60371 ECONOMIC AND SECTOR WORK MISSING FOOD: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa APRIL 2011 REPORT NUMBER 60371-AFR MISSING FOOD: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa R epor t No. 60371-A FR © 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone 202-473-1000 Internet www.worldbank.org/rural E-mail ard@worldbank.org All rights reserved: This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; the Natural Resources Institute, United Kingdom; and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The �ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the executive direc- tors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permission The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying or transmitting any of this work without permission may be a viola- tion of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemina- tion of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750- 4470, www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Of�ce of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover Photo: Rick Hodges, NRI CONTENTS III CONTENTS Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Nature and Magnitude of PHL for Grains in Sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Technologies and Practices to Reduce PHL: A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. Responses to PHL Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5. Lessons Learned and the Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Annex 1. Questionnaire Survey Respondents and Areas of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Annex 2. Postharvest Project Pro�les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Annex 3. Bene�ts, Costs, and Degree of Adoption of Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Annex 4. Overview of PHL-Reduction Practices by Different Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Annex 5. Community Grains Banks: History and Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Annex 6. Viewing Postharvest Innovation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Annex 7. Practical Experiences of Using Risk Management Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK LI S T O F B O X E S , F I GURE S, AND TABL E S V LIST OF BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES BOXES Box 1.1. Coordinating bodies for grains postharvest development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Box 1.2. The key role of economic incentives in PHL reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Box 2.1. Maize value related to damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Box 2.2. Findings of PHL assessment surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Box 2.3. Increasing use of bag storage in Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Box 2.4. Responding to bumper harvests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Box 2.5. Examples of large-scale storage facilities in African countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Box 2.6. Role of metrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Box 2.7. The impact of market liberalization on commercial grain storage and marketing . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Box 3.1. Mud silo promotion in Northern Ghana (Annex 2, Project 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Box 3.2. Farmers’ bene�ts from using the silo— Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Box 3.3. The lessons learned in metal silo promotion in Central America by the Swiss agency for development and cooperation (SDC) PostCosecha project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Box 3.4. Good storage hygiene is the single most important element in maintaining grain quality and reducing PHL during storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Box 3.5. Warehouse receipts systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Box 4.1. Learning alliances for PHL reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURES Figure 2.1. Structure of Total Grain Production of 112 Million Tons in SSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Figure 2.2. Countries in SSA where Irrigated Lowland NERICA Varieties Have Been Released or Are Being Tested. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2.3. Grain Production in SSA, 1961–2008, Million Tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 2.4. Illustration of a Generic Value Chain for Maize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2.5. Maize Drying in the Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 2.6. Maize Drying in a Crib. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2.7. Winnowing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2.8. Indoor Kihenge (woven granary) and Sacks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 2.9. Taking the Harvest Home by Oxcart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2.10. Travel Time to Market for Farmers in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 2.11. Estimated Percentage of Cumulative Postharvest Weight Loss from Production of Various Grains in East and Southern Africa for 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 3.1. Examples of Strategies to Reduce PHL and Promote Overall Postharvest System Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK VI LIST OF BOX ES, FIGURES , A ND TA B LES Figure 3.2. IRRI-Type Two-Wheeled Tractor Provides Transport, Can Be Used for Tillage, Harvesting, Shelling, or Threshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 3.3. Sealed Stores—Mud Silo (a) and Metal Silo (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 3.4. IRRI Super Bag (the gas- and moisture-proof liner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 3.5. Plastic Granary (left) and the Traditional Mopane Wood Model (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 3.6. Hermetic Grain-Storage Envelope Sealed Shut with a Gastight Zip in Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 4.1. Recommendations for Future Interventions to Improve the Quality and Quantity of Grain Supply in SSA (expressed in percent of suggested projects) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 5.1. Trade and Welfare Reduction Indexes, All Covered Products, 19 African Countries and Regional Average, 2000–04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Figure A6.1. A Postharvest Agricultural Innovation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Figure A6.2. A Postharvest Agricultural Innovation System from the Farmer’s Perspective . . . . . . . . . . 93 TABLES Table S.1. Framework for Distinguishing the Objectives and Target Groups for Future of PHL-Reduction Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Table 2.1. Indicators of Grain Production and Imports in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 2.2. Mean Household Income Shares Spent on Food in SSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 2.3. Causes of PHL (in percent to total losses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 2.4. Possible Impacts on Smallholders of PHL under Liberalized Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 2.5. Generalized Loss Pro�les for Major Grains in Eastern and Southern Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 2.6. Mean Estimates of PHL for Grains in Ghana, % of Total Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 2.7. Estimated Value of Weight Losses for Eastern and Southern Africa Based on Annual Production and Estimated % PHL, 2005–07 Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 3.1. Spillover Effects from the ASSI Thresher Cleaner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 3.2. Hermetic Sacks and Hermetic Large-Scale Envelopes Used in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 4.1. Chronology of Postharvest-Related Interventions and Approaches in Grain Chains . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 5.1. Expected Impact of PHL Interventions on Self-Suf�ciency and Incomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 MISS ING FOOD ACK N O W L E D G E ME NT S V II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Sergiy Zorya, Agricultural and Rural Development (ARD) Department World Bank; Nancy Morgan, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) liaison to the World Bank; and Luz Diaz Rios, ARD Department, World Bank, based on the background papers prepared by Rick Hodges and Ben Bennett from the Natural Resources Institute in the United Kingdom. This report was developed in collaboration with the UN FAO. Stephanie Gallat, Divine Njie, and Edward Seidler provided valu- able professional support. The FAO organized and provided �nancial support for the technical workshop in Rome. The overall task was led by John Lamb, Agricultural and Rural Development Department, the World Bank. Heartfelt thanks to the postharvest specialists who willingly contributed to this review. Many considered the job important enough to donate many hours to it; they gave freely of their time, which is a scarce resource. It has been a pleasure to add their views and comments into the review. Their names are listed in Annex 1. The report has also bene�ted from the presen- tations and discussions at the technical workshop in Rome on March 18–19, 2010. Special thanks are due to the authors who made the presentations there: Ulrich Boysen (African Development Bank), Ken Davies and Bertrand Salvignol (World Food Program), Jonathan Coulter, Felix Rembold (Joint Research Center of the European Commission), Chakib Jenane (UNIDO), Julia Seevinck and Divine Njie (FAO), and the private sector representatives Tom Gambrah (Premium Foods Ltd, Ghana), Paulo Chiziwa (Grain Traders and Producers Association, Malawi), Philippe Villers (Grainpro Inc.), Harriet Nabirye (Eastern Africa Grain Council), and Anthony Mwanaumo (Zambia Food Reserve Agency). Stephen Mink from the World Bank and Steven Schonberger from the International Fund for Agricultural Development sug- gested many improvements to the report through peer review comments. Mark Cackler (Sector Manager, ARD) and Karen McConnell Brooks (Sector Manager, AFTAR) provided wise guidance and encouragement throughout the project. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK ACR O N Y MS A N D A BBRE VIAT IONS IX ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AfDB African Development Bank APHLIS African Postharvest Losses Information System CFC Common Fund for Commodities CFS Committee on World Food Security CGA Grain Growers Association of Kenya CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre CRS Catholic Relief Services DE Diatomaceous Earth DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom EAGC Eastern Africa Grains Council EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT FAO Statistical Database FONADES Fondation Nationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité GAP good agricultural practices GASGA Group for Assistance on Systems Relating to Grain after Harvest GMP good manufacturing practices GTZ German Technical Assistance HIV/AIDS Human Immunode�ciency Virus/Acquired Immune Disease Syndrome HYV High Yielding Varieties IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute INPhO Information Network on Postharvest Operations IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISCOS Institut Syndical pour la Cooperation au Development KMDP Kenya Maize Development Program LA Learning Alliance LGB Larger Grain Borer (Prostephanus truncatus) MFI Micro�nancing Institution NCPB National Grains and Produce Board NERICA New Rice for Africa NGO Nongovernmental Organization NRI Natural Resources Institute P4P Purchase for Progress PFL Prevention of Food Losses PhAction Postharvest Action (Global Postharvest Forum, formerly GASGA) EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK X A C R ONY MS A ND A BB R EV IATIONS PHILA Postharvest Innovation Learning Alliance PHL Postharvest Losses SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SSA Sub-Saharan Africa UN United Nations WARDA Africa Rice Centre WFP World Food Programme WRS Warehouse Receipt System ZAMACE Zambian Agricultural Commodity Exchange MISS ING FOOD EX E C U T I V E S U MMARY XI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Low-income, food-de�cit countries have become especially concerned about the global and national food situation over the past three years. While the proximate cause of this heightened concern was the surge in food prices that began in 2006 and peaked in mid-2008, concerns remain for other reasons, among them the higher market-clearing price levels that now seem to prevail, continuing price volatility, and the risk of intermittent food shortages occurring repeatedly far into the future. For lower-income Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries, ongoing contributing factors include persistently low productivity, dif�culty adapting to climate change, �nancial dif�culties (inability to handle the burden of high food or fuel prices or a credit squeeze), and increased dependence on food aid. Yet there is an additional, often-forgotten factor that exacerbates food insecurity: postharvest losses (PHL). They can and do occur all along the chain from farm to fork, which reduces real income for all consumers. This especially affects the poor, as such a high percentage of their disposable income is devoted to staple foods. Interest in the reduction of PHL is not new. After the mid-1970s food crisis, considerable development investment went into PHL reduction for staple crops. In fact, in 1975, the United Nations brought postharvest storage losses into international focus when it declared that “further reduction of postharvest food losses in developing countries should be undertaken as a matter of priority� (FAO 1981). Unfortunately, once real commodity prices resumed their historical downward trend, the policy shifted to emphasize food security through economic liberalization and trade. The world seems to have forgotten the importance of postharvest food losses in the African grain sector, and those networks or programs that sought to reduce them, such as FAO’s Prevention of Food Losses Program and the Global Postharvest Forum (PhAction), have fallen into abeyance. The low adoption of the PHL technologies promoted in various SSA countries has also led to the declining invest- ments in this area. With renewed emphasis on agriculture, and in the aftermath of the recent food and �nancial crises, the pro�le of PHL has been signi�cantly raised. Interventions in PHL reduction are seen as an important element of the efforts of many agencies to reduce food insecurity in SSA. PHL is increasingly recognized as part of an integrated approach to realizing agriculture’s full potential to meet the world’s increasing food and energy needs. Therefore, reducing PHL—along with making more effective uses of today’s crops, improving productivity on existing farmland, and sustainably bringing additional acreage into produc- tion—is critical to facing the challenge of feeding an increased world population. Postharvest losses feature prominently in recent global initiatives such as the Comprehensive Framework for Action issued in 2009 by the UN High-Level Task Force for Food Security and Nutrition after the global food crisis, the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program endorsed by the World Bank in January 2010, and the recently reformed Committee on World Food Security (CFS). It is clearly recognized that the context of agricultural production and marketing in SSA has evolved since the 1970s and 1980s, as have the challenges associated with PHL reduction. Changes have included (i) increasing competition from inter- national markets in the wake of market liberalization; (ii) the state’s withdrawal from grain marketing activities that provided the commercial sector with variable technical support in grain handling and storage; (iii) development of more sophisticated grain value chains coordinated by an emerging private sector; (iv) increased regional integration, which has resulted in the easier movement of grain but with limited monitoring of quality; (v) impacts of HIV/AIDS and urbanization on labor availability; (vi) spread of the larger grain borer, a devastating storage pest; (vii) introduction of varieties with high yield that require inputs and are more susceptible to pest attack; (viii) increasing land fragmentation, with a corresponding decrease of farm EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK XI I EX ECUTIV E S UM M A RY size, accompanied by declining soil fertility; (ix) erratic weather patterns that have led to recurrent failures in harvests and consequent food shortages; and (x) the erosion of postharvest expertise to serve the needs of