piercing tomatoes repeatedly Walking over the farm 1 Preferable small size crates or reduced quantity of tomatoes per time From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 Larger quantity Stacking in Storage area 1 Lower level of spoilage From Collection Point to vehicle 1 Easy carriage / reduced manipulation Transport Farm to Market / Loading on vehicle 1 Easy handling and space preservation Wholesale Stowage in the vehicle 1 Easy handling and space preservation Offloading from vehicle 1 Preventing from spoilage due to wooden partitioning and squeezing Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 Ease of stacking by carriers / easy conveyance Stacking / Display 1 Brings out the beauty of displayed tomatoes / attracts patronage 83 Transport from Wholesale Are to Bringing to Vehicle 1 Crates higher charges than baskets because it Retail cannot be manipulated Stowage in the vehicle 1 Sufficient space in trucks Offloading from vehicle 1 Smart offloading where baskets might fall off Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 1 Ease of carriage Repacking 1 Spoilage due to piercing is reduced. Good ventilation Handling in General Carrying 1 Ease of handling due to handles Repacking 1 Reduced basket piercing Nesting empty crates 1 Weight / size / capacity of crates is higher than baskets. Baskets can be squeezed, however their span of usage reduces Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading Stowage Offloading Motorcycle Loading 1 Easy stacking compared to baskets Stowage 1 Accommodates more volume than baskets Offloading 1 Easy handling Car Loading 1 Clean, can be stacked and preserved Stowage 1 Accommodates more for little space due to squeezing Offloading 1 Easy handling and moving Minibus Loading Stowage Offloading Truck Loading 1 Easy stacking / not squeezed ` Stowage 1 Takes more space but has more volume Offloading 1 Easy handling as crates cannot break off 84 Shed / Warehouse Bringing in Stacking filled with Tomatoes Stacking Empty Taking out Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 Baskets can be stacked and squeezed while crates can be stacked / nested but not be manipulated General Ventilation 1 Has pores and not manipulated Avoiding Contamination 1 Same: both have exposure level Ease of Cleaning 1 Easy to wash with water unlike baskets Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 Baskets have spines which pierce tomatoes and can be manipulated (squeezed) which causes damage to tomatoes Other Total Counts 4 1 28 Percentage 12,1% 3,0% 84,8% Value Chain Number / Name: 5 Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets Explanation / Remarks compare to Plastic Crates Raffia Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Better Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 More spacious and easier to carry with the handle Sorting ?? 1 It prevents more injury to product after sorting 85 Walking over the farm 1 They prefer using buckets as that is easier for them From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 It can be stacked and moved easier Stacking in Storage area 1 It helps prevent predator attacks and can be stacked From Collection Point to vehicle 1 Easier with stacking Transport Farm to Market / Loading on verhicle 1 It makes it easier to stack without injury Wholesale (spikes) as is the case with baskets Stowage in the vehicle 1 Same Offloading from vehicle 1 It prevents injury (spikes) during offloading and easier to carry Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 It is easier for off-loader to handle with less injury Stacking / Display 1 Makes it beautiful and does not cause further damage during display Transport from Wholesale Are to Bringing to Vehicle 1 It is easier for wheelbarrow to carry and stack Retail Stowage in the vehicle 1 Easier to handle for transportation which is always carefree Offloading from vehicle 1 Faster as the handles make it easier Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 1 Same as above Repacking 1 It gives the product a better quality as it does not cause injury Handling in General Carrying 1 It has handles which makes it easier Repacking 1 No further injuries to product Nesting empty crates 1 The stacking does not cause damage to crate but stacking baskets will reduce lifetime of basket 86 Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading Stowage Offloading Motorcycle Loading 1 Easier as it stacks (keys) well when loading from farm Stowage 1 Less space usage, maximizes space Offloading 1 Faster and easier to handle Car Loading Stowage Offloading Minibus Loading 1 Fast to load because it stacks on each other Stowage 1 Takes less space in the bus Offloading 1 Easier to handle with the handles. Causes less injury to off-loader who most times sustain minor injuries from basket spikes Truck Loading ` Stowage Offloading Shed / Warehouse Bringing in Stacking filled with Tomatoes Stacking Empty Taking out Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 Can be stacked much easier with no injury to persons General Ventilation 1 Provides more air to product Avoiding Contamination 1 Baskets introduce more contamination compared to crates Ease of Cleaning 1 Crates can be cleaned while baskets not 87 Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 Less damages to tomatoes Other Increased costs of transportation The product that can go into the bus are small as such, the cost of transport will be much higher with full load (transporter) Total Counts 0 1 29 Percentage 0,0% 3,3% 96,7% Value Chain Numbers 1-5 Overview Total How did Raffia Baskets Tomato Handling Activity compare to Plastic Crates Plastic Raffia Same Crates Better Better On Farm Harvesting 1 1 3 Sorting 5 Walking over the farm 1 1 3 From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 5 Stacking in Storage area 5 From Collection Point to vehicle 5 Transport Farm to Market / Wholesale Loading on vehicle 1 4 Stowage in the vehicle 1 4 Offloading from vehicle 5 Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 5 Stacking / Display 1,5 3,5 Transport from Wholesale Are to Retail Bringing to Vehicle 1 3 Stowage in the vehicle 4 Offloading from vehicle 4 88 Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 4 Repacking 1 4 Handling in General Carrying 5 Repacking 1 4 Nesting empty crates 3 2 Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading 1 Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Motorcycle Loading 3 Stowage 3 Offloading 3 Car Loading 4 Stowage 2 2 Offloading 4 Minibus Loading 3 Stowage 1 2 Offloading 3 Truck Loading 1 ` Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Shed / Warehouse Bringing in Stacking filled with Tomatoes Stacking Empty Taking out Returning Packaging Empties Handling 2 3 1 General Ventilation 5 Avoiding Contamination 1 4 89 Ease of Cleaning 5 Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 5 Other Wheelbarrow 1 Carriers 1 Increased costs of transportation Total Counts 14,5 5 135,5 Percentage 9,4% 3,2% 87,4% 90 ANNEX 2.17 Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 3 value chains, North, workshop 23 of April 2018, Tahir Guest Palace, Kano Value Chain Number / Name: Abayomi Group Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets Explanation / Remarks compare to Plastic Crates Raffia Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Better Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 The raffia basket holds much more tomatoes and saves harvest time Sorting ?? 1 The raffia basket holds much more tomatoes and saves harvest time Walking over the farm 1 The raffia basket holds much more tomatoes and saves harvest time From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 Stacking in Storage area 1 From Collection Point to vehicle 1 Transport Farm to Market / Loading on vehicle 1 Wholesale Stowage in the vehicle 1 Offloading from vehicle 1 Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 Stacking / Display 1 Transport from Wholesale Are Bringing to Vehicle 1 to Retail 91 Stowage in the vehicle 1 Offloading from vehicle 1 Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 1 Repacking 1 Handling in General Carrying Repacking Nesting empty crates Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading Stowage Offloading Motorcycle Loading Stowage Offloading Car Loading Stowage Offloading Minibus Loading 1 Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Truck Loading 1 ` Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Shed / Warehouse Bringing in Stacking filled with Tomatoes 1 Stacking Empty 1 Taking out 1 92 Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 There's no structure in place to return crates and the raffia baskets don’t require returning General Ventilation 1 Avoiding Contamination 1 Ease of Cleaning 1 Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 Other Total Counts 4 0 26 Percentage 13,3% 0,0% 86,7% Value Chain Number / Name: Zaira-Kaduna group Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets compare to Plastic Explanation / Remarks Crates Raffia Better Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 Sorting ?? 1 Easy handling and less heavy Walking over the farm 1 From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 Easy handling and less heavy Stacking in Storage area 1 From Collection Point to 1 vehicle Transport Farm to Market / Loading on vehicle 1 As above Wholesale 93 Stowage in the vehicle Offloading from vehicle 1 As above Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 Stacking / Display 1 Transport from Wholesale Bringing to Vehicle 1 Easy handling and strong body Area to Retail Stowage in the vehicle 1 Easy handling and strong body Offloading from vehicle 1 Easy handling and strong body Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 1 Easy handling and strong body Repacking 1 Easy handling and strong body Handling in General Carrying 1 It's handy and strong Repacking 1 strong Nesting empty crates 1 strong Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading 1 Easy to handle Stowage 1 Strong and can be nested Offloading 1 Easy handling Motorcycle Loading Stowage Offloading Car Loading 1 Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Minibus Loading 1 Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Truck Loading 1 Strong body, less heavy ` Stowage 1 It has a good shape Offloading 1 Easy handling 94 Shed / Warehouse Bringing in 1 Stacking filled with 1 Tomatoes Stacking Empty 1 Taking out 1 Returning Packaging Empties Handling Raffia basket is not returnable so we cannot compare the two General Ventilation 1 Avoiding Contamination 1 Ease of Cleaning 1 Easy to wash Avoiding Damage to 1 Tomatoes Other Returning the plastic is the most challenging Price 1 Attract higher price because of high quality grade in the plastic crate Total Counts 2 0 37 Percentage 5,1% 0,0% 94,9% Value Chain Number / Name: 3 Kaura group - Dakasoye Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets compare to Plastic Explanation / Remarks Crates Raffia Better Same Plastic Describe why the choice was made and/or Crates remarks Better On Farm Harvesting 1 Prevents spoilage and maintains freshness Sorting ?? 