developing country producers and supply chains. Limited success in reducing PHL and a shrinking technical capacity to respond to the challenges of PHL reduction highlight the need to build up a knowledge base of lessons to raise the pro�le of PHL and to provide best practices and practical rec- ommendations for scaling up. Consequently, the World Bank undertook this policy-oriented research of the current state of knowledge and technology related to PHL reduction. It did so in collaboration with FAO, with the expertise of the U.K. Natural Resources Institute, and with contributions of key PHL stakeholders and institutions, capturing lessons from past interven- tions that could provide insights for the implementation of effective PHL strategies. This analysis looks at the evolution of public and private sector responses over the last two decades to reduce losses along the various stages of the supply chains and supports and to build on the African Development Bank’s current Post Harvest Loss Initiative for SSA. It also highlights critical factors that determine technology uptake and sustainable use, with a focus on gender dimensions of technology adop- tion for reducing PHL. The main �ndings of this research are discussed in the following pages. PHL OF GRAINS IN SSA REMAIN SIGNIFICANT While the pro�le of PHL has been raised for a number of commodities in SSA, this report focuses on grains, which still constitute the basis for food security for the majority of the population in the region and are a vital component in the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. Crop production is estimated to account for roughly 70 percent of typical incomes, of which grain crops account for about 37 percent, on average. Recorded production amounts to 112 million tons per year, although records for some crops and some countries are not available. Most grains are produced and consumed by small farming households. Signi�cant volumes of grain in developing countries are lost after harvest, aggravating hunger and resulting in expensive inputs—such as fertilizer, irrigation water, and human labor—being wasted. During postharvest operations, there may be losses of both cereal quantity and quality. Qualitative PHL can lead to a loss in market opportunity and nutritional value; under certain conditions, these may pose a serious health hazard if linked to consumption of aflatoxin-contaminated grain. The causes of loss are many and varied. Technical causes may include harvesting methods; handling procedures; drying techniques and moisture levels; types of storage or lack thereof; �lth or contamination; attacks by rats, birds, and other pests; insect damage; and infestation by food-borne pathogens. Governance-related causes can include poor sales, procurement, storage, marketing and distribution policies or practices; absence of mechanisms for dealing with cash flow needs (such as warehouse receipts systems, or WRS); mismanagement or malfeasance in handling grain stocks and associated �nancing; or dif�culty in dealing with the ownership, control, and payment aspects of grain storage and price stabilization programs. Overall, food losses contribute to high food prices by removing part of the food supply from the market. They also have an impact on environmental and climate change, as land, water, and non-renewable resources such as fertilizer and energy are used to produce, process, handle, and transport food that no one consumes. How large are the PHL for grains in SSA? As mentioned, losses can be physical (i.e., volume shrinkage or deterioration of condition), nutritional (notably, grain contaminated with aflatoxin), monetary (i.e., change in unit sales value), or economic (i.e., not being able to access certain markets). According to estimates provided by the African Postharvest Losses Information System (APHLIS),1 physi- cal grain losses (prior to processing) can range from 10 to 20 percent. Typically, the magnitude and location of PHL assessments are based on ad-hoc measurements resulting in wide ranges. The APHLIS information platform draws in PHL estimates from national researchers that are well below the 40–50 percent frequently cited in the development community. However, they are still too high to ignore; and in Eastern and Southern Africa alone, based on APHLIS estimates, they are valued at US$1.6 billion per year, or about 13.5 percent of the total value of grain production (US$11 billion). There are no similar regional weight loss estimates available for 1 The Postharvest Losses Information System was created within the framework of the project “Postharvest Losses Database for Food Balance Sheet Operations.� This was �nanced by the European Commission within the work program of its Joint Research Centre (Italy) and implemented by a consortium led by the Natural Resources Institute (United Kingdom) and including ISICAD/BLE (Germany), ASARECA, and SADC/FANR; national experts contributed through the PHL network. MISS ING FOOD EX E C U T I V E S U MMARY X III grains in Central or West Africa except for anecdotal estimates. However, assuming losses of a similar magnitude, the value of PHL losses in SSA could potentially reach nearly US$4 billion a year out of an estimated annual value of grain production of US$27 billion (estimated average annual value of production for 2005–07). PHL reduction complements efforts to enhance food security through improved farm-level productivity, thus tending to bene�t producers and, more speci�cally, the rural poor. While the cost of loss reduction needs to be evaluated, it is likely that promoting food security through PHL reduction can be more cost effective and environmentally sustainable than a corresponding increase in production, especially in the current era of high food prices. Assuming only a 1 percent reduction in PHL, annual gains of US$40 million are possible, with producers as a key bene�ciary. Viewed in a different perspective, the annual value loss estimate of US$4 billion (i) exceeds the value of total food aid SSA received over the last decade2; (ii) equates to the annual value of cereal imports of SSA, which had an annual range of between US$3–7 billion over the 2000–07 period; and (iii) is equivalent to the annual caloric requirement of at least 48 million people (at 2,500 kcal per person per day). Supply chain ef�ciencies can achieve PHL reductions, which generate income, improve product quality and safety, and contribute to food and nutritional security. It is against this background that improvements in postharvest handling could increase food security and the livelihoods of rural poor while simultaneously raising the supply and quality of grains to the rapidly increasing urban consumers and potential export markets. Therefore, cost-effective as well as sustainable strategies to promote food and nutritional security need to include PHL reduction as a critical component of on-farm productivity. OPTIONS TO REDUCE PHL ARE AVAILABLE, BUT THEIR ADOPTION IN AFRICA REMAINS LOW There are many examples of promising practices. These range from training in improved handling and storage hygiene to the use of hermetically sealed bags and household metallic silos, and are supported by enhancing the technical capabilities of local tinsmiths in silo construction, as described in Chapter 3. The silos can protect the stored grain from pests, rodents, birds, and fungi and, with proper postharvest management, allow it to be kept for long periods with no appreciable loss of quality. Provision of revolving funds and loans facilitate the diffusion of better storage containers. Other interventions involve the establishment of innovative institutional arrangements such as warehouse receipt systems. The choice of technology package depends on circumstances, such as the scale of production, crop type, and prevailing climatic conditions, as well as the willingness to pay (which is linked to social, cultural and economic implications of adoption). In summary, there is a wide range of technologies available that, if adopted, would enable smallholders and larger producers to improve the quality and quantity of grains during postharvest handling and storage. Government and donor interventions have promoted many technologies in Africa. Traditionally, reduction of losses has been seen as a stand-alone intervention aimed at enhancing household food security. This technology push approach dominated PHL-related activities in the 1970s and 1980s. It focused on addressing constraints through the introduction of the particular technology or marketing arrangement considered most appropriate for the needs of a target group in which signi�cant gains in PHL reduction could be achieved. Good recent examples of this type of approach have been the triple bagging of cowpea, which is the subject of a current intensive campaign in West and Central Africa, and the community cereal banks that have developed in recent years. Further evidence of the technology push approach comes from the Kapchorwa district of Uganda, where the timing of the harvests and rainy seasons prompted the introduction of mechanized harvesting and cleaning equip- ment to reduce losses for wheat and maize. During the mid-1990s, market-oriented approaches emerged focusing strongly on the market as the driving force for post- harvest improvements, basing their success on good business practice and on facilitating farmer linkages to markets. The promotion of speci�c technologies has often been complemented by technical assistance on improved farm management within the broader postharvest system. This approach often focuses on on-farm improvements through the establishment 2 Estimated at US$6.1 billion over the 1998–2008 period. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK XI V EX ECUTIV E S UM M A RY of PHL baselines, followed by the provision of technical assistance and the transfer of a package of improved technologies and practices along different production and processing steps (e.g., sorting, drying, pest control, farm storage). This “system approach� to tackling postharvest issues emphasizes the links of on-farm activities with other operations within the food and commodity chain, while placing the chain within the wider socioeconomic, business, and political context. Under this ap- proach, value chain coordination is a clear component of the support. Success stories in Africa, however, have been rare. As discussed in Chapter 4, success is often related to technological transfers from Asia in the context of labor constraints and higher rural wages. Examples of these technologies include small-scale rice dryers, rice threshers, and new bagging techniques. Successful interventions for more traditional grains, such as maize, sorghum, and millet, are more dif�cult to �nd. The reasons technologies have failed to be adopted relate to investments that (i) are shown to be �nancially unsustainable; (ii) have misidenti�ed the key constraints such as focusing on enhancing storage while the economic incentives are missing; (iii) lack cultural acceptability (e.g., introduction of silos where local populations prefer to keep stocks in their homes); and (iv) assume that facilitating change can occur over a short period of time, such as a three-year project. It has been observed that the same intervention can vary in success rates depending on prevailing circumstances. For example, metal silos have been a notable success in Central America but have not yet been as successful in Africa. This may be attributable to a lack of time to allow impact or to different socioeconomic and cultural circumstances. It is a relatively easy matter to establish the cost and bene�ts of technologies aimed at the farm or village level, but it is equally important to establish their cultural acceptability. Lessons learned in particular cases such as the metal silos can be generalized and should be taken into account for other technologies. To achieve successful adoption, incentive structures for the immediate bene�ciary and the wider community must be in place, learning alliances (LAs) should be created to ensure the interactions of a diversity of key players (effectively the actors of the value chain), and socio-cultural issues should be carefully considered, especially those related to gender and diversity. This combines to highlight the need to evaluate all interventions from a tech- nical, economic, and social perspective if they are to be successfully adopted. The socioeconomic components of postharvest projects should not be small, underfunded afterthoughts, but key drivers. IDENTIFYING OPTIMAL INTERVENTIONS: USING THE VALUE CHAIN LENS It is clear that adoption of improved postharvest practices and technologies needs to be better understood from the economic, technical, and social perspectives. Why do farmers “tolerate� PHL? PHL are generally tolerated because of a lack of economic incentive to reduce them. Mechanization, unless labor is in short supply, is expensive. Under existing policy distortions, poor ac- cess to �nance, inadequate connectivity and access to electricity, and the lack of market opportunity mean that the costs of most technologies exceed short-term bene�ts. Cases presented here indicate that social/cultural factors also matter. Most of the prior attempts to reduce PHL have focused on the farm level. The more recent emphasis on market-oriented ap- proaches and on “linking farmers to markets� has been fundamental for understanding the constraints and lack of incentives for postharvest improvements. These experiences have led to an improved understanding of the critical entry points for PHL reduction along the chain, the interactions between players within the chain, and the impact of the external environment. Recognizing the failures of the previous attempts, recent interventions increasingly follow the value chain approach. Demand for better-quality grain in SSA has been rare, and in most cases, the market has not rewarded the efforts made by farmers and other actors to improve quality and reduce losses. However, several key trends are reversing this situation. For example, widespread urbanization, emergence of a more affluent middle class, changing consumer preferences in the grain sector (including the desire for more convenient foods such as milled maize), and the increased preference for wheat- and rice-based products over traditional grains are some of the key factors driving the development of more ef�cient and quality-conscious postharvest systems and value chains in SSA. The emergence of institutional, quality-conscious buyers such as the World Food Programme (WFP) has also created a demand for high-quality grain and provided an important market opportunity for farmers who can meet the required standards of quality, quantity, and consistency. As a result of the issues above, the donor community clearly recognizes the importance of focusing on systemic interventions that improve the ef�ciency of the chain as a whole, rather than on the disjointed, single-point interventions of the past. They MISS ING FOOD EX E C U T I V E S U MMARY XV increasingly use the value chain approach, which is the analytical tool used to better understand flows of product, informa- tion, and �nance along productive chains; to grasp how direct and indirect economic actors interact; and to identify the most promising points of intervention. Thus, although improvements in postharvest systems at the farm level continue to be a critical entry point, the transition to market-driven systems and greater reliance on the private sector necessitate that PHL interventions be embedded within the context of value chains and that they leverage their success from building synergies with the private sector. To ensure that improvements in postharvest systems are sustainable, PHL reduction strategies that provide economic incentives to key actors in the chain must be developed. Market-oriented public and donor interventions should involve the private sector. Within value chains, the successful adoption of technologies by smallholders is likely to be influenced by the adoption of other innovations by private sector players farther down the chain. The role of the private sector in improving chain ef�ciency is therefore critical, as its investment will ulti- mately result in increased pro�tability for all chain actors. In recent years, numerous innovative marketing arrangements have involved the private sector, all with the potential to bene�t smallholders. These include the establishment of WRS, integrated grain-handling models, and the formation of national and regional trade associations that provide a range of services to their members, including training in postharvest handling, input supplies, and support to collective marketing. Most of these in- novations are in the early stages of development, and results have been mixed. Nonetheless, the concepts show promise and are aligned with the market-oriented value chain approach, which has been recognized as a sustainable model for postharvest development. In this regard, they merit further development and testing. THE PUBLIC SECTOR HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY Despite the growing influence of the private sector, the role of the public sector in promoting the uptake of PHL-reducing technologies is essential. The private sector’s efforts to develop improved postharvest systems need to be underpinned by an environment that encourages private sector investment. It begins with the improvement of the enabling public environment and provision of basic public goods such as electricity and roads, which would not only make technologies affordable but potentially shift on-farm activities for PHL reduction to other value chain players. Improved access to markets, for example, would accelerate trade, thereby reducing the need to store grain on farms and also reducing losses. A predictable price policy would support investments in off-farm storage, potentially providing drying and storage services to smallholders at affordable fees and unleashing the underutilized power of the private sector to provide many PHL solutions. Overall, basic critical factors include a predictable policy and price environment, better roads and lower transport costs, better access to electricity to allow local drying and processing, and improved access to rural �nance, among others. The PHL agenda should be better integrated into agricultural research and extension services to provide technical advice and affordable solutions to farmers and private sector players. For smallholders with few options to invest in improved post- harvest practices and technologies, the simplest option—and one with only minor �nancial implications—is improvement in basic storage hygiene and good storage management. The principles of this are well known to experts but are very often not applied by farmers. The research-extension cycle needs to be reinforced to enable extension of�cers and farmers to access updated information on postharvest management and technologies and to provide feedback to research. A strong research extension cycle creates improved opportunities for technology adoption and postharvest improvement. Research is also needed to understand the constraints to postharvest improvements and to �nd more effective options for addressing them, including the options for adaptation to climate change. Investments in research aimed at the identi�cation of cost-effective drying methods and business models to support their adoption, as well as on promising options to replace chemical insecticides during storage, can yield signi�cant gains in terms of PHL reduction at the farm level. Proper drying is a critical control point for minimizing the likelihood of high PHL, but it cannot be achieved with proper management practices alone. The increased emphasis on competitive, market-oriented systems requires that farmers not only improve their technical skills, but that they also be better organized, act collectively, and acquire stronger group business and marketing skills in order to participate effectively in the value chain context. Thus technical training must be accompanied by the development of business management and entrepreneurial skills. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK XV I EX ECUTIV E S UM M A RY The weak focus on postharvest improvement at the national level is aggravated by its poor representation in the curricula for agricultural education and in agricultural policy. There is a need to increase awareness of the bene�ts of postharvest improve- ments at the farmer, private sector, and policy levels and to build the capacity to enable the achievement of such improve- ments. This can be done through (i) inclusion of postharvest modules in the curriculum of agricultural colleges; (ii) building farmer and private sector capacity through informal as well as formal training and information channels; and (iii) harnessing the power of the media—radio, newspaper, television, and video. Implementation of postharvest innovations should be guided by LAs that enable a broad spectrum of public and private sector stakeholders to jointly identify, share, and adapt good practices and solve key problems. Regarding the issue of providing direct support to farmers, some PHL interventions can be subsidized for net-de�cit grain pro- ducers in food-insecure communities, provided that such interventions are shown to be demand driven, appropriate to their needs, and able to reduce the requirements for food purchase or food aid. It is clear that many SSA grain producers at the lower poverty levels are likely to remain excluded from markets. Thus, the most appropriate attention to these farmers may be that of using subsidized social “safety net� interventions rather than value chain or commercialization initiatives. However, from a food security perspective, the bene�ts recouped from postharvest improvements among this segment of producers can be signi�cant. To achieve these bene�ts, the establishment of proper baselines and critical points for postharvest reduc- tion is fundamental. After that, appropriate loss reduction strategies can be applied. For net-surplus grain producers who are not food insecure, PHL interventions should be introduced without subsidy, as sustain- ability can be expected from improved market income. Subsidies could be provided in the early stages to demonstrate bene�ts, encourage replicability, and provide incentives to early adapters. Single-point interventions are probably less effective than coordi- nated interventions in the whole-value chain (see Table S.1). Interventions that increase the value of the chain and bene�t market actors will stand a good chance of adoption, and matching grants and �nancial incentives to early adopters have been demonstrated as effective tools to ensure sustainability of investments. Within the context of commercialization initiatives, approaches to PHL reduction require an analysis of the whole value chain to determine the most appropriate interventions and their potential effects; they also require the incorporation of strategies to promote coordination, collaboration, and information flow along the chain. Intervention must be undertaken with consideration of its development objectives—in particular, increasing incomes and enhancing food security. The two objectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive; however, income enhancement is broadly applicable to smallholders who are net surplus producers, while the food security objective is of priority for producers who normally have a net de�cit or whose incomes are so low as to render them food insecure. Approaches are outlined in table S.1 and can include speci�c technology/institutional push interventions targeted at farm operations with some degree of subsidy involved. Exit strategies should be envisioned, but economic sustainability need not be a priority consideration. Measuring success should be a strong component of interventions aimed at optimizing postharvest systems. Increasingly, donors want to understand the contribution and effect of their investments, and it is clear that the identi�cation of common sets of indicators that support the comparison of PHL results (in terms of reduction of losses and sustainability) remains an unmet need. This requires much greater thought and research into the relationship between inputs/activities, outputs/ outcomes, and effects. Measurement of process as well as product is required, which means identifying suitable indicators for both. With a few exceptions, the postharvest grain interventions reviewed have not had elaborate baseline surveys, did not set themselves impact indicators, and have not had ex-post evaluations. This paucity of data on impact makes comparison of interventions very challenging. Clearly, future interventions need to correct this de�ciency. At the international level, there is currently no recognized coordinating mechanism for the further development of PHL technologies and adaptive strategies for grain production. Development practitioners, national policy makers, and other professionals and analysts promoting agriculture-related improvements need to start thinking in terms of optimizing postharvest systems, with both food security and income enhancement objectives. A set of international develop- ment partners and organizations, along with private sector representatives, have achieved agreement regarding the importance of revitalizing a postharvest community of practice. This practice is aimed at facilitating the evaluation of innovations, assisting in their scale-up, and supporting knowledge and information sharing on best practices and lessons learned. Such a community would allow the channeling of expert knowledge into the development agenda and would MISS ING FOOD EX E C U T I V E S U MMARY X V II inform investment programs. It will also be an essential contribution to reversing the trend of declining postharvest expertise and increasing activity within the sector. Understanding the magnitude of the problem can create opportunities to leverage food security and poverty outcomes from PHL reduction strategies. The APHLIS database could be expanded to become an archive of postharvest projects and studies and the counterpart to the FAO INPhO (Information Network on Postharvest Operations) system, which provides information on postharvest technologies for all crops but not data on speci�c projects. This approach would go a long way toward preserving the institutional memory on postharvest interventions for grain value chains and possibly serve as the foundation of a regional LA that builds bridges between the research and development communities. Yet, beyond this repository function, there are other critical steps to make the PHL data more relevant and useful. These steps include a collective effort to generate consensus on methodological aspects of PHL estimation; strengthening the quality and accuracy of the data collected by APHLIS; and de�ning of indicators related to grain quality, safety, and economic value to complement physical PHL estimates. TABLE S.1: Framework for distinguishing the objectives and target groups for future of PHL-reduction interventions DEVELOPMENT RELEVANT CROPS EXAMPLES OF PH FACILITATION CONDITIONS OBJECTIVES FOR INTERVENTIONS SMALLHOLDER PRODUCERS Income enhancement: Maize To create a safer, better-quality, Training and education, espe- Single-point interventions rarely Livelihood improvement Rice higher-value product through the cially in business skills valid. Need coordinated inter- for smallholder produc- Wheat adoption of: Credit supplied by micro�nance ventions in whole-value chain. ers through more cash Barley � Improved knowledge and to enable technology adoption Rationale based on commercial income. technologies, including Agricultural policy improve- advantage and sustainability Sorghum and millet (rarely) from �nancial incentive. Must be Achieved by: mechanization for grains ments to support markets and Teff (Ethiopia) handling, drying, and storage shown to improve livelihoods. Reducing economic the application of grades and losses by upgrading value � Market information systems standards chains (e.g., higher value � Creation of marketing groups markets, better quality � Business fairs to link chain product). actors Reducing physical � Private off-farm storage and, losses by the adoption where feasible, WRS of improved technolo- � Inventory credit schemes gies and approaches by smallholders. Increased food Maize To prevent waste and deteriora- Training and education Single-point interventions may self-suf�ciency: Sorghum tion of the grains produced by Subsidy of interventions be valid. Requires an assess- A larger and more reliable Millet smallholders: ment of loss and potential loss supply of grains and re- Teff (and other local crops) � Zero-cost storage interven- reduction before implementa- duced need for emergency tions such as improved tion. Rationale based on the Wheat (Ethiopia) contribution to food availability purchases and food aid. hygiene and storage through Rice (rarely) greater knowledge, skills, or reducing need for food aid. Achieved by: and awareness. Must be shown to improve hu- Reduced physical � Low-cost storage interventions, man welfare. losses by the adoption of improved technolo- such as tarpaulins to aid in gies and approaches by drying maize, hermetic storage smallholders. using plastic sacks, improve- ments to traditional stores, and informed and rational use of grain protectants. Source: Authors. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK INTRODUCTION 1 1. INTRODUCTION After a flurry of development effort in the 1970s–1980s, Given the importance of grains in production and consump- the world seems to have forgotten the importance of PHL tion in SSA, a reduction in grain PHL is an important objec- in the African grain sector. However, attention is returning tive because these losses are not only a waste of valuable to this area with a renewed emphasis on agriculture and food and other resources (agricultural inputs, labor, land, food insecurity in SSA. The renewed focus on investment water, etc.) but are also symptoms of poorly performing in agriculture that began in 2008 is prompting new interest value chains. Such poor performance is a cost to the poor- in effective interventions for PHL reduction, because the est in that it constrains the livelihoods of those engaged in investment required to reduce PHL is relatively modest and agriculture and limits the success of agricultural economies. the return on that investment rises rapidly as the price of the commodity increases. Moreover, the technological ad- Past efforts to reduce PHL have been intermittent. As a result vances from the last decade or so make reduction of PHL at of the food crisis of the 1970s, the international community the farm and village level more feasible and less expensive focused some development effort on postharvest activities, than before. including reducing grain losses. This led to the creation of a coordinating body, centered around donor representatives in Therefore, PHL are increasingly recognized as a part of the the Group for Assistance on Systems Relating to Grain After- integrated approach to ensuring the full realization of agri- Harvest (GASGA). This group was involved in various efforts cultural potential to meet the world’s increasing food and to reduce PHL, the largest of which was the “Prevention of energy needs. Reducing PHL, together with making more Food Losses� program of the 1980s–90s, under the aus- effective use of today’s crops, improving productivity on pices of the UN FAO. An Indian-led initiative, the Save Grain existing farmland, and sustainably bringing additional acre- Campaign, was launched at about the same time. As the food age into production, are critical in meeting the challenges crisis waned, and as approaches to food security refocused of feeding an increased world population. As a result, PHL on economic liberalization and trade, GASGA’s scope was reduction features prominently in the recent global initia- expanded beyond grain to other agricultural commodities and tives such as the Comprehensive Framework for Action is- was renamed the Global Postharvest Forum (PhAction), but sued by the UN High-Level Task Force for Food Security and even this grouping was gradually eroded (Box 1.1). The �nal Nutrition after the global food crisis, the Global Agricultural effort of PhAction was to recognize the importance of the and Food Security Program endorsed by the World Bank market in agricultural development with a drive to create a in January 2010, the Africa Food Crisis Response of the CGIAR Challenge Program on “Linking Farmers to Markets.� African Development Bank (AfDB), and the recently re- However, as the priorities of the international community formed Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Attention moved away from agriculture, PhAction fell into abeyance in is drawn to the same issues on the websites of both the the early 2000s. Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. The surge in food prices in 2007–08 heightened concerns over food supply, especially the risks of intermittent food “Preserving what is already grown is critical to reaching shortages in the distant future. This situation presents a those who need crops most and to making the most of threat to food security, but it also offers opportunities for ag- the land, water, energy, and other inputs already used to ricultural economies to bene�t from higher food prices and grow crops.