1 Raffia destroys tomato and it increases if there is stoppage 95 Walking over the farm 1 From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 1 Due to setting on each other (stackability), plastic crates are better even if the volume is low Stacking in Storage area 1 From Collection Point to 1 vehicle Transport Farm to Market / Loading on verhicle 1 Better because crates cannot be forced into Wholesale the vehicle as this is common for raffia Stowage in the vehicle 1 Offloading from vehicle 1 Plastic is easier for offloading because when raffia is used lots of tomato drops while offloading Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 1 Plastic is much better even though the price is expensive Stacking / Display 1 Transport from Wholesale Are Bringing to Vehicle 1 to Retail Stowage in the vehicle 1 More wastage in raffia if there is stowage Offloading from vehicle 1 Plastic crates prevents loss of tomato Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 1 Spoilage is prevented Repacking 1 50% loss if raffia is used Handling in General Carrying 1 Easier to carry crates but need a loader if raffia is used Repacking 1 Nesting empty crates 1 Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading 1 Arrangement is easier Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Motorcycle Loading 1 Can load more plastic crates than raffia 96 Stowage 1 Easier to carry but charges are more Offloading 1 Car Loading 1 Much more better Stowage 1 Better but the only challenge is transporter charges more Offloading 1 Better because they carry less compared to raffia Minibus Loading 1 Plastic is much better but payment is unsure Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Truck Loading 1 Plastic crates are better since wastages will be ` Stowage 1 prevented. The additional costs on Offloading 1 transportation is less than money recovered from prevented spoilage Shed / Warehouse Bringing in 1 Not possible to stack Raffia, with crates space is maximized Stacking filled with 1 Crates can be collapsed while raffia is mostly Tomatoes thrown away Stacking Empty 1 Taking out 1 Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 Raffia are never returned, but all crates are returned General Ventilation 1 Avoiding Contamination 1 Ease of Cleaning 1 Avoiding Damage to 1 Tomatoes Other Weighing 1 Is more convenient to the tomatoes using crates and better precision in nesting 97 Price of crates and raffia Even though raffia are cheaper, they are more easily lost. In the long run crates are much better, but there is need for more sensitization on this. Total Counts 0 0 44 Percentage 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% Value Chain Numers 1-3 Overview Total Tomato Handling Activity How did Raffia Baskets compare to Plastic Crates Raffia Same Plastic Better Crates Better On Farm Harvesting 1 2 Sorting 1 2 Walking over the farm 1 2 From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 3 Stacking in Storage area 3 From Collection Point to vehicle 3 Transport Farm to Market / Wholesale Loading on vehicle 3 Stowage in the vehicle 2 Offloading from vehicle 3 Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 3 Stacking / Display 3 Transport from Wholesale Are to Retail Bringing to Vehicle 3 98 Stowage in the vehicle 3 Offloading from vehicle 3 Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 3 Repacking 3 Handling in General Carrying 2 Repacking 2 Nesting empty crates 2 Transport in General 3-Cycle Loading 2 Stowage 2 Offloading 2 Motorcycle Loading 1 Stowage 1 Offloading 1 Car Loading 2 Stowage 2 Offloading 2 Minibus Loading 3 Stowage 3 Offloading 3 Truck Loading 3 ` Stowage 3 Offloading 3 Shed / Warehouse Bringing in 2 Stacking filled with Tomatoes 3 Stacking Empty 3 Taking out 3 Returning Packaging Empties Handling 1 1 General Ventilation 3 99 Avoiding Contamination 1 2 Ease of Cleaning 3 Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 2 Other Total Counts 6 105 Percentage 5,4% 94,6% 100 ANNEX 2.18 Comparison Raffia baskets vs Plastic crates for 8 value chains, summary sheet Value Chain Numers 1-8 Overview Total How did Raffia Baskets Tomato Handling Activity compare to Plastic Crates Plastic Raffia Same Crates Better Better On Farm Harvesting 2 1 5 Sorting 1 7 Walking over the farm 2 1 5 From farm to Collection Point Bringing to Collection Point 8 Stacking in Storage area 8 From Collection Point to vehicle 8 Transport Farm to Market / Wholesale Loading on vehicle 1 7 Stowage in the vehicle 1 6 Offloading from vehicle 8 Market / Wholesale Area Bringing to Wholesale Area 8 Stacking / Display 1,5 6,5 Transport from Wholesale Are to Retail Bringing to Vehicle 1 6 Stowage in the vehicle 7 Offloading from vehicle 7 Market / Retail Sales Area Bringing to Retail Area 7 Repacking 1 7 Handling in General Carrying 7 Repacking 1 6 Nesting empty crates 3 4 Transport in General 101 3-Cycle Loading 3 Stowage 3 Offloading 3 Motorcycle Loading 4 Stowage 4 Offloading 4 Car Loading 6 Stowage 2 4 Offloading 6 Minibus Loading 6 Stowage 1 5 Offloading 6 Truck Loading 4 ` Stowage 4 Offloading 4 Shed / Warehouse Bringing in 2 Stacking filled with Tomatoes 3 Stacking Empty 3 Taking out 3 Returning Packaging Empties Handling 3 4 General Ventilation 8 Avoiding Contamination 1 1 6 Ease of Cleaning 8 Avoiding Damage to Tomatoes 1 7 Other 1 1 Total Counts 20,5 5 239,5 Percentage 7,7% 1,9% 90,4% 102 ANNEX 2.19 Comparison sun-drying on the ground versus sun-drying on raised platforms, 23 April, Kano Value Chain Total, 3 groups Dakasoye Group Yankaba Group Babbar Ruga Number / Name: 1-3 Tomato How did drying on the How did drying on the How did drying on the How did drying on the Drying raised platform compare raised platform compare raised platform compare raised platform compare Process and to Ground drying to Ground drying to Ground drying to Ground drying Parameters Ground Same Raised Ground Same Raised Ground Same Raised Ground Same Raised Drying Platform Drying Platform Drying Platform Drying Platform Preparation Cutting 0 0 3 1 1 1 and loading for drying Loading and 0 0 3 1 1 1 spreading of tomato for drying Monitoring Checking for 0 0 3 1 1 1 dry status Removal of 0 0 3 1 1 1 foreign material Insects 0 0 3 1 1 1 contamination Drying Surface area 2 1 0 1 1 1 capacity available for drying Speed of 1 1 1 1 1 1 drying 103 Quality and Quantity of 3 0 0 1 1 1 Quantity dried produce (tomato) Quality of 0 0 3 1 1 1 dried produce Level of 0 0 3 1 1 1 foreign material e.g. sand, stones, unusable produce etc. Offloading Ease of 0 0 3 1 1 1 offloading from drying area Cost and Cost of setting 3 0 0 1 1 1 Maintenance up the system (which system is more expensive to set-up?) Ease of reuse 1 0 2 1 1 1 of drying system Value of Which system 0 0 3 1 1 1 dried generates produce higher price product? Other Overall 0 0 3 1 1 1 preference Total Counts 10 2 33 5 0 10 2 2 11 3 0 12 Percentage 22,2% 4,4% 73,3% 33,3% 0,0% 66,7% 13,3% 13,3% 73,3% 20,0% 0,0% 80,0% 104 ANNEX 2.20 Elements for a business model, South West, workshop 13 of January 2018, Ibadan Value chain 1 – Elements for a business model Item Proposal Investment ▪ Investment primarily by farmers and dealers, who has several farmers (> 20) ▪ Haulier brings them back to the farmers ▪ Retailers have their own crates and containers Ownership Basically farmers and dealers Losses / damages Lost and damaged crates should be paid by the actor creating it Administration Administer the crates seriously Risks ▪ Theft / loss (the crates are attractive) ▪ Trust = important Pricing Fixed price ??? Measurement Standardized sizes Profit Sharing profit: all should benefit Value chain 2 – Elements for a business model Item Proposal Ownership Farmer Benefits ▪ Farmer revenue for sales will go up ▪ Haulier: loading capacity will go up, damage will go down ▪ Retailer: grade will be better Administration ▪ Haulier brings crates back to the farmer from the market ▪ Retailer stocks crates in the meantime Risks and challenges ▪ Increasing unit costs should set off higher price ▪ Haulier: agreement needed on higher transport price ▪ Dealer: ? ▪ Retailer: ? Pricing ▪ Haulier price for transporting crates slightly higher ▪ Should be market driven Financing ▪ Farmer needs more crates – use of crates pays off, growth in number of crates bit by bit ▪ Retained income 105 Value chain 3 – Elements for a business model Item Proposal Ownership Every actor (producers, wholesalers, retailers) should own crates Operational aspect Every actor should have crates immediately available at transaction (don’t handle tomatoes) Costs Costs are not known as the number is not known. Question: is subsidy available? Finance ▪ Instalment of a leasing project? ▪ Rental: could that be a business for a third party? ▪ Cooperative between actors: alliance to ease the business Damages Penalty Risk ▪ Mostly damages. How to maintain quality? ▪ Losses or theft? Measurement One size → no issues of doubt or trust Profit ▪ To be shared by all. All are assured of quantity and quality ▪ Advantages cycle: immediate exchange Oganisation Suggestion: establish a cooperative to (?? Illegible) and to manage crates NOTE 1 Moment of price negotiation tomatoes: inclusive crate NOTE 2 Government involvement to avoid many different “standard� crates Value chain 4 – Elements for a business model Item Proposal Cycle ▪ All actors should have crates: farmers, wholesalers, retailers. ▪ Note: exchange old versus new crates: how? ▪ Dealer possesses excess crates for his farmers Measurement 3 raffia baskets fill 1 crate → loyalties between players + fixed price per crate Risks ▪ Transporter fears to carry less product ▪ Transport per basket costs NGN 100, crate NGN 300 ▪ Retailer: acceptance of measure standard Funding All actors buy / finance – credit funds Management / Operation Quality = driving factor → pays off Penalty ▪ Exchange of crates: refund / discount or provide new. ▪ Loss: idem Profit Most will be at the retailer (quality improvement / shelf life_ Value chain 5 – Elements for a business model Item Proposal Actors Farmers and retailers are major actors Cycle Bring full + collect MT (?) every step. If he sells elsewhere: farmer responsible to get the crate back Risk Loss: check per step Return on investment Rent basket NGN 500 / month Baskets: buys 12 new ones each year → Return on investment < 1 year + increased value of tomatoes Profit Haulier brings back crates on next trip from the market Farmer gains 2x (cost package + quality) Retailer gains more product + better grades 106 ANNEX 2.21 Elements for a business model, North, workshop 23 of April 2018, Kano Parameter Ibrahim Group Zaria Group Kaura's Group Ownership - Dealer and retailer - Third party service - Farmer - Third party can also provider (crate hire - Wholesaler be involved in hiring service) - Retailer crates - Retailer Returns Dealer returns crates Third party service -Exchange between farmers and (transportation provider wholesalers charges included in -Exchange between wholesalers the hiring fees) and retailers -Understanding between farmers and transporters Risk - Crates can get -Default -Initial investment on crates damaged or lost -Damage -Insufficient crates at wholesaler -Theft -Limited knowledge on stacking -Loading (crates) with other items -Exposure to rainfall and sun -Limited relationships between farmers and transporters -Cost of moving empty crates Penalties -The farmer or any -Foregoing deposits -Understanding between person who hired the -Guarantor/undertaking farmers and transporters: crates should pay for -Fines transporters will be responsible any damage or loss -Prosecution if theft (of crates) through negligence (100%); if accident, then owner of crates bears risk Administration -Should be included in the hiring fees if there will be any Operations -Farmer hires from -Third party will be -Cooperative model whereby model in the dealer>>the responsible for renting farmers work together for joint general dealer, also has a and retrieving the investment, monitoring and contact at destination plastic crates traceability who administer his -Transporters also integrated crates (storing and into this value chain cleaning). -The contact at destination will arrange for returning the crates (transportation charges included in the hiring fee) 107 ANNEX 2.22 Elements for a business plan for improved sun-drying of tomatoes on raised platforms Musa (Dakasoye) drying group Factor How Scale 30% – 50% ▪ If the market is fairly good, 30%; if not, 50% ▪ We can achieve this by arranging enough drying facilities, most especially raised platforms How often ▪ 20 – 25 times during the dry season ▪ 100 – 125 days ▪ Between 3 – 4 months Central drying versus individual ▪ The preferred: individual owned unit ▪ Because to avoid clash of interest / scarcity of the drying facilities Economic lifetime ▪ 3 years approximately Yankaba and Zainab’s drying groups Factor How Scale of drying ▪ A farmer can afford to dry half the vehicle containing 300 baskets ▪ Can dry up to 150 baskets (50%) Frequency / duration ▪ On the average during 8 months ▪ Duration dry harmattan – 5 days ▪ Duration heat period – 4 days ▪ 6 times a month ▪ On the average in 3 months: 18 times ▪ In a year (18 months): 48 times ▪ During harmattan and heat period ▪ Drying can not be done in the rainy season Central drying versus individual ▪ Central drying facility: ease of access, job creation for youth ▪ Individual owned unit – will only be for the farmer Economic lifetime ▪ 3 years approximately 108 ANNEX 2.23 Structure and cost price structure across the tomato value chain (Coffey International, 2013, p. 29, 31, 33) Annex 2.23 A – Tomato Value Chain Only a small proportion of the tomatoes reach convenience shops, supermarkets, hotels and restaurants. The figure shows the fragmented nature of the tomato value chains, with many players between farmer and micro retailer. 109 Annex 2.23 B – Comparison of Supply Chain Trading In comparison with the supermarket supply chain, the traditional supply chain is very fragmented. 110 Annex 2.23 C. - Cost price structure across the value chain (See also Excel file) No. Actor Description Yield Kg / Unit size Unit N cost N costs / N selling N income Margin N Margin % ha kg price / kg / kg (Own elaboration in Excel, of the table in Coffey 1 Producer / grower International, p. a expenses 33). b growing costs seedlings, fertlizers, chemicals, labour 1 ha 220.000 31,43 c yield kg / ha = 7.000 The amounts in d marketing costs transport to collection centre (N 120 / 500 Km 60.000 8,57 Naira in this table km), 16 trips of 31,25 km return over 8 weeks (2 per week) are from 2013 and e expenses total 40,00 need updates. f income selling basket size 40 kg 175 40 Kg 2.250 56,25 What is important g nett margin 16,25 40,63 in this model are the different 2 Dealer (bulk and distribute) elements of the cost price structure a expenses at different levels b buying price (cost of sales) 40 Kg 2.250 56,25 c aggregating agent 10% farm price as commission 10 % 225 5,63 of the supply d total load = 500 baskets x 40 Kg 20.000 Kg chain. The cost e operating expenses price structure f loading cost N 12.000 per truck, baskets = 500 1 truck 12.000 1,67 may be highly g transporter fee N 150.000, baskets = 500 1 truck 150.000 7,50 h unloading cost x 10 people at N 1.000, baskets = 500 1 truck 10.000 0,50 differentiated i baskets 500 baskets, at basket price = 300 1 truck 150.000 7,50 according to region j marketing costs and season. The k administration agent 3% wholesale price 3% 158 3,94 selling price / l dealers agent fee 10% wholesale price 10 % 525 13,13 m expenses total 96,10 buying price at different stages is n income selling selling price to wholesaler 40 kg 5.250 131,25 marked in yellow/ o nett margin 35,15 36,57 p gross margin 75,00 133,33 111 3 Wholesaler a expenses b buying price (cost of sales) 40 kg 5.250 131,25 c operating expenses d space rental fee equivalent N 40 / basket 40 kg 40 1,00 e expenses total 132,25 f income selling selling price to retailer 40 kg 6.000 150 g nett margin 17,75 13,42 h gross margin 18,75 14,29 4 Retailer a expenses b buying price (cost of sales) 40 kg 6.000 150 c operating expenses d grading labour own labour 0 e bowls neglible 0 f space rental fee equivalent N 40 / basket 40 kg 40 1,00 g transport local (if used) N 2 / km / basket, 10 km 40 kg 20 0,50 h expenses total 151,50 i income selling Percen- per bowl per kg within 40 weighted tage of of 5 kg kg income / basket kg j quality grade 1 good 40% 16 kg 1.600 320 5.120 187,00 k quality grade 2 average 10% 4 kg 1.250 250 1.000 l quality grade 3 poor 20% 8 kg 700 140 1.120 m quality grade 4 very poor 10% 4 kg 200 40 160 n quality grade 5 bad 20% 8 kg 50 10 80 o TOTAL 100% 40 kg 7.480 p nett margin 35,50 23,43 q gross margin 37,00 24,67 112 ANNEX 2.24 Business model crates Exchange rate, 1€ = 420,00 NGN EURO RAFFIA BASKETS Truck loading capacity 450 raffia baskets Each basket, capacity of 50 kg tomatoes Total weight 22.500 kg tomatoes on the truck Cost basket 400 NGN cost price each raffia basket € 0,95 Total cost baskets 180.000 NGN total cost raffia baskets € 428,57 Transport with basket 400 NGN transport cost per basket € 0,95 Transport with basket, per kg 8,00 NGN per kilo tomatoes € 0,02 Transport with basket including cost of basket 16,00 NGN per kilo tomatoes € 0,04 Total cost transport 180.000 NGN transport costs truckload € 428,57 Total cost transport with baskets 1 truckload 360.000 NGN transport + costs raffia baskets € 857,14 Average volume tomatoes by farmer per season 42.000 kg average total volume per farmer TOTAL cost 1 season 42.000 kg 1,87 truckloads TOTAL cost 1 season 42.000 kg 672.000 NGN 1,87 truckloads € 1.600,00 Gross revenue per kg 200 NGN class A 60% € 0,48 Gross revenue per kg 100 NGN class B 40% € 0,24 Gross revenue class A 60% 5.040.000 NGN € 12.000,00 Gross revenue class B 40% 1.680.000 NGN € 4.000,00 TOTAL 6.720.000 NGN € 16.000,00 Average per kilo 160 NGN € 0,38 TOTAL 42.000 kg 6.720.000 NGN € 16.000,00 Gross revenue minus transport costs 6.048.000 NGN € 14.400,00 113 PLASTIC RETURNABLE CRATES Truck loading capacity 700 plastic returnable crates Each crate, capacity of 25 kg tomatoes Total weight 17.500 kg tomatoes on the truck Cost crate 2.700 NGN per crate € 6,43 Average lifetime crates 4 – 6 years 4 Years for this calculation Use per season 20 times Total use 80 times, 4 years x 20 times Cost crate each time 33,75 NGN, cost of crate divided by 80 € 0,08 Investment 4 x 700 crates 7.560.000 NGN, loan, principal for 2800 crates € 18.000,00 Interest rate 10 % per year outstanding sum Total interest paid 3.326.400 NGN interest € 7.920,00 Total cost of loan 10.886.400 NGN, principal + interest € 25.920,00 Loan period 3 years Recovery loan in 3 years 3.628.800 NGN per year € 8.640,00 Charge each trip (20 per year) 181.440 NGN per trip € 432,00 Charge per crate value 700 crates 259 NGN per crate, break even in 3 years € 0,62 Transporter wants 180.000 / 17.500 per kg 10,29 NGN per kilo € 0,02 Transport cost per crate = 1,5x 15,43 NGN per kilo forth and back € 0,04 Transport with crate including cost of crate 25,80 NGN per kilo tomatoes € 0,06 Total cost transport with crates, truckload 17.500 kg 451.440 NGN transport + costs plastic crates € 1.074,86 Average volume tomatoes by farmer per season 42.000 kg average total volume per farmer TOTAL cost 1 season 42.000 kg 2,4 truckloads TOTAL cost 1 season 42.000 kg 1.083.456 NGN 2,4 truckloads € 2.579,66 Gross revenue per kg 200 NGN class A 90% € 0,48 Gross revenue per kg 100 NGN class B 10% € 0,24 Gross revenue class A 90% 7.560.000 NGN € 18.000,00 Gross revenue class B 10% 420.000 NGN € 1.000,00 Gross revenue 7.980.000 NGN € 19.000,00 Average per kilo 190 NGN per kilo € 0,45 114 TOTAL 42.000 kg 7.980.000 NGN € 19.000,00 Gross revenue minus transport costs 6.896.544 NGN € 16.420,34 Owner of the crates Extra profit – 2 years more crates will be used 2 years, because loan is paid Charge per crate 259 NGN per crate each trip € 0,62 Charge each time 181.440 NGN per trip € 432,00 Number of trips 20 per year Total per year 3.628.800 NGN per year € 8.640,00 Total gross revenue 21.772.800 NGN in 6 years € 51.840,00 NET PROFIT 7.257.600 NGN in 6 years € 17.280,00 LOAN NGN Main Interest TOTAL 7.560.000 2.520.000 1.663.200 4.183.200 5.040.000 2.520.000 1.108.800 3.628.800 2.520.000 2.520.000 554.400 3.074.400 TOTAL 7.560.000 3.326.400 10.886.400 115 ANNEX 3 Overview of activities and meetings Date Activity Remarks 6 March 2017 NABC workshop on post-harvest losses Nigeria and Benin 4 April 2017 Contract with World Bank accepted 14 April 2017 Team meeting. 10 May 2017 Team meeting. 17 May 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE. June 2017 Contracting of team members Peace Quadt, Milindi Sibomana, Frits Blessing. July 2017 Completion of the project team with the contracting of Emmanuel Akinwekomi (July 2017), under the institutional umbrella of the International Fertilizer Development Centre in Nigeria (IFDC). https://ifdc.org/nigeria 19 June 2017 Inception report sent to the World Bank. June - July 2017 Extension of the network of the project team with relevant organisations and institutions in Nigeria focussed on reduction of post-harvest losses in the tomato value chain (GEMS4, PLAN / GAIN, Yieldwise / PYXERA, NCDA, 2SCALE / IFDC, COLAECP). 2 June 2027 SKYPE conference with Henri Nwanguma, president of the Nigeria Cold Chain Development Association (NCDA) 2 June 2027 SKYPE conference with Thompson Ogunsamnni, IFDC Nigeria 7 June 2017 SKYPE conference with Raphaël Vogelsperger, IFDC West Africa 11 June 2017 SKYPE conference with Augustine Okoruwa, PLAN / GAIN project 13 June 2017 SKYPE conference with Gerry McCarthy and Richard Ogundele, GEMS4 project 23 June 2017 SKYPE conference with Benedicte Werner, COLEACP 7 July SKYPE conference with Lauren Rawlings, Enclude Solutions 22 August 2017 SKYPE conference with Lekan Tobe, project manager PYXERA 16 June 2017 Structural collaboration established with a research project of the Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR): “Reduce postharvest losses of vegetables for healthier urban consumption in Lagos and Ibadan, Nigeria�, by the Wageningen Economic Research department (WEcR) and the Wageningen Food and Biobased Research department (WFBR), Christine Plaisier and Youri Dijkxhoorn, researchers. https://www.wur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Research-Institutes.htm 17 - 22 July 2017 First exploring mission of the project team to Nigeria (Peace Quadt, Milindi Milindi Sibomana, Emmanuel Akinwekomi). Sibomana, Peace Lagos State Ministry of Agriculture, meeting with Mr. Adebisi Adegboye, in Quadt, charge of markets and value chains Emmanuel Lagos, Mile 12 market, meeting with retail traders Akinwekomi Best Food / Nigeria Agri Business Group (NABG), meeting with Emmanuel Ijewere, CEO Maersk Group, APM terminal, meeting with Neil Mackin Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition GAIN, meeting with Augustine Okoruwa, project manager Igbodun, meeting with farmers from the Epe Farmers Group SPAR, Ilupeju Lagos, meeting with manager, Mr. Atanu ... 116 Thelma Farms - Ijebu Omu, Imaka village, Ogun State, meeting with export farmer, Mr. Moses … 2SCALE project, implemented by the International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC), meeting with Thompson Ogunsanmi GEMS4, meeting with Richard Ogundele, group intervention manager Nigerian Export Promotion Council, meeting with Lola Jemibewon (Special Advisor to the CEO), William Ezeagu (Director of Product Development) and Samuel Oyeyipo (Deputy Director of Product Development) Agricultural Fresh Produce Growers Exporters Association of Nigeria (AFGEAN), Akin Sawyer July - August 2017 Design and discussion of questionnaires for farmers, hauliers, traders and of Millindi the database Excel tool. Sibomana, Luud Clercx 14 - 15 August 2017 Training workshop of 5 enumerators. August 2017 Implementation of surveys in the South-West, among 48 farmers, 44 hauliers and 48 traders operating in Lagos and surrounding states: Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Katsina, oriented at the Sahsa market in Ibadadn and 12 Mile market in Lagos. 23 August 2017 Face-to face meeting Wageningen team and Agrofair team to explore Christine possible synergies (after several SKYPE conferences). Plaisier, Youri Dijkxhoorn, Peace Quadt, Frits Blessing, Luud Clercx 28 August 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE. 4 September 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE. 24 October 2017 Face-to-face team meeting to prepare the first Living Lab workshop Peace Quadt, Frits Blessing, Luud Clercx 28 October - 4 Second mission of the project team to Nigeria. Milindi November 2017 Sibomana, Peace 29 - 31 October 2017 Exploration of the characteristics of the tomato sector in the Northern Quadt, region of Nigeria. Emmanuel 28 October 2017 Meeting with Lekan Tobe, project manager at PYXERA. Akinwekomi, 29 October 2017 Visit to the Badume market - the biggest aggregration market in North Frits Blessing, Nigeria. Meeting with tomato traders and the chairman and secretary of Luud Clercx, Christine Plaisir, their association at de Badume market. Thompson 29 October 2017 Meeting with Auwal Salusi, Jose Romaric Akplogan, Sanusi Bature, Ogunamni Tajuddeen Abubakar, Ja'afar Yusuf Bashir and Alh. Hassan Isiyah , YieldWise (workshop). program team at PYXERA. 30 October 2017 Meeting with the director of the Nigerian Railway Corporation in Kano. 30 October 2017 Virtual meeting via SKYPE with Mr. Baher El-Hifnawi and Mr. Leszek Zemke, Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Sustainable Logistics. 