� increased demand. The recent food crisis calls for further Patricia Woertz, chairperson, action against PHL, but this time markets are substantially CEO, and president of Archer Daniels Midland Company. January 29, 2010. World Economic Forum. liberalized and thus require careful public actions to help the EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 2 INTR OD UC TION BOX 1.1. Coordinating bodies for grains postharvest activities that entrepreneurs cannot be expected to subsi- development dize individually. Furthermore, there remains a need for all interventions to be carefully evaluated from a technical, eco- PhAction (Global Postharvest Forum) was formerly the nomic, and social perspective and to be adapted as neces- Group for Assistance on Systems relating to Grain af- sary if they are to succeed (Box 1.2). ter Harvest (GASGA). The aims and priorities of GASGA evolved considerably over its lifetime (1971–99). From In light of the above challenges and opportunities, this an initial focus on the provision of coordinated technol- report takes stock of the current state of knowledge and ogy transfer in grain storage in Africa, it was ultimately technology with respect to the on-farm and community- concerned with analysis of postharvest systems for level postharvest handling and storing grains, with a view food crops throughout the developing world and the to raise the pro�le of PHL and to provide policy recom- impact of these systems on food security, food qual- mendations. This activity also aims to help revive and in- ity, and value-addition as a contribution to rural liveli- vigorate a theme and body of knowledge and to stimulate hoods. It was agreed at the 1999 annual meeting that greater coordination and collaboration between the World GASGA had served its purpose well and had adapted to Bank, AfDB, FAO, the International Fund for Agricultural a changing world by rethinking its views and priorities. Development (IFAD), the European Union Delegation (EU), However, it was also agreed that it was time to launch and possibly other interested donors or regional develop- a new initiative on the basis of these new approaches, ment banks. with an enlarged membership and an ambition to form a This report is based on the desk study undertaken by ex- more inclusive global forum for postharvest issues, sup- perts of the U.K. Natural Resources Institute (NRI). Data ported by parallel information-resource developments were collected by direct contact (e-mail or telephone), with in the INPhO web-based databank. Therefore, GASGA authorities holding information on past and current projects; was dissolved and PhAction was initiated, with ten by searching the Internet for details about projects; and by members, including four national bodies, FAO, and �ve reviewing published and “gray� literature. Data were also CGIAR centers. The role of PhAction was to raise the collected from the personal experiences of the NRI review pro�le of postharvest research and development and to team who had worked on numerous and diverse projects to accomplish greater impact in the postharvest sector. reduce grain PHL in SSA over the last 30 years and from Source: FAO. experts in the �eld. These experts were identi�ed and asked to complete a questionnaire that would draw out their experi- private sector respond to the market opportunity, rather than ences to indicate the weakest links in the postharvest chain, crowd it out. the interventions that deserve to be prioritized for future action, and those that should be avoided. Of about 40 invited This requires a move from a supply driven approach to an en- respondents, a total of 20 returned completed (or partially trepreneurial- and market-oriented approach. However, there completed) questionnaires. The grain postharvest �eld is is a continuing need for public investment in promotional relatively small and multidisciplinary. Numbers of techni- BOX 1.2. The key role of economic incentives in PHL cal experts have fallen sharply since the 1990s owing to reduction the shift away from agriculture as a priority for aid donors. Consequently, the number of individuals available for consul- In the current environment, greater and more sustain- tation about this, especially with reference to SSA, is quite able bene�ts can be obtained if interventions to reduce small. PHL are considered within the context of commodity and value chains, the central role of the private sec- The team’s different approaches to gathering data met with tor, and pro�tability of loss-reducing interventions. varying success. Direct contact with institutions and indi- Economic incentives are likely to play a very signi�cant viduals provided only a few—but very rewarding—sources part in reducing PHL. Care for grain, willingness to pro- of information. Using institutional public access e-mail ad- duce grain of better quality, and, hence, willingness to dresses to request information on projects was almost uni- pay for improved postharvest approaches all depend on versally a failure. Approaching named individuals had about a favorable economic returns. 30 percent success rate, and seeking detailed reports on past Source: Authors. projects from these individuals yielded relatively little beyond what was already available on the Internet. Our conclusion MISS ING FOOD INTRODUCTION 3 was that the documentation of postharvest projects and Centre of Canada offers downloads of some of their reports related institutional memory is weak. (now rather old, as their postharvest programs ended in the 1990s), and the IFAD Web site offers a good way to locate Only a few Web sites offer access to data on postharvest current projects. grain projects; FAO’s information network on postharvest operations offers a lot of technical information but little The report consists of �ve chapters. Chapter 2 considers data on projects. The most diverse and informative site is the importance of grain production in SSA, describing typical Research into Use (http://www.researchintouse.com), postharvest handling and marketing stages, stating the na- which yields information on a host of projects of the Crop ture of PHL, presenting the available estimates, and discuss- Postharvest Program of the United Kingdom’s Department ing the problems of PHL estimation. Chapter 3 discusses the of International Development (DFID) as well as DFID’s options available to reduce PHL and achieve better adoption Research for Development portal (http://www.research of technologies in SSA, and it analyzes the reasons for low 4development.info). Even more detailed, but of narrower adoption of PHL-reducing technologies. Chapter 4 looks at scope, is the PostCosecha Web site, supported by the Swiss the evolution of government and donor approaches and iden- Agency for International Development Cooperation, which ti�es areas for future interventions, informed by the ques- presents their work with metal silos in Central America. The tionnaire survey of postharvest experts. The way forward for Web site of the International Development and Research PHL reduction is presented in Chapter 5. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 5 2. NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF PHL FOR GRAINS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GRAINS after being fully dried, are stored, either on the cob or as IN SSA shelled grain, and then milled into flour. The advantage of Grains are the most important food staple in SSA. They are maize over millet and sorghum is its relatively high yield and the predominant crops, except in certain areas of West and resistance to pest attacks in the �eld, as the grains are �xed Central Africa, where the populations rely on roots and tubers on a cob that is usually covered by a tight sheath. Maize is or plantains. Hence, this report focuses on grains. Maize, widely preferred by African consumers and is replacing mil- mostly white varieties, is the most widely planted crop in let and sorghum in many parts, even where the climate is the region and has the highest production (Figure 2.1). Maize only marginal for this crop. Commercial maize farming has is grown in all but very dry agro-ecological zones, where led to the development of high-yielding varieties; the �rst of sorghum and pearl/bulrush millet are dominant. Rice cultiva- these were from Zimbabwe, where several “SR� varieties tion is widespread and increasing in response to changing were very successful. They have had the disadvantage of patterns of local consumer demand, and wheat and barley requiring other agricultural inputs, however, and often have are grown in areas that are more temperate or under irriga- greater susceptibility to pest attacks both pre-harvest, due tion. Some indigenous grains, particularly teff and fonio, are to incomplete sheath cover, and post-harvest, due to softer, important locally. Total annual grain production is in excess of more easily eaten grain. There are many local and improved 112 million tons. varieties. Most smallholders grow mixtures of local and im- proved varieties in their �elds, although some do grow high- The traditional grain crops in Africa are millet and sorghum, yielding hybrid maize (especially in southern Africa). Very and these grains are cultivated throughout the drier parts of often these crops are sold soon after harvest, both to avoid SSA. Both crops tend to have lower yields than maize (and losses in storage and because farmers are in urgent need of usually only a single annual harvest). They are, however, im- cash after the harvest. portant food-security grains because of their relative drought tolerance. Nearly all millet in Africa is of the bulrush/pearl The recent commercial introduction of genetically modi�ed type, rather than �nger. On the plant, millet and sorghum white maize varieties with, for example, resistance to her- grains are exposed on panicles that suffer considerable loss bicide has caused much policy debate (Hilbeck and Andow from pests in the �eld—particularly birds—but they are usu- 2004). This started in South Africa but is now also in Kenya. ally harvested very dry and are therefore relatively resistant Some countries have accepted this new technology as an to postharvest pest attacks. When placed in good storage, opportunity for smallholders to reduce labor and input costs, even without any insecticide treatment, small-grained millet while others, such as Zambia, believe that the new technolo- can be kept for two or three years with relatively little dam- gy threatens their domestic biodiversity. Not much is known age (e.g., in Namibia). about the impact of genetically modi�ed maize on storage, postharvest handling, and biodiversity outcomes. Maize was introduced into Africa by Portuguese traders in the 15th century, and for a long time it was grown as a Rice farming was traditionally con�ned to the cultivation of vegetable crop; the cobs were picked and eaten while still African rice in marshy places, although planting of Asian long- moist. The crop is an important component of the diet in grain rice has been a longstanding practice in Madagascar, some countries; in Kenya and Tanzania, for example, maize owing to its links with Indonesia. More modern rice cultiva- contributes about 34–36 percent of the daily caloric intake. tion of long-grain Asian rice was introduced into mainland Only in the more recent past have maize grains been treated Africa in the 20th century, especially in the Niger delta in Mali like the more traditional grain crops. Millet and sorghum, and other damp places in West Africa. The very strong local EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 6 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A FIGURE 2.1. Structure of total grain production of 112 FIGURE 2.2. Countries in SSA where irrigated lowland million tons in SSA NERICA varieties have been released or Wheat Barley are being tested 5% 1% Barley Sorghum Maize 22% Maize Millet # 40% Rice, paddy # # # # Sorghum # Rice, paddy # # ## # # 14% Wheat Millet 18% Released Test Source: Based on data from FAOSTAT (2008). # Trial Sites demand for rice and desire for import substitution has been a stimulus for the development of more effective rice cultiva- N tion. The last 10 years have seen considerable commercial 500 0 500 Kilometers development of rice, especially of outgrower schemes sup- ported by rice millers (e.g., Tilda in Eastern Uganda). A further important development has been the creation of the New Source: Somado et al. (2008). Rice for Africa (NERICA), a cross between African and Asian long-grain rice, which has the lower water requirements of domestic price has risen. Fonio is a wild-grown crop and is upland rice and has therefore brought higher yields to many often harvested when other crops fail. parts where irrigation is not feasible. However, it is also be- ginning to spread widely to the irrigated areas (Figure 2.2). Not all grains are for food. Grains are used in the production An important characteristic of the rice subsector in SSA is of local beer, which has an important socio-cultural role in the large quantity of imports. FAO statistics1 show that SSA, many African societies and is an important income earner while producing only 1 percent of global rice, accounted in for women. Grain by-products are also a source of fodder in 2009 for an estimated 33 percent of global imports of rice many countries, and the dried stems of the plants may be with nearly two-thirds bound for West African markets. In used as housing material and cooking fuel. comparison to locally produced rice, imported rice is of a In SSA, grains are supplied from domestic production, com- better consistency in terms of size, variety, color, and cleanli- mercial importation, and food aid. Imports have grown in ness. It is also easier to prepare—a characteristic which is importance as a source of supply over the years. The share particularly important in the urban areas, where consumers of imports in total grain consumption increased from about value convenience due to busy work schedules. Domestic 5 percent in 1961 to over 25 percent in recent years. Food aid rice, by contrast, tends to be characterized by high levels of increased sharply in the 1980s, reaching more than 10 percent foreign matter such as stones, broken kernels, mixed variet- of total grain consumption in 1984 (FAO 2006). Although the ies, and an unattractive color (parboiled and unpolished). importance of food aid has declined since then, it still ac- Teff and fonio are small cereal crops. The production of teff counts for between 3–5 percent of the total grain consump- is con�ned to Ethiopia and Eritrea, and postharvest problems tion in SSA. Production of the major grains in SSA has been are limited, as grains are too small for insects to attack. Teff rising at 3 percent annually over the past 40 years (Figure 2.3). has potential for expansion and in recent years has become Table 2.1 presents detailed production data by region. an important export crop in Ethiopia, to the extent that the SSA countries were occasional net grain exporters in the early years after the 1960s, shipping small volumes of maize 1 Food Outlook, Global Market Analysis, FAO, June 2010. and sorghum. At that time, grain imports represented only MISS ING FOOD N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 7 FIGURE 2.3. Grain production in SSA, 1961–2008, et al. (1992; 1997) for West African countries—26 percent. million tons Much of a household’s non-crop income comes from live- Grain production in SSA, 1961-2009 stock, mainly cattle. Cash-oriented, nonfarm activities pro- 60 vide only 6 percent of total household income per capita. 50 Barley Thus, diversi�cation across activities might seem to be a Million tonnes 40 Maize sensible strategy in reducing income variability. 