31 October 2017 Meeting with the PYXERA team; visit to a hub in the field, under construction. 31 October 2017 Visit to the tomato paste plant of Dangote in Kadawa, Kano; meeting with Mr. Alhaji Abdulkarim Kaita, Managing Director and tour around the plant. 117 2 - 3 November 2017 First multi-stakeholder Living Lab workshop, IITA venue, Ibadan. Presentation and validation of the results of the surveys held in the South- West among farmers, hauliers and traders. Mapping of tomato value chains and bottlenecks; indicating solutions to reduce post-harvest losses; proposing pilot projects. A total of 34 participants, including the project team (5) and enumerators (5). 7 November 2017 Participation in event of the 2SCALE programme, Utrecht, The Netherlands (project partners IFDC is implementing this programme in Nigeria). 17 November 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 20 November 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 23 November 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 24 November 2017 Participation in meeting with Ambassadors of Africa, organized by the NABC and the Rabobank in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Meeting with the Nigerian team and H.E. Mr. Oji Nyimenaute Ngofa, Ambassador, and Jibril Jibril, First Secretary. 27 November 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 28 - 29 November Training workshop of 5 enumerators. 2017 November - December Implementation of surveys in The North, among 158 farmers, 89 hauliers 2017 and 109 traders operating in the states Kano and Kaduna states , oriented at the Badume, Dutse-Wei, YanKaba markets in the North and the 12 Mile market in Lagos. 7 - 10 December 2017 Kick-off workshop and meetings to launch the pilot projects in the South- Emmanuel West, IITA venue, Ibadan, especially the use of plastic returnable crates in 5 Akinwekomi and value chains and the construction of sheds on two farms. A total of 33 Thompson participants, including the project team (4) and enumerators (5). Ogounsamni (IFDC), Christine Plaisier and Youri Dijkxhoorn (WUR) 3 - 6 December 2018 Presentation of a poster at the 3rd International Congress on Global Food Security, Cape Town, South Africa, 3 – 6 December 2017, by Hans-Willem van der Waal. http://www.globalfoodsecurityconference.com/ 4 December 2017 Presentation of an abstract (approved) to the symposium “Horticultural Economics and Management�, one of the many symposia of the XXX Congress of the ISHS (International Society for Horticultural Science), 12 - 16 of August 2018 in Istanbul, Turkey. The draft article was uploaded 14 of May. https://www.ihc2018.org/en/S24.html 5 December 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 12 December 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE. 18 December 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 19 December 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE. 20 December 2017 Progess report sent to the World Bank. 28 December 2017 Team meeting via SKYPE. 6 - 14 January 2018 Third mission of the project team to Nigeria. 118 8 - 9 January 2018 Second multi-stakeholder Living Lab workshop, Tahir Guest Palace venue, Kano. Presentation and validation of the results of the surveys held in the Milindi North among farmers, hauliers and traders. Mapping of tomato value Sibomana, Peace chains and bottlenecks; indicating of solutions to reduce post-harvest Quadt, losses; proposing pilot projects. A total of 39 participants, including the Emmanuel project team (5) and enumerators (5). Akinwekomi, Frits Blessing, 10 - 12 January 2018 Logistics, packing, transport, cold chain - meetings with companies and Luud Clercx other actors 10 January 2018 Nigeria Cold Chain Development Association (NCDA), meeting with Henri Nwaguma, chair. 11 January 2018 Shongai Plastics, meeting with Mr. Umesh Bharti, Plant Manager, and Mr. Ajai Musaddi, Group Managing Director. 11 January 2018 Best Food / Nigeria Agri Business Group (NABG) / Naija Pride, meeting with Emmanuel Ijewere, CEO of Best Foods fresh Farms Ltd; Temitope Oluwo, Executive Assistant of NABG; Nwarneri Olubukola, CEO of Naija Pride, and others. 11 January 2018 CELPLAS, meeting with Mr. Rajiv Daryananini, Plant Manager. 12 January 2018 Nigeria Railway Corporation, meeting with Mr. Niyi Alli, Director of Operations, and Assistant Project Director. 13 January 2018 Feedback workshop pilot project South-West: use of plastic crates, discussion of an appropriate business model. A total of 46 participants, including the project team (6) and enumerators (5). 19 January 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 2 February 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 8 February 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 12 - 16 February 2018 Kick-off workshop and meetings to launch the pilot projects, Tahir Guest Emmanuel Palace venue, Kano, especially the use of plastic returnable crates in 3 long Akinwekomi, haul value chains and the construction of raised platforms for improved Youri Dijkxhoorn sundrying of tomatoes. A total of 40 participants including the project team (2) and enumerators (5). 20 February 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 22 February 2018 National Stakeholders'Committee for Governance, Promotion and Emmanuel Regulation of Tomato in Nigeria, Kaduna State Government House Akinwekomi 6 March 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 12 March 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE. 26 March 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE. 4 April 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 5 April 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE. 13 April 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE. 21 - 28 April 2018 Fourth mission of the project team to Nigeria. Milindi 23 April 2018 Sibomana, Peace Feedback workshop pilot project South-West: use of plastic crates, use of raise platforms, discussion of an appropriate business model for both Quadt, Emmanuel innovations. A total of 38 participants, including the project team (5) and enumerators (3). Akinwekomi, 24 - 26 April 2018 Meetings with development organisations and governmental and financial Thompson institutions in Abuja Ogunsamni, Luud Clercx 24 April 2018 GIZ, Jonne Bruecher, Thomas Wyn Davis 24 April 2018 OXFAM, Michael Adeola, Wayne Brook, Ukwuagu Chioma 24 April 2018 Bank of Industry, Jack Kings, Regional Manaer North Central Region 24 April 2018 IFDC, Mohammed Salasi Idris, Nigeria Country Representatve 25 April 2018 Interview with two video companies 25 April 2018 FMARD, Mike Kanu 119 26 April 2018 Wold Bank, Mr. Olatunji Ahmed 27 April 2018 Agri-business & Food summit 2018, Victoria Island Lagos, organized by the Emmanuel BusinessDay Online magazine: "Evolving actionable models to make Akinwekomi, agribusiness more viable". Distinghuished speakers included the Federal Luud Clercx, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Chief Audu Innocent Hans Willem van Ogbeh, the Governor of Edo State, Mr. Godwin Nogheghase Obaseki, and der Waal Mr. Michael Deelen, head of the Netherlands Representation in Lagos, in the name of the Embassador of the Netherlands in Nigeria. Presentation by Hans Willem van der Waal, CEO of Agrofair and keynote speaker: "Supply chains, food safety and security - a view from practice". The research project on the post-harvest losses in the tomato value chain and the living lab methodology were highlighted. Contacts and brief talks with: - Netherlands Embassy, Mr. Michael Deelen, head of Netherlands Representation in Lagos. - Netherlands Embassy, Mr. Robert J. Petri, Ambassador. - ESAN Microfinance Bank Ltd., Fred Ijewere, Chairman - Babban Gona ("Great Farm"), Kola Masha, Managing Director - Diamond Bank Plc., Lois Sankey, Head Agrifinance, Emerging Businesses - Sterling Bank Plc., Olubukunola Awosanya, Group Head Agriculture & '- Export Finance - First Bank, Muhammad Kagu, Group Head Agriculture Finance - ALYX Limited, Alexander Isong, CEO - Frank Aigbogun, Business Day Online, CEO - Connect Rail Services, Edeme Kelikume, CEO 14 May 2018 Team meeting via SKYPE, together with WUR team. 8 - 10 May Video crew in Lagos and surroundings 22 - 26 May Video crew in Kano and surroundings 12 - 16 August International Horticulture Congress, Istanbul 120 ANNEX 4 Overview workshops Date Workshop Where Days Team Enume- Farmers, TOTAL rators Hauliers, Partici- Traders pants 2 - 3 November First Living Lab workshop, Ibadan 2 6 5 23 34 2017 South-West. 7 - 10 December Kick-off workshop pilot Ibadan 2 4 5 24 33 2017 projects South - East 8 - 9 January 2018 Second Living Lab workshop, Kano 2 5 5 29 39 North 13 January 2018 Feedback workshop on the Ibadan 1 6 5 35 46 use of plastic crates, South- West 12 - 16 February Kick-off workshop pilot Kano 2 2 5 32 40 2018 projects North 23 April 2018 Feedback workshop on the Kano 1 5 3 30 38 use of plastic crates and raised platforms, North TOTAL 10 28 28 173 230 Average 4,7 4,7 28,8 38,3 121 ANNEX 5 References (updated) Achterbosch, Thom. 2016. Systems for healthier food consumption. Behavior and foresight perspectives. Wageningen. Workshop presentation. http://edepot.wur.nl/408783. Achterbosch, Thom, Ireen Raaijmakers, Gemma Tacken, Harriette Snoek and Bussie Maziya-Dixon. 2017. Drivers of vegetable consumption in urban Nigeria. Preliminary results on diagnostics and leverage points. Presentation for Nigeria stakeholder workshop, 27-29 March, IITA, Ibadan. Adebooye, O.C., and A.J. Faride. 1997. A Review of Postharvest Losses in Fruits and Vegetables in Nigeria: The Need for an Extension Strategy. http://journal.aesonnigeria.org/index.php/jae/article/view/315 Adegbola JA, Awagu F, Adu EA, Anugwom UD, Ishola DT, and Bodunde AA. 2012. Investment opportunities in tomato processing in kano, Northern Nigeria. Nigerian Stored Products Research Institute, PMB 3032, Kano, Nigeria. http://garj.org/garjas/12/2012/1/10/investment-opportunities-in-tomato-processing-in-kano- northern-nigeria AjaKaiye, Adeola. 2018. Nigeria woos foreign investors bridging tomato production gap. In BusinessDay Online, May 11, 2018. https://www.businessdayonline.com/companies/agriculture/article/nigeria-woos-foreign- investors-bridging-tomato-production-gap/ AETS Consortium. 2018. Support to the implementation of the Nigerian Component of the West Africa Competitiveness Programme. (EU). Draft Final Report. Annex 10: Tomato Sector Study. Agbola, Bolade. 2018. Separating herdsmen from farmers for enduring peace. In: Businessday Online, May 21, 2018. http://www.businessdayonline.com/exclusives/analysis-sub/article/separating- herdsmen-farmers-enduring-peace/ Ahmadu-Suka, M and Yaro, MH. 2016. Nigeria: how Kaduna ginger farmers hit gold. http://allafrica.com/stories/201603030439.html Akinpelumi, Jegede. 2018. Report of the activities of Value Chain 3, activity round 1. Aminu, Abba and Shehu A Musa. 2006(?). Tomato Commodity Chain Analysis in Kano River Irrigation Project, Nigeria. A study commissioned by the Agricultural Development in Nigeria (ADENI) Project, French Embassy / NAERLS, A.B.U; Zaria. Conducted by Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Bayero University,Kano http://hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/nigeria_tomato_report.pdf Babarinsa, Olumuyiwa, Folorunso Babarinsa and Richard Ogundele. 2017. Willingness to Adopt Plastic Crate by Actors in the Tomato Value Chain in Nigeria. FADEB / Federal University of Technology Akure / GEMS4. In: World Food Preservation Centre (2017), Book of abstracts. Bahadur, Kishna KC, Iftekharul Haque, Alexander F. Legwegoh and Evan D.G. Fraser. 2016. Strategies to Reduce Food Loss in the Global South. In: Sustainability 2016, Vol 8. www.mdpi.com/2071- 1050/8/7/595/pdf 122 Blessing, Frits, 2018. Living lab workshop Tahir Guest Palace, Kano Nigeria, 8 and 9 January 2018. Workshop report. Bolarin, FM and Bosa, SO. 2015. Postharvest losses: a dilemma in ensuring food security in Nigeria. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 5(7): 151-154. http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JNSR/article/viewFile/21502/22098 Businessday Online editor. 2016. Labour Union calls for FX policy review on tomato paste concentrate. In: Businessday Online, January 6, 2016. http://www.businessdayonline.com/companies/agriculture/article/labour-union-calls-for-fx- policy-review-on-tomatoes-paste-concentrate/ Clercx, L. and M. Sibomana. 2017. Agrilogistics – Nigeria. Improving Inland Transport Modalities for Vegetables and Food Crops between Production Zones, Urban Conglomerations and Export Hubs. Inception report / work plan. Barendrecht, The Netherlands. CFS-HLPE. 2017. HLPE contribution to CFS for SDG 2 review by the HLPF. Rome. FAO. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1617/OEWG-SDGs/Meeting- 01/CFS_OEWG_SDGs_2017_01_27_HLPE_contribution_to_CFS_for_SDG2.pdf CFS-HLPE. 2017. 2 nd Note on Critical and Emerging Issues for Food Security and Nutrition. Rome. FAO. https://www.agropolis.fr/pdf/actu/hlpe-note-april-2017.pdf COLEACP. 2017. Overview and opportunities of the European market for fruit and vegetables of ACP origin. Rungis, France. www.coleacp.org. Coffey International. 2013. Tomato production and marketing. Tomato Value Chain Analysis Nigeria. Department of Agriculture South Africa. 2008. Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment: Transformation Charter for Agriculture- AgriBEE. National Department of Agriculture, Pretoria, South Africa. http://www.elsenburg.com/sites/default/files/services-at-a-glance-forms/2015-04- 21/AgriBEE%20Transformation%20Charter.pdf Dijkxhoorn, Youri. 2017. Interview guidelines (pilot project introduction of plastic crates). Dijkxhoorn, Youri, Christine Plaisier, Coen van Wagenberg Tim Verwaart, Jos Verstegen, Ruerd Ruben. 2017. Value chain laboratory. Alternative evaluation method for assessing value chain dynamics. Wageningen. http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/420482 Edeh, Harisson. 2017a. FG announces new tomato policy to protect over $180m market. In: Businessday Online, April 11, 2017. http://www.businessdayonline.com/exclusives/article/fg-announces-new-tomato-policy-protect- 180m-market/ Edeh, Harisson. 2017b. Updated: FG announces new tomato policy to grow local industry, curb wastage. In: Businessday Online, April 12, 2017. http://www.businessdayonline.com/exclusives/article/updated-fg-announces-new-tomato- policy-grow-local-industry-curb-wastage/ ENCLUDE. 2018. Agriculture Logistics and Transport Accelerator (ALTSA): Pilot Overview. 123 Etebu Ebimieowei, A. B. Nwauzoma and D. D. S. Bawo. 2013. Postharvest Spoilage of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and Control Strategies in Nigeria. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JBAH/article/viewFile/7237/7260 EP NUFFIC. 2016. Living labs Indonesia – The Netherlands. Yearbook 2015. Logistics, Water, Maritime. Jakarta. FADEB Consultancy. 2014. Action research. Tomato packaging and transportation. Coffey International Development / GEMS4. Fan, Shenggen. 2017. Reducing food losses is key to end hunger and undernutrition by 2025. Washington. IFPRI blog. http://www.ifpri.org/blog/reducing-food-loss-key-end-hunger-and-undernutrition-2025 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Extent, Causes and Prevention. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2014. Appropriate food packaging solutions for Developing Countries. Study conducted for the International Congress SAVE FOOD! at Interpack 2011 Düsseldorf, Germany. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/mb061e/mb061e00.pdf FAO Commission on Food Security (CFS) – High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. Rome. FAO. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report- 8_EN.pdf FAO. Global Information and Early Warning Systems (GIEWS): Nigeria 23, 2017. http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=NGA Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2016. How access to energy can influence food losses. A brief overview. Rome. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/86761a85-0e35-4b89-b2ac-691be59c714a/ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2017. Evidence on internal and international migration patterns in selected African countries. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7468e.pdf. FAOSTAT. 2018. Data on harvested area, production volume and yields of tomato worldwide (data from 2016, accessed August 2018). http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD). 2016. The Agriculture Promotion Policy. Building on the Successes of ATA, Closing Key Gaps. Policy and Strategy Document. http://fmard.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-Nigeria-Agric-Sector-Policy- Roadmap_June-15-2016_Final.pdf FEWS. 2017. Nigeria Market Monitoring Bulletin: January 23, 2017. http://www.fews.net/west- africa/nigeria GAIN. 2016. Reducing post-harvest losses and improving nutrition in Nigeria. http://www.globalharvestinitiative.org/index.php/2017/02/reducing-postharvest-loss-and- improving-nutrition-in-nigeria/ 124 GAIN. 2017a. The Postharvest Loss Alliance for Nutrition (PLAN) Technical Workshop Series. Exploring Models, Tradeoffs and Incentives for Lending, Leasing and Owning Crates along Horticulture Supply Chains. Workshop report, May 11, 2017. https://www.gainhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GAIN-%E2%80%93-USAID-PLAN- Technical-Workshop-Series-Exploring-Models-Tradeoffs-and-Incentives-for-Lending-Leasing-and- Owning-Crates-along-Horticulture-Supply-Chains-May-2017.pdf GAIN. 2017b. The Postharvest Loss Alliance for Nutrition (PLAN). PLAN Nigeria crating workshop report. Exploring model, trade-offs and incentives for lending, leasing and owning crates in Nigeria. https://www.gainhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GAIN-%E2%80%93-USAID-PLAN- Nigeria-Crating-Workshop-Report-Exploring-Models-Tradeoffs-and-Incentives-for-Lending- Leasing-and-Owning-Crates-in-Nigeria-May-2017.pdf GAIN. 2017c. What Factors Affect the Nutritional Value of Dried Tomatoes? A research brief commissioned by GAIN’s Postharvest Loss Alliance for Nutrition (PLAN) and the Rockefeller Foundation YieldWise Program. GAIN. 2017d. The Post-Harvest Loss Alliance for Nutrition (PLAN). Landscape Analysis of Dried Tomato Production and Market in Nigeria. Learning Brief. GAIN. 2017e. The Post-Harvest Loss Alliance for Nutrition (PLAN). Report on the nutrient retention in dried tomatoes. GEMS4. 2016a. Linking Farmers to Tomato Processors Initiative. (Information sheet). http://www.gems4nigeria.com/ GEMS4. 2016b. Mapping of Tomato Clusters in Northern Nigeria. Lagos. http://www.gems4nigeria.com/ GEMS4. 2016c. Use of Plastic Crates for Fresh Produce Distribution. Standard Operating Procedures for Users. GEMS4. 2016d. Setting Up Fresh Produce Packing House Facilities. Standard Operating Procedures. GEMS4. 2016e. Tomato color chart. Global Knowledge Initiative (GKI). 2016. YieldWise Innovation Scan Phases I and II Report for PYXERA Global. The Global Knowledge Initiative YieldWise Innovation Partner December 2016. https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20170822132210/PYXERA-YieldWise- Innovation-Scan.pdf Hartwich, J. Devlin, P. Kormawa, I.D. Bisallah, B.O. Odufote, I.M. Polycarp. 2010. Unleashing Agricultural Development in Nigeria through Value Chain Financing. Abuja. United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) / Central Bank of Nigeria / Bank of Industry. https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2011-01/Nigeria_Finance_Diagnostics_final2_0.pdf Ibeawuchi, II, Okoli, NA, Alagba, RA, Ofor, MO, Emma-Okafor, LC, Peter-Onoh, CA and Obiefuna, JC. 2015. Fruit and vegetable crop production in Nigeria: the gains, challenges and the way forward. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 5(2): 194-202. http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JBAH/article/view/19562/19915 125 Idah, PA, Ajisegiri, ESA and Yisa, MG. 2007. Fruits and vegetables handling and transportation in Nigeria. http://www.journal.au.edu/au_techno/2007/jan07/vol10no3_article6.pdf IGD. 2016. Action-focused workshop engaged Nigeria’s private sector in reducing post-harvest losses and unlocking potential in the tomato value chain. http://www.igdleaders.org/action-focused- workshop-engaged-nigerias-private-sector-reducing-post-harvest-loss-unlocking-potential- nigerias-tomato-value-chain/ Ihembe, Martin. 2018. The impact of herdsmen attacks on federal government’s food security policy: the case of Benue. In: Businessday online, May 23. http://www.businessdayonline.com/exclusives/analysis-sub/article/impact-herdsmen-attacks- federal-governments-food-security-policy-case-benue/ Joburg market. 2017. Official website of the Joburg market. http://www.joburgmarket.co.za/. Kitinoja, Lisa. 2013. Returnable Plastic Crate (RPC) systems can reduce postharvest losses and improve earnings for fresh produce operations. PEF White Paper No. 13-01. http://postharvest.org/RPCs%20PEF%202013%20White%20paper%2013-01%20pdf%20final.pdf Kitinoja, Lisa, and Diane M. Barrett. 2015. Extension of Small-Scale Postharvest Horticulture Technologies – a Model Training and Services Center. In: Agriculture, 2015, 5, 441-455. http://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture LAKAJI Development Alliance. N.d. Presentation on LAKAJI corridor proposal. Leke, Acha, Reinaldo Forini, Richard Dobbs, Fraser Thompson, Aliyu Suleiman and David Wright. 2014. Nigeria’s renewal: Delivering inclusive growth in Africa’s largest economy. London. McKinsey Global Institute. http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/middle-east-and-africa/nigerias-renewal- delivering-inclusive-growth Mango, Nelson, Lawrence Mapemba, Hardwick Tchale, Clifton Makate1, Nothando Dunjana and Mark Lundy. 2015. Comparative analysis of tomato value chain competitiveness in selected areas of Malawi and Mozambique. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/147769/1/23322039.2015.1088429.pdf McKinsey Company. 2011. Transforming African agriculture. Three McKinsey experts discuss what it will take to create a “green revolution�. In: McKinsey Quarterly. http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/four-lessons-for-transforming- african-agriculture Ministry of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, The Netherlands (MINBUZA). 2018. Investing in Global Prospects. For the World, for the Netherlands. Policy Document on Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation. The Hague. https://www.government.nl/topics/development-cooperation/documents/policy- notes/2018/05/18/investing-in-global-prospects Muhammad, RH, Hionu, GC and Olayemi, FF. 2012. Assessment of postharvest knowledge of fruit and vegetable farmers in Garun Mallam L.G.A. of Kano, Nigeria. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 1(2): 510-515. https://isdsnet.com/ijds-v1n2-34.pdf 126 NAN News Agency of Nigeria. 2018. Importers frustrating FG’s tomato policy, say stakeholders. In: The Guardian (Nigeria), 21 November 2017. https://guardian.ng/business-services/importers- frustrating-fgs-tomato-policy-say-stakeholders/ Nenguwo, Ngoni. 2000. Appropriate Technology Cold Store Construction and Review of Post-harvest Transport and Handling Practices for Export of Fresh Produce from Rwanda. Washington. Chemonics International Inc. http://postharvest.org/images/CharcoalcoolstoragePNACQ751.pdf Netherlands African Business Council (NABC) / Post-Harvest Network / Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO). 2017. Agrologistics Workshop Benin and Nigeria. Summary of Workshop Results, March 6 2017. Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO). 2018. Concept Note Sustainable Development Goals Partnership Facility (SDGP). The Hague. https://english.rvo.nl/subsidies-programmes/sdg-partnership-facility-sdgp. Nigeria AgriBusiness Group NABG. 2017. NABC Brochure. http://nabg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NABG-Brochure.pdf Nwafo, Nnanna. 2017. Why government should rethink the new tomato sector policy. In: Businessday Online, April 28, 2017. http://www.businessdayonline.com/exclusives/analysis-sub/article/government-rethink-new- tomato-sector-policy/ Odum, Fabian. 2015. From Basket to Plastic Crate: Mile-12 Tomato Dealers Turn New Leaf. The Guardian, 7 June 2015. https://guardian.ng/features/agro-care/from-basket-to-plastic-crates-mile- 12-tomato-dealers-turn-new-leaf/ Ogundele, Richard. 