30 Millet Paddy 20 Rice 10 Sorghum THE POSTHARVEST SYSTEM FOR GRAINS IN SSA AND THE NATURE OF THE LOSSES 0 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 The postharvest (postproduction) and marketing system is a Source: FAOSTAT. chain of interconnected activities from the time of harvest to the delivery of the food to the consumer, often referred to as 1 percent of total consumption. FAOSTAT data show that “farm to fork� (Figure 2.4). Within this farm-to-fork continuum, SSA grain imports grew sharply, starting in the early 1980s, a set of functions are performed. In grain value chains, ex- to 24 million tons in 2007, valued at US$7 billion and account- amples of functions include: harvesting, assembling, drying, ing for 26 percent of total grain consumption. Net imports are threshing/shelling, milling, storage, packaging, transportation, estimated to have increased more than fourfold over the past and marketing. However, the ef�ciency by which those func- two decades, from an average of 5 million tons in 1990s to 23 tions are performed depends on the speci�c context includ- million in 2007 period. When North Africa is included, net im- ing not only economic, social (e.g., cultural aspects, gender), ports rise to 48 million tons. Wheat accounted for about half of technical, and business considerations, but also wider consid- grain imports throughout the last 40 years, and rice about one erations related to the overall enabling environment, including third. Maize, which was an occasional export commodity in availability of facilitating services and infrastructure, strong the 1960s, now represents about 15 percent of grain imports. institutions, and macroeconomic aspects. Food represents about 10–20 percent of consumer spend- From a functional point of view, the primary role of an effec- ing in developed countries and as much as 60–80 percent in tive postharvest system is ensuring that the harvested prod- developing countries; in SSA, household spending on food uct reaches the consumer, while ful�lling market/consumer constitutes more than 60 percent of income. Crop produc- expectations in terms of volume, quality, and other product tion remains the principal source of income for households and transaction attributes, including nutrition, food security, in SSA—roughly 70 percent on average, of which grain crops and product safety. Once harvested, products are subject to (predominantly maize, sorghum, millet, and rice) account for biological deterioration, but the rate of deterioration is highly about 37 percent of total household income, while non-crop influenced by factors and practices that increase product ex- income averages about 30 percent of total income (Table 2.2). posure along the chain to extreme temperatures, excessive This proportion is close to the �gure reported by Reardon rain, contamination by microorganisms, mechanical damage, TABLE 2.1. Indicators of grain production and imports in Africa NET IMPORTS ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF (IMPORTS-EXPORTS) IMPORTS AS A SHARE OF REGIONS GRAIN PRODUCTION (%) (1,000 TONS) CONSUMPTION (%) 1961–1990 1991–2007 1970S 2000–2007 1970S 2000–2007 World 2.8 1.1 — — — — Africa 2.4 1.3 9,235 47,642 18 30 East Africa 2.1 2.8 531 5,752 7 17 Central Africa 0.7 2.4 742 2,778 24 34 North Africa 3.2 0.8 7,588 27,041 33 47 Southern Africa 1.9 1.6 (2,015) 2,222 6 23 West Africa 2.6 1.9 2,388 9,847 14 20 Source: Authors. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 8 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A TABLE 2.2. Mean household income shares spent on food in SSA % OF TOTAL INCOME ENTERPRISE 1994–96 2001–02 2003–04 Crop production (of which) 70.6 69.1 72.5 Grains 37.3 38.3 35.1 Roots and tubers 13.2 14.2 17.7 Beans and oilseeds 7.3 8.3 9.6 Nonfood cash crops 2.0 2.4 5.5 Fruit and vegetables 5.0 5.9 4.6 Other crops 5.2 — 0.1 Animal products 3.4 2.8 5.1 Off-farm activities 26.0 27.7 21.7 Sources: FAOSTAT; Jayne et al. (2001). chemical contamination, etc. Therefore, a critical step in minimizing PHL is the under- PHL can be quantitative (e.g., physical standing of the influence of biological and environmental factors, as well as handling weight losses) and qualitative (e.g., practices on product deterioration and, of postharvest technologies and practices loss in edibility, nutritional quality, that will slow down the process and maintain quality and safety of the product. Table caloric value, consumer acceptability, 2.3 presents examples of the causes of postharvest losses for maize identi�ed by etc.). Others refer instead to direct surveyed (small, medium, and large) farmers in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania in 2008. and indirect losses. Direct losses are related to the total or partial loss of While the causes of the PHL are manifold and can occur at any stage between product resulting from spoilage caused harvest and consumption, PHL can greatly be influenced by production conditions by mechanical, physical, physiological, (pre-harvest stages). For example, end-of-season drought and mechanical damage or biological damage; indirect losses to pods during pre-harvest are important factors contributing to aflatoxin contami- relate to qualitative loss. Others use nation and subsequent mold growth during postharvest stages. the term opportunity losses to refer to FIGURE 2.4. Illustration of a generic value chain for maize losses resulting in lost sales or sales only made in low-value markets due Examples of VC Enabling VC Functions/ Regional to quality problems and other market Factors Activities importers constrains (Box 2.1). External losses - Price discovery Animal Macroeconomic are an additional category. These fall - Selection of Consumers Exporters producers environment suppliers, buyers on both the value-chain participants - Storage (Farm Facilitating and society as a whole—for example, and off farm) institutions Wholesalers/ - Processing Retailers Animal feed (market cases in which the chemical pesti- producers information, -Transport (On standards cides used to protect grain impact farm and off farm—local, Millers setting, etc.) the environment or human health. urban, regional markets)/ Facilitating External losses can be dif�cult to esti- -Loading and Urban Traders Services unloading & mate in economic terms (see Lubulwa infrastructure - Packing and (Public WRS, et al. (1995) for an example of cassava Bagging Rural Traders extension, - Grading and financial, cyanide). Sorting Farmers transporting - Temporal associations services, roads, The following pages present a brief processing (e.g. etc.) drying, threshing, shelling, characterization of the ways some of fumigation) Farmers the postharvest related functions are - Assembling - Harvesting performed in grain chains in SSA, high- - Production Input suppliers lighting the different factors that can - Input supply influence postharvest losses along the Source: Luz Diaz Rios. different chain stages. MISS ING FOOD N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 9 TABLE 2.3. Causes of PHL (in percent to total losses) KENYA UGANDA TANZANIA CAUSES OF LOSSES SMALL MEDIUM LARGE SMALL MEDIUM SMALL LARGE Losses due to transporting on poor roads 0 5 11 6 13 Lack of storage 6 0 18 13 13 13 Pest infestation 17 18 37 25 32 40 50 Poor quality of storage facilities 28 14 20 16 23 25 Impact of weather 33 58 50 29 28 10 13 Spillage 17 5 13 4 6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: World Bank 2009. HARVESTING be less wasteful, but labor constraints can lead to delays in Most grains have a single annual harvesting season, although or failures to harvest; these, then, can result in signi�cant in bimodal rainfall areas there may be two harvests of maize postharvest losses. This appears to be undocumented. or rice (e.g., Ghana and Uganda). African producers harvest grain crops once the grain reaches physiological maturity DRYING (moisture content is 20–30 percent). At this stage the grain Most farmers in Africa, both small and large, rely almost is very susceptible to pest attacks. Also, unseasonal rains exclusively on natural drying of crops from a combination at this stage can dampen the crop, resulting in mold growth of sunshine and movement of atmospheric air through the and the associated risk of aflatoxin or other mycotoxin con- product, so damp weather at harvest time can be a serious tamination. Weather conditions at the time of harvest are a cause of postharvest losses—measured losses in excess of critical factor influencing PHL. More unstable weather condi- 16 percent in Swaziland (De Lima, 1982). Grains should be tions due to climate change, leading to damper or cloudier dried in such a manner that damage to the grain is minimized conditions, may therefore increase PHL. However, this ap- and moisture levels are lower than those required to support pears to be undocumented. In most part of SSA, harvesting mold growth during storage (usually below 13–15 percent). is traditionally the work of men; however, with the rise in This is necessary to prevent further growth of a number single-headed households, the burden between men and of fungal species that may be present on fresh grains. To women is increasingly shared. achieve this, the harvested crop may be left standing in the Harvesting by hand is the traditional method used by small �eld, cut and left drying on the ground, or stooked. In some producers in Africa. The relatively very few large-scale places, the crop may be moved immediately from the �eld to farmers may use machines to harvest their crop. No data a swept area of ground at the homestead (Figure 2.5) or to show any difference in PHL between hand and mechanical racks or cribs that are speci�cally designed to promote drying harvesting for SSA. In principle, hand harvesting is likely to FIGURE 2.5. Maize drying in the yard BOX 2.1. Maize value related to damage It has been found with maize in Ghana that for every 1 per- cent damage above 5 percent (damage referring to grains with insect holes), the value decreases by 1 percent. So if undamaged grain is worth US$1.00/kg, then grain with 10 percent damage is worth only US$0.95/kg, and with 20 percent damage it is worth only US$0.85/kg. These poten- tial losses in value can make a substantial difference to a family’s livelihood (DFID Crop Postharvest Program). Source: FAO. Source: Rick Hodges. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 10 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A FIGURE 2.6. Maize drying in a crib FIGURE 2.7. Winnowing Source: Rick Hodges. (Figure 2.6). Commercial farms may rely on large-scale drying cribs for maize. In the case of rice, the crop may be threshed before it is fully dry and the grain placed on a drying floor to Source: Rick Hodges. complete the process. However, successful drying alone is not a remedy against all PHL, as insects, rodents, and birds there is usually no premium for quality; rather, there is every may attack well-dried grain in the �eld before harvest or may incentive to leave foreign matter in the grain, especially at invade drying cribs or stores after harvest. the bottom of sacks, so that pro�ts from sales can be maxi- mized. Some small-scale equipment is available to farmers’ groups to winnow or clean maize and rice. THRESHING/SHELLING For some grains, particularly millet and sorghum, threshing ON-FARM STORAGE may be delayed for several months after harvest and the unthreshed crop stored in open cribs. In the case of maize, PHL at storage are associated with both poor storage condi- the grain may be stored on the cob with or without sheath- tions and lack of storage capacity. It is important that stores ing leaves for some months, or the cobs may be shelled and be constructed in such a way as to provide (i) dry, well-vented grain stored. All grains will eventually be threshed or shelled. conditions allowing further drying in case of limited opportu- For smallholders this is almost exclusively a manual process, nities for complete drying prior to storage; (ii) protection from except for the few cases in which some groups have access to rain and drainage of ground water; and (iii) protection from machinery suitable for small-scale operation, such as the maize entry of rodents and birds and minimum temperature fluc- shellers that some tractor owners may hire out. Rice posthar- tuations. Technically speaking, traditional methods of grain vest activities particularly bene�t from mechanical threshers, storage adopted by smallholders in Africa are usually well- which are available through some outgrower schemes and adapted to the prevailing climate. In hot, humid climates, are actively being promoted by International Rice Research farmers typically use very open storage structures to allow Institute (IRRI)/Africa Rice (WARDA) (Annex 2, Project 19). free airflow and continuous drying; at the other extreme, in hot, dry climates, farmers use sealed stores with no airflow BOX 2.2. Findings of PHL assessment surveys WINNOW/CLEANING Winnowing and cleaning of grain is usually done prior to Preliminary �ndings from a PHL assessment survey con- storage or marketing if the grain is to be sold directly. For ducted in Malawi by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food the majority of smallholder grain, this process is undertaken Security with technical support from FAO indicate losses manually (Figure 2.7). It is relatively ineffective from a com- in the region of 7–8 percent for cob-stored maize during mercial perspective, since grain purchased from smallhold- the 2009–10 storage season. This is consistent with the ers frequently requires screening to remove stones, sand, typical range of maize storage losses described above. and extraneous organic matter. There is little incentive for Source: Authors. smallholders to provide well-cleaned grain for marketing, as MISS ING FOOD N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 11 FIGURE 2.8. Indoor Kihenge (woven granary) and sacks In SSA, bulk handling, including the use of silos, is almost entirely restricted to South Africa with isolated examples elsewhere in southern and eastern Africa (and formerly in Ghana). The pros and cons of bulk handling in developing countries have been considered in detail (Friendship and Compton 1991) and are complex. PHL in storage vary widely, with variation by crop, variety, climate, storage structure, grain protection options, and length of storage period. Maize as grain or cobs (without LGB infestation) typically undergoes 4–5 percent losses in stor- age, sorghum grain 2–4 percent, wheat 3–5 percent, millet 1 percent, and rice and teff 1 percent or less. Teff is an interesting case; it is well known to suffer few loss- Source: Rick Hodges. es in storage, as its very small grain size makes it resistant to insect attack. Indeed, in Ethiopia, one way to prevent infesta- because the crop enters the store dried. Intermediate cli- tion of maize grain is to admix teff, which �lls the intergranu- mates have stores designed with intermediate airflows. In lar spaces preventing insect pest damage (Haile 2006). The recent years, there has been rising popularity for storage in situation with maize is more complex as it may or may not jute or polypropylene bags that are stacked in the house. be infested by LGB. If cobs or grains are infested by normal Such bags have an intermediate ventilation rate depending storage pests, not LGB, then weight losses typically range on where they are located in the house. Box 2.3 highlights from 4–5 percent. When cobs are infested by LGB, weight the trend of increasing bag storage in Tanzania. In fact, this losses can more than double (Hodges et al. 1983; Dick 1988; trend is not limited to Tanzania; it is gaining ground across the Boxall 2002b) and, if left unchecked, may result in the total entire SSA region due to the increasing market orientation of destruction of the stored grain. Shelling grain and storing in even small farmers as well as the spreading threat of larger sacks (as well as addition of insecticide) are the standard rec- grain borer (LGB) infestation. From a social perspective, stor- ommendations to reduce losses resulting from LGB attack. age can also have an important social role delineating patron- To limit subsequent infestation of stored grain by insects, farm- age and power within households and among peers. ers may add materials with insecticidal properties to the grain. With a degree of mechanization, large-scale farms would These materials can be of local origin, such as plants or inert normally only store grain (rather than maize cobs, unthreshed dusts. A wide range of plant materials have been used with millet, or sorghum) and this would normally only be in sacks. some success in insect control. The ef�cacy of plant materials is highly variable even within plant species, depending on va- riety, season, soil types, and the way that the plant material is BOX 2.3. Increasing use of bag storage in Tanzania used (whole dried products, powders, extracts etc.). The prod- Tanzanian farmers explained that sack storage is becom- ucts may act as natural insecticides or as repellents. In most ing increasingly popular, as sacks are more portable in cases, their safety to the consumer has not been established; case of emergencies (e.g., floods, �res). They are al- and in many cases, they will taint the grain, limiting its com- ways ready for marketing in case of need for emergency mercial value. Some are known to be toxic. A particular case or opportunistic sales, and they take up less space in the in point is the use of neem oil extended for the treatment of house (their bulk reduces proportionately, as opposed to grain in Benin. The bitter taste of the oil discouraged farmers a large