2017a. Promoting the use of plastic crates to reduce damage and improve quality of fresh perishable produce in Nigeria. Coffey / UKAID/ GEMS4 Project. https://app.box.com/s/ym1hqjrblniofm5vptjs4yqv3hjtkvhj Ogundele, Richard. 2017b. Making Agri Business Markets Work Better for All. Case Studies: Tomato and Rice Value Chains. Abuja. GIM - Agribusiness. Presentation at the closing of the project. Ogundele, Richard. 2018a. Concept Note Agriculture Logistics and Transport Services Accelerator (ALTSA). Abuja, JMSF Agrobusiness. Ogundele, Richard. 2018b. Agriculture Logistics and Transport Services Accelerator (ALTSA). Presentation to RAAMP. Abuja, June 2018. JMSF Agrobusiness / ENCLUDE. Ogundele, Richard. 2018c. Agriculture Logistics and Transport Services Accelerator (ALTSA). Logical framework / Results chain. Abuja. JMSF Agrobusiness / ENCLUDE. Ogundele, Richard. 2018d. Agriculture Logistics and Transport Services Accelerator (ALTSA). Technical Assistance Requirements on the ALTSA Programme Phase 1 (2018-2020) and projected Costs. Abuja. JMSF Agrobusiness. Ogundele, Richard. 2018e. JMFS Agribusiness. Adding value, increasing income, growing the economy. Brochure. JMSF Agrobusines. 127 Ogunfusika Olaolu, Abraham. 2018. Additional notes and observations, Value Chain 1. Ojewale, Caleb, and Bunmi Baily. 2018. Customs defies FG on tomato policy for greenhouse equipment. In: Businessday Online, January 22, 2018. http://www.businessdayonline.com/exclusives/article/customs-defies-fg-tomato-policy- greenhouse-equipment/ Ojewale, Caleb. 2018a. Government’s unassertiveness sees customs frustrating tomato policy. In: Businessday Online, February 26, 2018. http://www.businessdayonline.com/bd-specials/farsight/article/governments-unassertiveness- sees-customs-frustrating-tomato-policy/ Ojewale, Caleb. 2018b. NGN 10bn lost over non-implementation of tomato policy. In: Businessday Online, March 16, 2018. http://www.businessdayonline.com/companies/agriculture/article/n10bn-lost-non- implementation-tomato-policy/ Okojie, Josephine. 2017a. Stakeholders commend FG’s tomato policy. In: Businessday Online, April 19, 2017. http://www.businessdayonline.com/companies/agriculture/article/stakeholders-commend-fgs- tomato-policy/ Okojie, Josephine. 2017b. Erisco sees FG’s new tomato policy boosting local production. In: Businessday Online, April 24, 2017. http://www.businessdayonline.com/morecompanies/real-sector/article/erisco-sees-fgs-new- tomato-policy-boosting-local-production/ Okojie, Josephine. 2017c. Nigeria’s tomato policy still crawling after 6 months. In: Businessday Online, November 23, 2017. http://www.businessdayonline.com/exclusives/article/nigerias-tomato-policy-still-crawling-6- months/ Okojie, Josephine. 2018. Absence of HS Code for greenhouses shows tomato policy weakness. In: Businessday Online, January 24, 2018. http://www.businessdayonline.com/companies/agriculture/article/absence-hs-code- greenhouses-shows-tomato-policy-weaknesses/ Olanite, Rdiwannulahi. 2017. Benefiting from the Nigerian Tomato Sector Reforms. A case for investing in tomato processing factories in Nigeria. http://www.kusamotu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TOMATO-PART-1-by-Ridwanulahi- Olanite-Esq.pdf Olaniyan, John A. O. 200?. Improving market institutions and urban food supply for the urban poor. Tomato retail marketing in Jos, Nigeria. https://community.dur.ac.uk/nigerian.marketing/J.A.O.%20Olaniyan%20- %20Improving%20Market%20Institutions%20and%20Urban%20Food%20Supply%20for%20The% 20Urban%20Poor%20Tomato%20Retail%20Marketing%20in%20Jos,%20Nigeria.pdf Olanrewaju, T.O., Jacobs, I.A., Suleiman, R. and Abubakar, M.I. 2017. Trend analysis of tomato production in Nigeria (2010 to 2014). Zaira, Ahmadu Bello University, Kaduna, Nigeria. 128 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319987223_TREND_ANALYSIS_OF_TOMATO_PRODUC TION_IN_NIGERIA_2010_TO_2014 Olufolajimi, Talabi. 2018. Report of Value Chain 2 (Cycle 1 & 2), Date 11 December and 22 December 2017. Olumuyiwa, Babarinsa, Babarinsa Folorunsa and Richard Ogundele. 2017. Willingness to Adopt Plastic Crates by Actors in the Tomato Value Chain in Nigeria. In: Conference Proceedings, The 1st All Africa Post Harvest Congress & Exhibition. Reducing food losses and waste: Sustainable solutions for Africa. Oluwaseun, Kushimo. 2018. Report on Value Chain 5 activities. Oluwo, Temitope. 2018. Group Work Plan as identified at the Tomato Forum in Kaduna. Oroho, Temidayo. 2017. Assessing FX Policy and local tomato industry. In: Businessday Online, March 21, 2017. http://www.businessdayonline.com/companies/agriculture/article/assessing-fx-policy-local- tomato-industry/ Osebeyo, Samuel O. Osebeyo & Goodness C. Aye. 2014. Transaction costs and marketing decision: a case study of smallholder tomato farmers in Makurdi, Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280180769_Transaction_costs_and_marketing_decisi on_a_case_study_of_smallholder_tomato_farmers_in_Makurdi_Nigeria Pastuszek, H. 2015. Post-harvest loss in Nigerian tomato value chain. International Congress on Postharvest Loss Prevention, October 4-7, Rome, Italy. Plaisier, Christine. 2017. Reducing post-harvest losses of vegetables. Reflections on mission. Meeting FBR-WeCR, 8-11-2017. Powerpoint Presentation. Plaisier, Christine. 2018a. Post-harvest loss reduction in Nigeria. Powerpoint presentation for the validation workshop 13 January 2018. Plaisier, Christine. 2018b. Notes from the validation workshop 13 January 2018. Plaisier, Christine, and Youri Dijkxhoorn. 2018c. Post-harvest loss reduction in Nigeria. Results and observations of the effects and benefits from alternative product packaging in the tomato value chains. Powerpoint Presentation Wageningen. March 2018, WFBR & WeCR. Plaisier, Christine, and Youri Dijkxhoorn. 2018d. Post-harvest loss reduction in Nigeria. Results and observations of the post-harvest loss measurements in North Nigeria. Powerpoint Presentation. Wageningen. 17 April 2018, WFBR & WeCR. Plaisier, Christine, and Youri Dijkxhoorn. 2018e. Post-harvest loss reduction in Nigeria. Using crates in tomato transportation & Measuring gains and losses. Workshop presentation, 18 and 19 July, 2018. Wageningen. WFBR & WeCR. 129 PYXERA Global. 2016. Post-Harvest Loss Reduction. Uniting Stakeholders in Nigeria’s Tomato Supply Chain. Yieldwise connects farmers with executives and everyone in between. https://www.pyxeraglobal.org/uniting-stakeholders-nigerias-tomato-supply-chain/ Rapusas, Rosendo S., and Rosa S. Solle. 2009. Management of resuable plastic crates in fresh produce supply chains. A technical guide. Bangkok, Thailand. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/i0930e/i0930e00.pdf. Rezaei, Maryam, and Bin Liu. 2017. Food loss and waste in the food supply chain. Rome. http://www.fao.org/save-food/news-and-multimedia/news/news-details/en/c/1026569/ Rezaei, Maryam, and Bin Liu. 2017. Food loss and waste in the food supply chain. Rome. http://www.fao.org/save-food/news-and-multimedia/news/news-details/en/c/1026569/ Ruben, Ruerd, Maja Slingerland and Hans Nijhoff. 2006. Agrofood chains and networks for development. Issues, approaches and strategies. In: Agro-Food chains and network for development, p. 1-25. R. Ruben, M. Slingerland and H. Nijhoff (eds.). Wageningen. Springer. http://edepot.wur.nl/36618 Ruben, Ruerd. 2005. Smallholder farming in less-favoured areas: Options for pro-poor and sustainable livelihoods. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40116541. RVO (Netherlands Enterprise Agency). 2016. Manual for DRIVE application procedure. The Hague. http://english.rvo.nl/subsidies-programmes/how-apply-drive. https://english.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2016/01/DRIVE%20manual%20january%202016%20web versie.pdf Sagagi, Muhammad, 2018. Keynote presentation at the Nigeria Tomato Investment Round Table, May 2018, Jigawa State. Jigawa State Investment Promotion Agency. Salau, Shehu A. and Mohammed A. Salman. 2017. Economic analysis of tomato marketing in Ilorin Metropolis, Kwara State, Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension Services, Kwara State University, Malete, Nigeria. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318749537_Economic_analysis_of_tomato_marketing _in_Ilorin_metropolis_Kwara_State_Nigeria Seifert, M., G.O. Dalmazo, J. de Souza Dode, D. Oliveira da Silva, C.V. Rombaldi, M.A. Gularte and L. Nora. 2018. Early harvest of tomato cv. Absoluto combined with different postharvest conditions increases shelf life without compromising sensorial attributes. In: Fruits - International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture. Vol 73/3. ISHS. https://www.pubhort.org/fruits/73/3/4/index.htm Sibomana, M.S., T.S. Workneh and K. Audain. 2016. A review of postharvest handling and losses in the fresh tomato supply chain: a focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Food Security 2016 vol 8: 289-404. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-016-0562-1 Sibomana, Milindi. 2017. Baseline survey: Tomato value chain actors in Lagos, Oyo and Osun States. Sibomana, Milindi. 2017. Data analysis reports producers, hauliers and traders (Kano – Zariah). 130 Sibomana, Milindi. 2018. Workshop report Kano Pilot Project feedback, 23 April 2018. (Includes: Business model results (Excel); Platform versus Ground drying comparison (Excel); Plastic crates versus raffia basket comparison (Excel). Staff, Matthew. 2016. Joburg Market. Keeping Joburg Fresh. In: Africa Outlook, 24 June 2016. http://www.africaoutlookmag.com/outlook-features/joburg-market. Sunday, Eno-Abasi, Gbenga Akinfenwa, Joke Falaju and Abdulganiu Alabi. 2018. Still a long way to self-suf􀃗ciency in tomato production. In: The Guardian (Nigeria), 21 January 2018. https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/cover/still-a-long-way-to-self-sufficiency-in-tomato- production/ Tobe. Lekan. 2017. Comercializing Resturnable Plastic Crates in Nigeria. Exploring workable models, trade-offs and incentives. Pyxera. YieldWise project. https://app.box.com/s/x9ew5i39876d14wys9itm2msmnkzrqsb Tollens, Eric. 1997. Wholesale markets in African Cities. Diagnosis, Role, Advantages, and Elements for Further Study and Development. FAO. Food Supply and Distribution to Cities in French Speaking Africa. Food into Cities Collection / University of Leuven. http://www.fao.org/3/a-ab790e.pdf. Ugonna, C.U., M.A. Jolaoso and A.P. Onwaulu. 2015. Tomato Value Chain in Nigeria: Issues, Challenges and Strategies. In: Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278543813 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). 2016. Humanitarian Response Plan January – December 2017 Nigeria. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ocha_nga_hrp_2017_19122016.pdf USAID Nigeria, 2013. Lagos – Kano – Jibaya (LAKAYI) agricultural growth corridor assessment report. Nigeria Expanded Trade and Transport program (NEXTT). http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00KDHN.pdf USAID Nigeria. 2015. Lagos – Kano – Jibaya (LAKAYI) corridor performance assessment: 2015 update on the time and cost to trade goods. Nigeria Expanded Trade and Transport program (NEXTT). http://www.nigerianextt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/LAKAJI-Asssessment- Report_2015_FINAL_8.18.15.compressed.pdf Uzoigwe, Michael, Eniola Dada and Amarachi Kalu. 2014. Assessment of potential displacement effect on basket market by introduction of plastic crates to the tomato supply chain. Coffey International Development / DFID GEMS4. Vanniarachchy, M.P.G., Bamunuarachchi, A. 2017. Solar Cooling – A Green Energy Solution for Reducing Food Losses. Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Gangodawila, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka. http://journals.sjp.ac.lk/index.php/fesympo/article/view/3373 van der Waal, Hans Willem. 2015. Horticulture Sector Study for Nigeria. Commissioned by the Netherlands Embassy in Lagos. Barendrecht. TASTE and ALTS Consulting. https://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2015/11/Report%20Horticulture%20Study%20Nigeria.pdf 131 van der Waal, Johannes, Milindi Sibomana and Luud Clercx. 2017. A participatory analysis of tomato value chain networks in Nigeria to improve yield safety and quality. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321727969_A_participatory_analysis_of_tomato_sup ply_networks_in_Nigeria_to_improve_yield_safety_and_quality van der Waal, Hans Willem. 2018. Supply chains, food safety and security – a view from practice. Presentation for the Agri-Business summit, 27 of April, 2018. Lagos. van Deventer, Johan. 2006. Vegetables sourcing in Africa. The experience of Freshmark. In: Agro-Food chains and network for development, p. 57-62. R. Ruben, M. Slingerland and H. Nijhoff (eds.). Wageningen. Springer. http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/edepot/137756 van Gogh, Bart, Han Soethoudt and Auke Schripsema. 2017. Food loss and waste measurement protocol: tomato value chain Nigeria. Wageningen. (Used in the pilot project: Introduction of plastic crates, December 2017). van Wagenberg, Coen, Christine Plaisier, Youri Dijkxhoorn, Diti Oudendag, Jim Groot, Auke Schripsema, Bart van Gogh. 2017. Reduce postharvest losses of vegetables for healthier urban consumption in Nigeria (Lagos and Ibadan). Wageningen. Project information sheet. Verwaart, Tim, Youri Dijkxhoorn, Christine Plaisier and Coen van Wagenberg. 2016. Simulating the role of trust in supply chain management. Wageningen. https://www.verwaart.nl/ValueChainLab/AE2016SupplyDevelopment.pdf Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR) / International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2016. Report: The Future for Food Systems. http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/514934 Weinberger, Katinka, and Thomas A. Lumpkin. 2007. Diversification into Horticulture and Poverty Reduction: A Research Agenda. In: World Development, August 2007. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222674511 Wilson, Charles L. 2017. A sustainable path towards “zero hunger�. http://www.worldfoodpreservationcenter.com/index.html World Bank. 2017. Nigeria Rural Access and Agricultural Marketing Project (P163353) (RAAMP). Project Information Document / Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (PID/ISDS). Concept Stage. http://projects.worldbank.org/P163353?lang=en World Food Programme Nigeria (WPF). 2017. Situation Report # 15. 01 – 15 June 2017. http://www.wfp.org/countries/nigeria World Food Preservation Centre / University of Nairobi / Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of Kenya. 2017. Reducing food losses and waste: Sustainable solutions for Africa. The 1st all Africa post-harvest congress and exhibition, 28 – 31 March 2017. Book of Abstracts. http://cavs.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/default/files/cavs/Book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf World Meteorological Organisation (UN) / Global Water Partnership. 2016. Drought conditions and management strategies in Nigeria. http://www.droughtmanagement.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/WS6-Nigeria_EN.pdf 132 Internal notes and documents: Akinwekmomi, Emmanuel. 2017. Notes taken on the second mission to Kano and Ibadan. Clercx, Luud, 2017 - 2018. Over 20 notes on physical and SKYPE team meetings April 2017 – May 2018. Plaisier, Christine. 2017. Notes November mission Ibadan. Plaisier, Christine, and Youri Dijkxhoorn. 2017. Survey WUR all actors (workshop 8 - 9 December) Plaisier, Christine, and Youri Dijkxhoorn. 2017. Methodology post-harvest losses tomato (workshop 8 - 9 December) Plaisier, Christine, and Youri Dijkxhoorn. 2017. Methodology games, answer sheets (workshop 8 - 9 December) Sibomana, Milindi. 2017. First mission summary report (Lagos and Ogun States visits). Sibomana, Milindi. 2017. Meetings mission 2; Next actions after Workshop 1. Sibomana, Milindi. 2017. Script for visual data collection Pilot Project: Producers, Dealers / aggregators / wholesalers, Retailers, Hauliers. Plaisier, Christine. 2018. Notes on the first and the second day of the workshop 18 and 19 July 2018. 133 ANNEX 6 Abbreviations 2SCALE Towards Sustainable Clusters in Agribusiness through Learning in Entrepreneurship ABM Agent Based Model AECF Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund AFD French Agency for Development AgriBEE Black Economic Empowerment in the Agricultural Sector (South Africa) AFDB African Development Bank ALGON Association of Local Governments in Nigeria ALTSA Agriculture Logistics and Transport Accelerator APMT A.P. Moller Terminals (part of MAERSK Group) APP Agricultural Promotion Policy ARCN Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria AROC Agricultural Research Outreach Centers ATA Agricultural Transformation Agenda APHLS African Post Harvest Loss Information System BMO Business Membership Association BOA Bank of Agriculture BOI Bank of Industry (Nigeria) BOPInc Base Of the Pyramid Innovation Centre CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CBN Central Bank of Nigeria CBO Community Based Organisation CFC Common Fund for Commodities CFS - HLPE United Nations Committee on Food Security – High Level Panel of Experts COLEACP Europe-Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Liaison Committee CSO Civil Society Organisation DFID Department for International Development (UK Aid) DINALOG Dutch Initiative for Advanced Logistics DRIVE Development Related Infrastructure Investment Vehicle (RVO) ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EGS Enterprise Growth Services ETLS ECOWAS Trade Liberation Scheme FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FCMB First City Monument Bank (Nigeria) FEFO First Expired First Out FFV Fresh Fruits and Vegetables FFVDCAN Fresh Fruits Vegetable Community Dealers Association of Nigeria FG Federal Government FIFO First In First Out FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development FMITI Federal Ministry of Industry Trade and Investment FOREX Foreign Exchange FSDS Food Supply and Distribution Systems FSN Food Security and Nutrition FX See FOREX GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition GAP Good Agricultural Practices GDP Gross Domestic Product 134 GEMS4 Growth and Employment in States 4 – Wholesale and Retail Trade (Nigeria) GES Growth Enhancement Scheme (registration of farmers, part of ATA) GHP Good Handling Practices GlobalGAP Global Good Agricultural Practices (private sector certification system for food safety and traceability) GIT Goods In Transit Insurance GKI Global Knowledge Initiative GPS Global Positioning System HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points HDPE plastic High-Density Polyethylene plastic HLPE High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition HS code Harmonized System code (used by customs in over 200 countries to identify products) ICT-KM Information and Communication Technology – Knowledge Management IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center IDG Initiative for Global Development IDMP Integrated Drought Management Programme IFC International Finance Corporation (World Bank) IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IHC International Horticulture Congress ISHS International Society for Horticultural Sciences KADIPA Kaduna State Investment Promotion Agency LAKAJI Lagos - Kano - Jibiya corridor LASG Lagos State Government LDA Lakaji Development Alliance LDPE plastic Low-Density Polyethylene plastic LFP Linking Farmers with Processors LGA Local Government Area LMIC Lower Middle Income Country LSFO Least Shelf Life First Out M4P Making Markets work for the Poor MDA Ministries Departments and Agencies MDPI Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute MGI McKinsey Global Institute MINBUZA Ministry of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (The Netherlands) MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises MT Metric Tonnes NABC Netherlands African Business Council NABG Nigeria Agri Business Group NAIC Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation NAN News Agency of Nigeria NAQS Nigeria Agricultural Quarantine Services NARF Nigeria Agricultural Resilience Framework NARS National Agricultural Research System NCDA Nigeria Cold Chain Development Association NIHORT National Horticultural Research Institute NIPC Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission NIRSAL - PLC Nigeria Incentive Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending - Public Limited Company NFPM National Fresh Produce Market NGN Nigerian Naira (currency) 135 NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NNPC Nigerian National Petroleum Company PEF Post-Harvest Education Foundation PHAKAJI Port Harcourt - Kano - Jibiya corridor PHL Post-Harvest Losses PLAN Post-Harvest Alliance for Nutrition (programme of GAIN) PPP Public Private Partnership RAAMP Rural Access and Agricultural Marketing Project (World Bank) R&D Research and Development RMRDC Raw Material Research and Development Council ROI Return On Investment RPC Returnable Plastic Crate RVO Netherlands Enterprise Agency SCPZ Staple Crop Processing Zone SDG Sustainable Development Goals SDGP Sustainable Development Goals Partnership Facility (MINBUZA) SME Small and Medium Enterprises SMS Short Message Service SON Standards Organization of Nigeria SSA Sub-Saharan Africa TA Technical Assistance TA Titratable Acidity TASTE Technical Assistance for Sustainable Trade & Environment (project department of Agrofair) TJFPL Tomato Jos Farming and Processing Limited TKI - DINALOG Top consortium Knowledge and Innovation – Dutch Institute for Advanced Logistics ToR Terms of Reference TSA Tomato Sellers Association (Lagos) TSI Total Sweet Index TTI Time Temperature Integrators TTS Total Soluble Solids UN United Nations UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation USAID United States Agency for International Development UV Ultra Violet light VAT Value Added Tax VCM game Voluntary Contribution Mechanism game WAAPP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Programme WEcR Wageningen Economic Research Institute (WUR) WFBR Wageningen Food & Biobased Research Institute (WUR) WMO World Meteorological Organisation (UN) WUR Wageningen University and Research Centre (The Netherlands) ZECC Zero Energy Cool Chamber 136 ANNEX 7 Abstract presented to the IHC Congress. Istanbul Presented to the Symposium S24- Horticultural Economics and Management (19th International Symposium), Improving the Performance of Supply Chains in the Transitional Economies (7th International Symposium) and Horticulture Economics, Marketing and Consumer Research (2nd International Symposium) - https://www.ihc2018.org/en/S24.html. The complete article was uploaded on May 14, and we are waiting for comments from the convenors. The final version of the article will be shared with the MDTF-SL team. An integrated analysis of tomato supply networks in Nigeria to improve efficiency and quality M. Sibomana 1, L. Clercx 2, H.W. van der Waal 2 1 M.AGRO-SPEC Ltd, Kigali, Rwanda; 2 Agrofair Benelux B.V., Barendrecht, The Netherlands Abstract The fragmented nature of production, transport, marketing and sales, causes inefficiencies, high costs and low quality in the Nigerian tomato supply network. This study aimed to understand the functioning of the fresh tomato supply networks in Nigeria, identify existing gaps in technical capacity and determine effective strategies for interventions to improve quality management. This study involved initial scoping activities; one in Kano and Kaduna States to understand the status quo of the tomato supply chain from the leading tomato producing region in the North, and the second in Lagos and Oyo States, in the South-West, to capture the situation closer to the main fresh produce market in the country - Mile 12. After scoping, validation workshops were conducted both in the South-West and in the North, applying a living lab participatory research method. Stakeholders mapped out perceptions of their value chain, identifying loss hotspots, monetary and information flows as well as bottlenecks in the chain. The stakeholders proposed potential solutions that were implemented in 2 pilot projects; transportation of tomatoes in plastic returnable crates and use of raised platform solar drying for tomatoes. Overall, the study revealed that pest and disease management, poor postharvest infrastructure and handling, unsuitable varieties, and transportation inefficiencies were perceived as drivers of losses in both regions’ tomato value chains. Glut in the North affected profitability with estimated price fluctuation of $4 during glut to $41 in scarcity period per 60kg basket. The pilot projects revealed a 32% higher loss of grade A quality tomatoes when using raffia baskets compared to crates. Raised platform solar drying produced higher visual quality tomatoes, no contamination by dust and sand, and an average price increase of $0.54-$0.86/kg compared to on-ground drying. Scaling up of these interventions requires investment and business models that work for all stakeholders across the chain. Keywords: Post-harvest losses, returnable plastic crates, living lab methods, multi-stakeholder approach (…) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Sustainable Logistics (MDTD-SL) administrated by the World Bank, for the grant that made the research project in Nigeria possible. (…) 137 ANNEX 8 Presentation keynote speaker Agribusiness & Food summit, 27 of April 2018, Lagos Annex 8. - Supply chains, food safety and security - a view from practice (separate PDF file) 138 ANNEX 9 Logical framework: overview A. Immediate objective 1 Identify the main challenges affecting the fresh produce value chain in Nigeria (especially tomatoes): hosting and facilitating workshops with stakeholders Expected results / outcomes Activities / outputs Intermediate products ▪ Better insight in the specific bottlenecks ▪ Literature study will have contributed to understand the main ▪ Survey methodology, questionnaires experienced by each of the stakeholders in the relevant concepts and issues of post-harvest losses, in the chain, in different dimensions (technological, particular context on Nigeria (partially done in this inception ▪ Workshop methodology, introductory economic): producers, traders, transporters, stage – to be continued). presentations wholesalers, retailers, supermarkets, government agencies and inspection services; ▪ A systematization of experiences and results in post-harvest ▪ Preliminary report on main bottlenecks and consumers. loss reduction initiatives in Nigeria (review of reports, on micro- and meso level interviews, meetings), will have generated an overview of ▪ Inventory of the main bottlenecks at the level achievements and main challenges that remain to be resolved; ▪ Workshop report(s) of the interaction and organisation between this will allow to focus attention on particular issues and stakeholders of the chain; recommendations priorities. for improvement of a more permanent multi- stakeholder platform to tackle these ▪ The careful working out and testing of survey instruments and challenges. research methods (including participatory research methods in the workshops according to the “living lab methodology�) ▪ Preliminary identification of investment needs has provided the project team with an appropriate toolbox to and capacity building contents and methods; generate good results from the multi-stakeholder approach. these will serve as inputs for Immediate Objectives 3 and 4. ▪ The implementation of short surveys among key stakeholders will have contributed to better knowledge on bottlenecks and perceptions of these stakeholders on causes and solutions regarding post-harvest losses; and will prove to be useful as input for the cycle of workshops. ▪ In-depth discussion of experiences, perceptions and results of the surveys in a cycle of multi-stakeholder workshops will have led to better identification of main bottlenecks and priorities to address. 139 ▪ The key stakeholders, networks, organisations and platforms that should play a role in reducing post-harvest losses in the tomato trade chains between the main tomato production zone in the North, and the different urban tomato markets of Lagos (high end markets, open market), have been identified and contacted. B. Immediate objective 2 Propose, develop and test (pilot) affordable and cost-effective technical solutions for reducing post-harvest losses at farm level, during transport and storage, based on consultations and the outcome of the workshops. Expected results / outcomes Activities / outputs Intermediate products ▪ A series of prioritized technical and ▪ Based on the team’s technical knowledge and experience, and ▪ Propose and execute pilot project(s), organizational solutions are proposed by incorporating insights from the stakeholders involved in the with budget, operational aspects consensus of the stakeholders that might workshops, several solutions will have been be developed for contribute to mitigate current post-harvest mitigating current postharvest challenges at farm level, and ▪ Detailed evaluation method and challenges. during transport and retail. accompanying survey design ▪ Pilot experiences / projects have been ▪ Operational aspects, budgets, a timeline and monitoring / ▪ Workshop presentations implemented and evaluated, based on above- evaluation tools have been worked out to put these solutions mentioned technical solutions; impact is into practice in one or more pilot projects and / or simulations ▪ Evaluation + workshop report on the estimated in terms of loss reduction and to apply an exhaustive and detailed evaluation. pilot project(s) including percentage, preservation of quality of the recommendations produce, reduction of losses in economic ▪ The engagement of different stakeholders in the workshops terms, and (differentiated) impact for different has motivated them to participate and collaborate actively in stakeholders. the implementation of the selected pilot project(s). ▪ The pilot experiences or project(s) have ▪ The implementation of the pilot experiences or project(s) has generated useful recommendations for produced results that are worth evaluating. investments and capacity building that will serve as input for Immediate Objectives 3 and ▪ The survey that accompanied the implementation of the pilot 4. experience or project, has generated useful results in terms of perception and opinions by different stakeholders. 140 C. Immediate objective 3 Develop business models for the innovative logistic solutions tested in previous experiences and in the pilot project(s) implemented by the present initiative. Expected results / outcomes Activities / outputs Intermediate products ▪ Promising technical solutions from previous ▪ The working out of a detailed overview of costs of the ▪ Report on cost-price structure and cost- experiences and those that have been tested technological solutions / innovations generated in previous benefit balance for each group of in one or more pilot projects, implemented by experiences and of the pilot project(s) implemented in the stakeholders, of the introduction of the present initiative, have been put in a present experience, has proven to be a useful input to technological solutions and innovations business model with a cost-price structure and reconstruct cost-price structures and cost-benefit balances of in the tomato value chain. balance at every level of the value chain these solutions / innovations for different stakeholders in the (producers, traders, wholesalers, retail). chain. ▪ Draft business plans at level of stakeholders (producers, traders) with ▪ A picture of investment costs to scale up the ▪ The elaboration of draft business plans, together with private returns on investments. introduction of promising innovations and stakeholders, with returns on investments to introduce technological solutions, in order to become technological solutions on a wide scale, has contributed to the ▪ Draft proposal for a private and public cost-effective, affordable and competitive, has draft of a realistic portfolio of coherent investments in investment portfolio in infrastructure, been worked out. different parts of the chain. equipment, capacity building and awareness raising (campaigning), ▪ A clear definition / identification and ▪ The inventory of public policies to reduce post-harvest losses including identification of funding and consensus about the roles and responsibilities and rules / regulations to guarantee food safety has led to facilitating organisations. of the private sector and the public sector in clarification of the potential role of the public sector and the scaling up of successful innovations / public investments. ▪ Workshop presentations. technical solutions in a public-private business model and optionally, a multi-stakeholder ▪ The inventory and discussion of future plans of civil society covenant with mutual commitments, to organisations, farmers’ organisations, development reduce post-harvest losses. organisations regarding reduction of post-harvest losses has led to certain level of consensus on priorities. ▪ A draft portfolio of public and private priority investments in infrastructure, equipment, capacity building for the stakeholders in different parts of the chain, worked out. ▪ Potential sources of finance / investment / cooperation organisations and their possible roles in potential public and private 141 investments, identified and their mechanisms, calendars and formats, clarified. ▪ Clarity on the potential facilitating roles of farmers’ organisations, civil society organisations and development projects in reduction of post-harvest losses and promotion of food safety. D. Immediate objective 4 Explore opportunities for building technical capacity and providing training so that the proposed intervention is sustainable and able to initiate an acceleration effect of further positive impacts in the future. Expected results / outcomes Activities / outputs Intermediate products ▪ For each group of stakeholders, there is an ▪ The review of the outcomes of the workshops and pilot ▪ Draft video production inventory of the needs for capacity building in project(s) have led to the formulation of a program for the implementation of technical solutions (on- capacity building for different stakeholders (including budget ▪ Report with recommendations and farm, during transport, retail) and good estimations) and the design of training methods. design of a capacity building agricultural practices and good handling programme and awareness raising practices, based on previous experiences, the ▪ The review of existing video and promotional material has led campaign outcomes of the different workshops, and the to recommendations for the production of new promotional results of the pilot project. videos and publicity campaigns to stimulate adoption of good ▪ Workshop presentations agricultural practices and good handling practices. ▪ Pilot audio-visual productions for awareness raising and mass dissemination of good agricultural practices and good handling practices, have been validated; recommendations have been formulated for campaigning as integral part of the promotion of investments. ▪ Farmers’ organisations, civil society organisations, publicity companies and project implementing organisations have been identified to implement an agenda for campaigning and capacity building. 142 E. Immediate objective 5 Establish adequate mechanisms for team work, communication, management and delivery of products Expected results / outcomes Activities / outputs Intermediate products ▪ Optimal division of tasks in the team; ▪ Further working out in detail of the proposed activities ▪ Subcontracts signed with members of adequate planning and budgeting of activities. according to the logical framework made it possible to the core team, with terms of reference elaborate a detailed timeline and budget. and partial work plans agreed. ▪ Good communication within the core team and with stakeholders in Nigeria (and ▪ Regular internal communication with the core team (via ▪ Draft intermediate reports to be elsewhere). meetings, SKYPE conferences, participation in workshops) has discussed internally before delivery to led to clarity on the roles, tasks and commitments of each of the World Bank. ▪ Smooth delivery of intermediate products the participating members of the team. (workshop reports, presentations …); sharing via a Dropbox, mail etc. ▪ Delivery of intermediate reports and final report to the satisfaction of the World Bank. ▪ Perspectives for follow-up activities by stakeholders in Nigeria. 143