woven granary that �lls a whole room, whether from applying it, even though the taste could be completely empty or full). Skills for constructing the traditional wo- removed when the grain was soaked for a long time in water. ven and mud-plastered granaries are being lost. When An extensive listing of botanical materials that have tradition- grain is in sacks, it is easier to monitor quality, and sacks ally been used for the suppression of insect pests of stored can be hidden more securely during times of food inse- crops has been prepared (Dales 1996), and the prospects of curity, as they are typically kept in the bedroom. using some of them more effectively in stock protection and as alternatives to synthetic pesticides have been researched Source: Authors. and remain a possibility (Annex 2, Project 2). EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 12 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A The inert dusts include material such as ash from maize attacks both by the normal pest complex and, in the case of cob cores, paddy husk, sand, or clay that can be admixed maize grain, the LGB, a devastating pest introduced into Africa with grain to provide a barrier to insect entry. In Cameroon, from Central America in the late 1970s and associated with a the use of ash has been extended to farmers for protecting signi�cant increase in storage losses. However, the impact of cowpeas, although the same technique could be expected to bumper harvests on losses has not been measured, and over- work for grains. The cowpeas are mixed with an equivalent all, the effect is likely to be small compared with the losses volume of ash, from which large particles have been sifted resulting from unfavorable climate at harvest. African farmers (Wolfson et al. 1991; Kitch and Giga 2000). Once the storage sometimes have suf�cient storage capacity so that good har- vessel has been �lled with ash, a further 3-cm layer of ash vests can be accommodated in �xed stores, and in exceptional is added to the top to provide a barrier to pest entry. In the years, they are content to store surplus grain in sacks in their case of ash, there may be a problem with tainting and discol- houses. Increasingly, however, subsistence farmers prefer to oration, and all these types of admixture are inconvenient in use bag storage rather than traditional structures. that they require cleaning of grain. Appropriate postharvest management is fundamental for the storage of the grain that is intended to be used as seed for further planting, but for TRANSPORT cultural reasons it may be unacceptable to certain groups In SSA, there is relatively little access to intermediate means (Murdock et al., 2003). The most reliable treatments are of transport such as bicycles, handcarts, animal-drawn carts, synthetic insecticides approved for use on grain, especially or motorcycles (World Bank 1996). For smallholders, the organophosphorus compounds such as pirimiphos methyl movement of grain from �eld to farm store is often still by (actellic), fenitrothion, and malathion, usually by admixture of head load or bicycle and, in some places, by animal-drawn a dilute dust formulation. In the case of protection against carts (Figure 2.9). For movement from store to market, com- the LGB, actellic super is used. mercial farmers hire or use their own trucks, while smallhold- ers may use bicycles, tractors, trailers, pickups, and taxis, There may be greater absolute PHL during bumper harvests depending on availability of transport and quantity of grain resulting from a sharper fall in market prices (Box 2.4). Low transported. These modes of transport lead to high PHL, prices and surplus production may result in a slower flow to as the grain is not properly protected from exposure to the the market, leading to longer storage periods on the farm. In elements, insects, birds, and theft. Where farmers work in this situation, there may be an increase in loss due to insect groups, they may be able to hire trucks; or, if scale can be achieved by local assembly, traders can be encouraged to BOX 2.4. Responding to bumper harvests pick up from villages. High PHL may occur when there are bumper harvests. Africa has one of the lowest road densities in the world This also tends to be the time when prices for grains are (WDR 2009), and transport costs can be �ve times lowest. Bumper harvests often result in high levels of political pressure to “deal with surplus crops.� Planning FIGURE 2.9. Taking the harvest home by oxcart for occasional bumper harvests is particularly challeng- ing and has often resulted in overinvestment in village- level stores (e.g., in Namibia) and even in bulk grain management systems that are not subsequently used. Little thought has gone into contingency planning for bumper harvests in SSA. Bumper harvests are rare and unpredictable, discouraging investment in �xed capital assets such as dryers or stores over and above what is needed for a “normal� season. Furthermore, the envi- ronmental conditions for bumper harvests tend to fall within regions with common bioeconomic features, a particular problem in regions of Africa where free cross- border movement of grains is now common. Source: Coulter and Magrath (1994). Source: Rick Hodges. MISS ING FOOD N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 13 FIGURE 2.10. Travel time to market for farmers in boards are available for hire. Some countries still retain their Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda grain marketing boards (e.g., Malawi) or statutory bodies (e.g., Namibia and Botswana). Examples of the current status of larger grain stores are detailed in Box 2.5. In large-scale storage facilities, insect infestation is typically destroyed using fumiga- tion with phosphine gas, combined with the spray treatment of bag stacks and store surfaces with synthetic insecticide as a hygiene measure. Standards of fumigation treatment are generally poor, and failure to kill all insects is common. This encourages the development of resistance to the fumigant, Travel Time (hr) 0-1 1-2 2-3 BOX 2.5. Examples of large-scale storage facilities in 3-4 4-5 African countries* 5-8 8-10 ƒ In Zambia, there are large-scale improved stor- 10-15 age facilities, mainly located near urban centers, 15-24 24-85 and there is a private drying capacity of about 25,000 tons annually. The serviceable storage capacity of the Food Reserve Agency stands at Source: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre. 1.3 million tons, of which 76 percent is in the form of sheds, 1 percent as silos, and 13 percent as hard standing for cover and plinth storage. greater in Africa than in Asia. The poor condition of roads ƒ In Ghana, silo storage facilities were formerly oper- and the fact that the majority of villages do not have access ated by the government, which also ran mechanical to all-weather roads may cause extended delays (Figure 2.10) drying and silo/warehouse storage facilities through or even prevent transport to market. Poor road conditions the Ghana Food Distribution Company (GFDC) with contribute to physical PHL, as they increase the shocks to a total storage capacity of about 47,500 tons, of which grain kernels are subjected during transport. In a study which 19,000 tons are silos. GFDC formerly dried undertaken in Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya in 2008, it was and stored grains but ceased operating in the early found that transport costs make up about 76 percent of total 1990s due to a lack of funding. There is some maize marketing costs. The relative share of these costs var- private sector involvement in grain storage facilities ies from 64 percent of total costs in Kenya to 84 percent in in major surplus areas; in this regard, private drying Uganda and Tanzania. The second largest cost is hired labor and storage facilities are available in the maize for loading and unloading trucks. It amounts to 11.7 percent triangle between Techiman, Nkoranza, and Ejura. of total marketing costs, ranging per ton from US$3.4 in ƒ In Malawi, the National Food Reserve Agency Uganda to US$13.3 in Kenya. The study highlights that these (NFRA) manages the national strategic grain costs are quite high because a maize bag often goes through reserve, which handles maize and retains stock a number of markets before reaching the �nal consumer in levels (currently 120,000 tons) as dictated by large cities and thus requires loading and unloading at each government. NFRA experiences very little loss intermediate stop. (estimated 0.5 percent from cleaning of maize) due to its procurement procedure. From 2003, quality speci�cations were enforced for incoming maize. LARGER-SCALE STORAGE All incoming grain is fumigated and refumigated af- Storage of grain in market places is usually problematic, ter 3–4 months in stock. NFRA has drying facilities and generally not many purpose-built grain storage fa- but prefers that farmers do the drying so as not to cilities are available. Small and medium traders rely on very incur extra costs. It buys from traders and farmers cramped facilities in small rooms and lockups. Larger traders groups but not from individuals. NFRA offers a and millers often have purpose-built grain stores, and in some countries, the storage facilities of the earlier grain marketing Continued EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 14 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A BOX 2.5. Examples of large-scale storage facilities in BOX 2.6. Role of metrology African countries* (Continued) There is little or no legal metrology applied to small-scale number of services to farmers and the private sec- grain transactions in Africa. Most trade is done by selling tor including subsidized fumigation services, rental traditional units (often reused metal cans). The absence of warehouses, and hire of the weighbridge. of reliable, calibrated weights and measures in rural ar- ƒ In Mali, l’Of�ce des Produits Alimentaire du Mali eas places grain sellers at a substantial disadvantage; (OPAM) has a warehouse capacity of 130,000 however, to date, the impact of this is unmeasured tons, of which 35,000 tons are used for strategic (Bennett 2010). reserves; the rest is rented out to the private sector. Due to poor threshing and winnowing At this level, small-scale gifting and sales of grain also play practices used by farmers, there are high levels an important social function, raising social capital and cement- of physical contaminants in grains received. To ing social bonds. In many places, as more formalized markets clean grains before storage, OPAM has had to have developed, grain is purchased metrically (e.g., there is a install a winnower for its warehouse in Ségou. price per kg or for 100 kg of grain), and these quantities are ƒ In Mozambique, most storage structures were then measured using scales. Due to both a lack of under- damaged during the civil war. However, under the standing and some unscrupulous buyers (who may tweak the present agricultural commercial strategy, the con- scales), some farmers feel that they are losing out and actively struction of silos and warehouses has been a priority, avoid taking their grain to those markets that purchase using and some silos of 2,000-ton capacity have been built scales, selling it only locally using the traditional volumetric next to production areas. Likewise, silos of 15,000 measures (Box 2.6). On leaving the farm, grain is bulked as tons have been constructed close to the main urban it passes along a marketing chain of small traders through to areas. Large silos are being leased to the private sec- large traders and millers. Only in South Africa (and, to a much tor and managed by private entrepreneurs through lesser extent, Namibia and previously Zimbabwe), where ag- arrangements with Millennium Cities Initiative. riculture is dominated by large-scale farming, well-developed Some warehouses are registered with municipal commodity exchanges that enforce grades and standards, and councils, and warehouse space is rented to a variety futures markets, is formal grain trading a signi�cant element of users, including both wholesalers and retailers of the economy. who have nowhere else to store their goods. ƒ In Rwanda, storage infrastructures in rural areas The effect of moving from single-channel to liberalized are inadequate to meet the local production. The grain markets has changed the nature and challenge of quality and maintenance of existing storage facili- PHL, expanding the focus of attention for PHL reduc- ties are often ill designed and poorly maintained; tion from the farm level to the value chain as a whole. there are 10,200 tons of farm warehousing. In ad- Effectively, as result of liberalization policies, grain markets dition, hermetic grain storage envelopes (mostly have moved from supply chains, in which grains of �xed 50-ton capacity) have been supplied for a total quality and price were produced to supply local markets, to capacity of 14,280 tons. more complex value chains with multiple-chain actors, vari- *Extracted from FAO/AfDB country reviews (FAO 2009b). able prices, and differentiated product forms. This has also exposed farmers to competition, opening opportunities to ad- dress physical and opportunity PHL in ways that can greatly and although the incidence of resistance has not been inves- bene�t not only small-scale producers but also other chain tigated in SSA, it is known from Morocco (Benhalima 2004). actors. PHL reduction can be achieved through upgrading to higher-quality value chains, increasing the volume of grain that enters the market through lower on-farm losses, and captur- GRAIN MARKETING ing price rises through arbitrage and innovative forms of col- In SSA, grain marketing is largely informal, with smallhold- lective marketing. ers selling or bartering surplus food grain to households within their own locality or trading it on local markets. The impact on smallholders of the change from govern- Smallholders are grain sellers at harvest time but may become ment-controlled supply chains to market-driven value grain purchasers before the new harvest when grain is scarce. chains in post market liberalization SSA is summarized MISS ING FOOD N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 15 BOX 2.7. The impact of market liberalization on in Table 2.4. Liberalized grain markets have several key im- commercial grain storage and marketing plications for PHL (Table 2.4): Prior to grain market liberalization in the 1980s–1990s, the a. Farmers need to be better organized, act collectively, old marketing boards, operating with varying degrees of and acquire stronger group business and marketing ef�ciency, often retained relatively well-trained staff and skills in order to capture the opportunities offered by limited losses by investing in good storage facilities and in liberalized grain markets. equipment to clean and dry grain. The private traders that b. The withdrawal of the state from grain storage and have replaced them often make do with what facilities marketing, depending on the management of the they can �nd, and their staff has received little or no train- state managed grain boards, may have left a vacuum ing, with only a few exceptions such as the pan-African in grain handling and storage know-how at the com- trading houses (e.g., OLAM and Export Marketing). It is mercial level. The skills of private sector traders and not clear to what extent this change has affected grain trade associations need to be substantially strength- quality and PHL, but empirical evidence suggests that the ened, particularly because greater inter-temporal effects are negative. The marketing boards took responsi- price variation increases the risks associated with bility for training their staff, setting quality standards, buy- holding stocks. This risk, which was occasionally sub- ing produce, and ensuring that it met quality standards sumed by government-controlled marketing boards, prior to storage. Private traders usually do not do these yet not necessarily successfully, has now been things, and an important challenge is the development of transferred to farmers. market institutions that can deliver services equivalent to c. Quality norms are now set within the value chain rather those of the marketing boards. than by marketing boards. This increases the potential premium for quality but is also a basis for discounting Larger traders supply grain to institutions nationally and the price of poor-quality grain at the farm gate. regionally. Commodity exchanges that assist with grain trading are still relatively uncommon, although increasing. d. Greater price variability makes the cost of purchasing It is rare that a premium is paid for better quality grain— grain uncertain. For de�cit producers, reducing PHL purchases are based on a minimum acceptable quality. makes more of their own production available for Most trading is undertaken without recourse to any spe- consumption and reduces the quantity of grain that ci�c grades or standards, the exception being when grain needs to be purchased to meet household needs. crosses national borders and regional standards may be applied (e.g., East African Community grain standards), Collective marketing but the enforcement of these standards is sporadic. The Collective marketing by smallholder farmers has tradi- development of grades and standards that are commer- tionally been supported by the creation of community cially meaningful and enforced is an important element in stores in many African countries, typically small bag the creation of a reliable and effective market. This also stores holding up to about 50 tons. In theory, these promotes a price premium for better-quality grain. should work well, as they are easily manageable with a small Source: Authors. amount of training; however, several factors threaten their TABLE 2.4. Possible impacts on smallholders of PHL under liberalized markets SITUATION BEFORE MARKET LIBERALIZATION NOW IMPLICATIONS Grain boards occasionally provided markets for surpluses for No assured markets Farmers need better organization, collective action, and some farmers, usually the larger ones stronger business and marketing skills Farm gate prices often unrelated to border parity price Farm gate price related to border parity price Price variation risk passed to farmers Grain, under mandate of boards, enters the supply chain at Quality standard can vary in-chain Better postharvest management practices rewarded minimum acceptable quality Pan-territorial and seasonal pricing, so farmers often sell No �xed prices, so cost to de�cit producers of Lower physical losses on farm, increased food avail- knowing the cost of buying back for food security buying grain uncertain ability, and reduced need to buy household de�cit State-controlled marketing boards often provide services, Emerging private sector taking over the role Lack of skills in grain management may lead to higher handling and storing grain left by the marketing boards losses and lower quality; many postharvest operations previously conducted by marketing boards pushed down to farm level Source: Authors. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 16 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A success. They rely heavily on successful group formation, external support; and if that support does not identify and good access to transport, a favorable market, and long-term take into consideration enabling factors nor does not provide consistency of farmers in generating suf�cient surplus crop sustainable solutions and ceases, most cereal banks seem to of a marketable quality. Small and marginal farmers com- become bankrupt. The reasons for the weaknesses of most monly live far from the sale or export point for their produce. cereal banks were summarized as follows: Transport costs can be a signi�cant proportion of the direct ƒ Insuf�cient understanding that net margins are thin— costs of production and are often underestimated. It is com- there’s little room for error in trading. mon for individual farmers to go with their product to market to ensure safety, but the disadvantage of this is that they ƒ Cereal banks frequently make management errors— may spend some of the sale price on an overnight stay or inexperience, slow collective decision making, and other expenditure, and this can add substantially to cost. social pressures lead to poor decisions in terms of Signi�cant opportunities for transport cost saving exist, but timing and pricing of purchases and sales. for various reasons (e.g., not all producing at the same time, ƒ The managers of cereal banks are managing collective not being part of the same social group, not trusting others), goods and not their own private affairs—hence, there farmers usually prefer to transport individually. is little incentive for cost minimization or ef�cient management. Collective marketing can take various forms, including ƒ Speculative storage is less pro�table and more risky bulking up for marketing by farmers groups, producer or- than most people assume. ganizations, or cereal banks. Cereal banks are community- ƒ Grain that is loaned out by cereal banks is frequently based institutions that acquire, value, and supply grain with not paid back. the intention of improving food security during the hungry ƒ Cereal banks often suffer from corruption and other season or extended droughts. Grain is bought from the vil- abuses of the cash box. lage or elsewhere when prices are low, just after harvest; it ƒ Support agents can become predators, stealing the is stored until it is needed and then sold to the villagers at a money of the cereal banks that they are supposed to reasonable price. The villagers are paid a better price for their be helping (CRS 1998). grain when the market prices are low, and they then have cash to meet their expenses. When the market prices are That said, conditions for localized successes and failure of high and their granaries are empty, they can buy grain from cereal banks need to be better understood. A recent ap- the cereal banks at below-market rates. Furthermore, since praisal of an IFAD project in Chad found that 64 percent of the bank is in the village, farmers do not have to travel long cereal banks established between 2005 and 2007 remained distances to buy grain and then transport it back home, which viable as compared to 80 percent in a similar project in Niger. saves time and money. However, cereal banks have had a In both cases, the factors critical for sustainability appeared poor success rate; have had dif�culty competing in spatial to be year–to-year variability in harvests which required arbitrage; and have suffered from accumulated consumer food security “smoothing�; limited market integration mak- debt, slow collective decision making, corruption, and loss of ing it advantageous to save grain rather than monetize it; original capital. Where depletion of capital was being avoided, membership of the more vulnerable who are most in need an unsustainable level of external supervision was required of access to grain banks; and the strong role of women in (Coulter 2007). All the collective marketing initiatives have a management, reinforced by the provision of management higher probability of success when they complement agricul- and technical support. In emergency relief situations, cereal tural intensi�cation and involve bulking substantial quantities banks can play a temporary role supplying food on favorable of produce for quality-conscious commercial buyers. terms, yet require signi�cant resource investment. However, social protection programs such as cash or food for work and A detailed account of cereal banks is presented in conditional (or unconditional) targeted cash transfers can be Annex 5. While the concept of community cereal banks in more effective, depending on the development objective. terms of improving food security of vulnerable communi- ties is clearly appealing to many agencies, sustainability is a huge problem (CRS 1998). Documentation on cereal banks is limited, making it dif�cult to get accurate �gures of the ESTIMATING THE MAGNITUDE OF PHL IN SSA investment in cereal banks, but it has certainly been signi�- In the 1970s, the popular view was that PHL were high at the cant in the Sahel region. Typically, cereal banks depend on farm level and that traditional practices were the problem. MISS ING FOOD N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 17 TABLE 2.5. Generalized loss pro�les for major grains in Eastern and Southern Africa CLIMATE TYPE CROP HOT/HUMID WARM TEMPERATE ARID/DESERT ARID/DESERT HOT/HUMID SCALE OF FARMING MAIZE SMALL MAIZE LARGE SORGHUM SMALL MILLET SMALL RICE SMALL Harvesting/�eld drying 6.4 2 4.9 3.5 4.3 Drying 4 3.5 — — — Shelling/threshing 1.2 2.3 4 2.5 2.6 Winnowing — — — — 2.5 Transport to store 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.5 1.3 Storage 5.3 2.1 2.2 1.1 1.2 Transport to market 1 1 1 1 1 Market storage 4 4 4 4 4 Cumulative % weight loss* 17.9 11.3 12.6 9.3 11.4 Cumulative % weight loss** 16.5 11.2 12.0 9.3 11.9 Note: The estimates are weighted average according to reported �gures. * Cumulative weight loss assuming all grain retained on farm, none marketed. ** Cumulative weight loss assuming that in the �rst three months, 50 percent of grain stock marketed does not incur farm storage losses. Source: APHLIS. However, some authors have argued that traditional practices (http://www.aphlis.net).2 The database presents estimates are an unlikely culprit, as farmers have survived dif�cult condi- of PHL by commodity along different chain steps, including tions over long periods by adapting their practice to prevailing harvesting, drying, storage, and transport, but not process- circumstances (Greeley 1982); others argue that they have ing activities such as milling. This effort has been supported come to accept high PHL as part of a more complex overall by a network of local experts who contribute the data on livelihoods strategy that trades off these losses against the which the model operates and validate its outputs. The es- cost of reducing them. Nevertheless, serious losses at the timation model proposed by APHLIS is simple, robust, and farm level do sometimes occur as a result of multiple factors transparent—but it is no magic wand for situations where such as agricultural developments for which the farmer is not only little or low quality data is available.3 pre-adapted. These include the introduction of high-yielding varieties that are more susceptible to pest damage, additional The magnitude of cumulative weight losses tends to vary cropping seasons that result in the need for harvesting and dry- according to climate, crop type, and scale of farming. Table 2.5 ing when weather is damp or cloudy, increased climate variabil- presents PHL estimates as weighted averages, which vary ity, or farmers producing signi�cant surplus grain that must be from year to year depending on factors like unseasonal rains, stored on the farm in larger quantities and for longer periods. Loss �gures for grains have been expressed in different 2 APHLIS was funded through the European Commission’s Joint ways, and rarely do these include all steps in the postharvest Research Centre (JRC) with the technical support of the Natural Resources Institute (NRI, UK) and Federal Of�ce for Agriculture and chain. In the 1970s–1980s, the initial international efforts to Food (BLE, Germany), in association with the UN FAO, the Asso- quantify PHL for grains mostly focused on grain once it had ciation for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central entered farm storage. Few data were gathered on harvesting, Africa (ASARECA), and the Southern Africa Development Commu- nity (SADC). APHLIS estimates PHL by cereal crop, by country, and drying, or transport losses. Although these data gaps remain, by province in East and Southern Africa (but not yet West/Central there have been recent efforts to estimate the cumulative Africa). The system went online in March 2009. It combines a PHL losses of grains along the chain, although most efforts remain calculator, a database of key information, and a network of local experts who contribute the latest data and verify loss estimates. scattered. There is decentralized ownership of data by country. The magnitude and location of PHL are poorly known be- 3 The reliability of the calculations made through APHLIS depends cause they are still frequently “guesstimates,� are rela- on the quality of PHL assessments available. For some crops or tively dif�cult to trace, and the sources themselves may process steps, assessments were conducted many years ago. Similarly, under the lack of a standardized methodology for PHL not be very reliable. Demand for better PHL estimates of estimations, many of the surveys available applied methodologies cereal grains has resulted in the development of the APHLIS that make the calculations derived from them not very reliable. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 18 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A FIGURE 2.11. Estimated percentage of cumulative postharvest weight loss from production of various grains in East and Southern Africa for 2007 Source: APLHIS. pest attacks, etc. Appropriate technical and managerial so- development practitioners, yet they are still too high to lutions to these losses will need to reflect such variations. ignore.4 In Eastern and Southern Africa, which account for Using APHLIS data, weighted average losses for East and about 40 percent of SSA’s estimated grain supplies, PHL are Southern Africa, according to reported �gures, are estimated estimated at US$1.6 billion a year (Table 2.7). This is assum- to range from 10–20 percent, with estimates varying between ing weighted average loses of 13.5 percent (taking APHLIS regions within countries (Figure 2.11). There have often been data as reference) of an estimated value of production of demands for simpli�ed loss �gures; this has led to the PHL of approximately US$11 billion (based on the FAO statistics). maize for a country or region being reduced to a single �gure Extrapolating these �gures to Central and Western Africa to representative of many years. However, such an approach is estimate the value of total PHL in SSA, the �gure could reach likely to be misleading because PHL may be due to a variety nearly US$4 billion a year, out of an estimated annual value of of factors, the importance of which varies from commodity grain production of US$27 billion in 2005–07. to commodity, from season to season, and according to the enormous variety of circumstances under which commodi- ties are grown, harvested, stored, processed, and marketed. IMPACTS OF PHL It is therefore important to not only work with �gures that Postharvest technologies can contribute to food security in are good estimates at the time and in the situation in which multiple ways. They can reduce PHL, thereby increasing the they are taken but to also be aware that in other situations, amount of food available for consumption by farmers and the �gures will differ. This necessitates regular recalculation poor rural and urban consumers. For example, the control of of loss estimates with the best �gures available. the LGB greatly reduced the loss of maize in on-farm stor- age among smallholders in a number of African countries, Recent efforts to estimate accumulative weight loses improving their food security (Golleti 2003). The bene�ts to in Ghana show similar �gures as in the case of cereals in consumers from reducing losses include lower prices and Eastern and Western Africa (Table 2.6). The losses vary by improved food security. In addition, postharvest activities grain crop and season, with the largest estimates found for such as processing and marketing can create employment maize in the main season and the smallest for sorghum in (and thus income) and better food security in the agricultural minor season. The above estimates of grain losses appear to be well be- 4 It is the losses of perishable fruits and vegetables, cassava, and low the 40–50 percent loss estimate frequently cited by also meat and �sh that can be in that high range, but not grains. MISS ING FOOD N AT U R E A N D MA GNIT UDE OF P HL F OR GRAINS IN SUB-SA H A R A N A FR ICA 19 TABLE 2.6. Mean estimates of PHL for grains in Ghana, % of total production MAJOR SEASON MINOR SEASON MAIZE RICE MILLET SORGHUM MAIZE RICE MILLET SORGHUM Harvesting 5.59 1.21 1.88 1.09 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Assembling at farm 0.86 0.50 1.55 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Temporal processing 2.97 0.60 1.16 1.97 0.40 1.16 0.50 0.00 Grading and sorting 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Packaging and bagging 1.10 0.23 0.13 0.02 1.21 0.00 0.50 0.63 Transport to home 2.66 0.49 0.07 0.15 0.65 0.55 0.58 0.00 Storage at home/farm 1.25 1.17 1.24 1.73 2.73 7.30 3.14 1.27 Loading to vehicle 1.69 0.11 0.03 0.51 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.10 Transport to market 0.05 0.24 0.22 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.07 0.20 Unloading from vehicle 0.87 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Market storage 0.76 0.79 0.33 0.83 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 18.25 5.54 6.64 7.48 9.64 9.01 4.83 2.20 Source: University of Ghana (2008). sector. Therefore, reducing PHL clearly complements other opportunities for promoting food security through PHL re- efforts to enhance food security through improved farm-level duction, especially in the current era of high food prices. productivity Thus, efforts to increase production need to be balanced with corresponding efforts to achieve gains in reducing PHL. While the gains from reducing postharvest losses can be With only 1 percent reduction in PHL, annual bene�ts of signi�cant, there are also costs associated with those ef- US$40 million may be possible, bene�ting not only produc- forts, which need to be considered when formulating PHL ers but also other actors along the chain, including SSA con- reduction strategies. Nevertheless, there are signi�cant sumers. Viewed in a different perspective, an annual value TABLE 2.7. Estimated value of weight losses for Eastern and Southern Africa based on annual production and estimated % PHL, 2005–07 average PRODUCTION FOR 16 COUNTRIES OF REGIONALLY EASTERN AND ESTIMATED VALUE ESTIMATED SOUTHERN AFRICA AVERAGE LOCAL OF PRODUCTION AVERAGE % VALUE OF WEIGHT (MILLION TONS) PRICES (US$/TON)** (US$ MILLION) WEIGHT LOSS LOSSES (US$ MILLION) Maize 27.01 194.71 5,528 17.5 920 Sorghum 4.72 250.02 1,181 11.8 139 Millet 1.67 305.34 510 11.7 60 Rice (paddy) 5.15 405.53 2,089 11.5 240 Wheat 5.25 274.36 1,441 13.0 187 Barley 1.71 281.53 481 9.9 48 Total 46.18 10,960 1,594 Note: *Countries included are Botswana, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. **Average producer prices from FAOSTAT. Source: Calculations based on FAOSTAT and APHLIS data. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 20 NATURE A ND MA GNITUD E OF PH L FOR GR A INS IN S UB-SA H A R A N A FR IC A loss estimate of US$4billion (i) exceeds the total value of ce- The above economic estimations have been restricted to real food aid SSA received over the last decade;5 (ii) equates weight losses; however, the size of the economic value of to the annual value of cereal imports of SSA, which range total losses could be substantially higher if the losses asso- annually between US$3–7 billion over the 2000–07 period; ciated with missed market opportunities were considered. and (iii) is equivalent to the annual caloric requirement of at Although opportunity losses are more dif�cult to estimate least 48 million people (at 2,500 kcal per person per day). than weight losses, there is a need to better understand their importance. The establishment of postharvest weight However, the loss of actual grain is not the only concern; the loss baseline data, as well as a better understanding of the economic losses that arise from the failure to market grain or magnitude of the opportunities lost, are both critical to bet- to sell in a higher-value market may be even more signi�cant. ter inform development experts, policy makers, and industry These result from the poor functioning of value chains due to stakeholders of the options offered by the systematic adopt- inadequate transport linkages, lack of market infrastructure ing of PHL-reduction strategies. The exercise presented here and information, lack of credit, and failure to deliver at the on PHL estimations also suggests the need for an approach required quality. Quality issues are a major barrier to market that balances the costs and bene�ts of producing more food access, both regionally and internationally. In cereal grains, to cover the losses caused by the lack of appropriate PHL- aflatoxin contamination is an increasingly important food reduction technologies and practices. safety issue—especially on maize—which poses a serious health hazard to consumers (see Annex 2, Project 24). While in this chapter the focus has been on the nature and magnitude of the losses that can occur in cereal chains in SSA, the next chapter will focus on the technological options 5 Estimated FOB value of food aid shipments of cereals over the pe- riod 1998–08, assuming the following composition of shipments: that have been implemented and are available to minimize wheat (70 percent), maize (20 percent), and rice (10 percent). PHL in grains. MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 21 3. TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES TO REDUCE PHL: A REVIEW The range of strategic options to promote postharvest sys- with mycotoxins, followed by the implementation of good tem improvements incorporate a range of technologies and manufacturing practices (GMP) during postharvest stages to practices that, if adopted by different actors along the chain, satisfy cereal demands for human food and animal feed. A can contribute signi�cantly to reducing PHL. The range of discussion of some of the most signi�cant good practices technologies and practices to promote postharvest improve- that can be implemented by farmers to reduce PHL, includ- ments can be grouped into three main categories: (i) post- ing the selection of the right variety, proper harvesting, dry- harvest grain management along the chain, (ii) pest/fungi ing, milling, shelling, and so on is presented below. This is management and storage structures, and (iii) institutional ar- followed by the analysis of the set of proper practices and rangements for grain marketing. A fourth category related to technological options for grain management during storage. communication and learning complements the efforts to sup- The institutional arrangements for grain marketing are dis- port technological improvements and adoption of improved cussed at the end of the section. practices. There is a broader set of factors related to the estimation of proper PHL baselines which include the estab- The choice of grain variety is a critical initial step in preventing lishment and implementation of quality and safety standards; loses during postharvest stages. In some locations, especially improved transportation infrastructure; enabling policies, parts of eastern and southern Africa, high-yielding varieties etc., These need to be reviewed and understood to best (HYVs) of maize are grown by farmers as cash crops. HYVs ensure the adoption of identi�ed cost/effective technologies have the disadvantage that they require the purchase of agri- and practicesThis chapter will focus on presenting an over- cultural inputs and their availability relies on commercial seed view of some of the most widespread PHL reduction tech- supply. They are also more susceptible to pest attack in stor- nologies and practices (presented in Figure 3.1) and of the age and, consequently, are sold soon after harvest. There efforts undertaken by development partners to support their have been efforts to breed maize varieties with increased adoption, which are summarized in Annex 2. Chapter 4 will resistance to storage pests over many years (Kumar 2002), focus on an analysis of the supporting services and broader but to date these have not resulted in crops with both de- factors facilitating the achievement of PHL objectives. sired agronomic characteristics and the required resistance. More progress is being made with pulses where in Malawi the Programme for Africa’s Seed system has discovered a common bean landrace (KK35) that is not damaged by either POSTHARVEST GRAIN HANDLING AND Zabrotes subfasciatus or Acanthoscelides obtectus. Future MANAGEMENT ALONG THE CHAIN progress with grains cannot be ruled out. Most recently, ef- A range of good practices to be applied along the postharvest forts to produce aflatoxin-resistant maize varieties are deliv- chain to reduce PHL have been identi�ed and sometimes ering very promising results . summarized in codes of recommended practices. PHL can be mitigated by appropriate handling and managing of the Harvesting ef�ciently and at the right time is critical to avoid product along the chain to minimize the effect of biologi- losses down the chain. PHL occurs when the harvest is too cal and environmental factors on product deterioration and early, as the crop will still be moist and grains not �lled, or avoid product contamination. For example, in the case too late, as attacks by insects, birds, and rodents will have of mycotoxins, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has begun. When harvesting is done close to the start of a rainy elaborated the Code of Practice for the Prevention and season, a delay can result in the harvest being undertaken Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals. The Code in damp, cloudy weather, and the crop will be insuf�ciently presents good agricultural practices (GAP) that represent dried. For most smallholders in Africa, mechanical harvesting the primary line of defense against contamination of cereals is not an option because the scale is inappropriate and the EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 22 TEC H NOLOGIES A ND PRA C TICES TO RED UCE PH L : A R EV IEW FIGURE 3.1. Examples of strategies to reduce PHL and promote overall postharvest system improvements Improved Postharvest Improved Pest/Fungi Institutional Grain Management at Communication Management & Arrangements for the farm level and & Learning Storage Structures Grain Marketing along the chain • Proper harvesting Insect control & prevention • Inventory credit—a means Communication and learning • Careful transport from • Shelling maize, threshing of offering stocks of cereals as regarding PHL issues: field and along the chain other cereals, and admixing guarantees for cash loans. • Media, extension and • Proper drying, threshing grain protectants such as They can operate with small education through different and shelling (including synthetic insecticides volumes and micro-credit and methods (e.g., training the proper equipment) • Clean store before loading, based around producer or trainers, farmers field schools), • Monitoring grain humidity rodent-proof store famer groups. education curricula including during drying to avoid • Alternatives to synthetic • Warehouse receipting: similar PH-related issues. mold growth insecticides (e.g., inert to inventory credit but usually • Promoting learning alliances • Sort crop to remove materials, sand, ash, larger scale, more commercially damaged grain. biological products, etc.) oriented and market linked, • Advanced planning on • Solarization more difficult access for how much will be treated • Breeding for resistance smallholders. with insecticide, depending on its planned storage period For rodents: • Careful purchasing of • Proofing storage structures grain protectants (expiry, • Trapping, poisoning recommendations, to control adulteration) and knowledge • Hermetic storage in plastic on their use bags or fully sealed plastic • Careful grain loading stores, or metal drums that and stacking will suffocate pests • Understanding of household • Cost/benefit analysis to food budgeting requirements work out how affordable/ • Accessing market information economic protectants are and understanding of seasonal price fluctuations to help decide when to sell. Facilitating factors Available postharvest baselines and system in place for monitoring PHL improvements (including PHL-related indicators) Means to facilitate access to market information Assessment of gender issues and socioeconomic diversity Research and development (resistant varieties, cost/effective drying methods, etc.) Investments in infrastructure (roads, storage, etc.) Setting standards and creating incentives for their implementation Integrating postharvest loss reduction into agricultural policies Facilitating credit to smallholders and other chain actors Enhancing postharvest capacities of service providers & extension services Source: Luz Diaz Rios. cost unaffordable. The only exception may be in rice culti- Better approaches to grain drying are needed. In hot, dry vation where mini-combine harvesters have been tested by climates, sun drying is easily achieved; the approaches IRRI/WARDA (Annex 2, Project 19). The HIV/AIDS pandemic taken may not need any speci�c improvements except has reduced the ability of many communities to manage that of preventing exposure of the product during drying to peaks in labor demand, such as harvesting, but few projects dust particles and other foreign material, insects, and birds. have responded to this issue speci�cally—an exception However, in more humid places or where harvest time may is Project 9, Annex 2. In this example, an IRRI-type two- be cloudy, other approaches could be used that would lead to wheeled tractor that can be used for soil tillage, maize shell- a reduction in PHL and, especially in the case of maize, can ing, wheat harvesting, and threshing is being manufactured limit possible contamination with mycotoxin. Determining in Uganda (Figure 3.2). the moisture content in several spots of each load of the MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 23 FIGURE 3.2. IRRI-Type two-wheeled tractor provides wooden construction with chicken wire mesh to encourage transport, can be used for tillage, good ventilation and is an improvement over more tradi- harvesting, shelling, or threshing tional designs in that it is longer and thinner to aid better ventilation. These drying cribs have been used in many places and were a centerpiece of a project to improve maize quality in Ghana, where the extension package from Sasakawa Global 2000 included drying cribs for cobs and insecticide for admixture to grain. However, such cribs are expensive to build and may suffer from termite damage. In some locations where rain is possible at the time of harvest, tarpaulins have been supplied to cover grain during rainfall; this approach will become increasingly important as climate change makes erratic and unpredictable rains more likely. A grain dryer incorporating a solar air-dryer and a photovol- taic power-assisted fan has been designed in Malawi to dry Source: Rick Hodges. maize. The dryer can dry 90 kg of maize grain per batch and harvested grain and, most importantly, at the end of the dry- is considered cost effective, with a payback period of less ing process is a critical control point to reduce postharvest than one year if surplus grain is dried and sold in the market. deterioration. It is not clear whether there has been any uptake of this device. Postharvest improvements can often be made through train- The single most widespread postharvest technology adop- ing and development of appropriate skills in postharvest han- tion in the SSA grain sector during the past 30 years has dling and managing. However, in humid producing regions, been the emergence of the small-scale hammer mill. In some proper drying becomes a critical constraint to postharvest cases, this has gone from zero hammer mills (e.g., all maize improvements. In humid regions, drying cannot be man- pounded in the household by women) to blanket coverage aged with proper handling or management practices alone, (e.g., all communities with a hammer mill business) within but in combination with cost-effective drying systems and just a few years (Mallet and Du Plessis 2000). This emer- business models that create incentives to farmers for invest- gence of small hammer mills has largely followed the pat- ments in proper drying technologies. The search for these tern of rural electri�cation. Most mills operate on an in-kind cost-effective drying technologies and business models payment basis, with consumers bringing maize to the mill needs to be a critical element of current and future applied- and receiving maize flour in return for payment in maize and research efforts. Some of the drying technologies developed by-product. The emergence of the small-scale maize milling for grains are discussed below. sector in almost all countries has largely come without any The use of mechanical dryers for higher-value crops can give government support or donor engagement. The adoptability reasonable paybacks. IRRI in Southeast Asia, for example, of the hammer mill was likely supported by clear bene�ts for installed 7,000 flatbed driers fuelled by rice husk for rice dry- women, as it reduced drudgery and increased time available ing in Vietnam. However, IRRI’s target for establishing drying for other productive activities. facilities is not farmers but contractors who provide a drying Another success story is the promotion of a new rice service to farmers and the commercial sector (mainly rice thresher in the Senegal River valley. This is an example of millers and a few traders). Since 1991, there appear to have a technology successfully adopted in the context of grow- been no successful introduction of dryers to individual farmers ing labor constraints and higher rural wages. The problem of in Southeast Asia except the SRR low-cost dryer in Vietnam high losses of manual threshing had been identi�ed there in (US$100, 1-ton capacity), but this dryer served as an entry the mid-1990s (FAO 1994). A collaborative program between point to demonstrate the advantages of dryers and is now be- WARDA and IRRI identi�ed an improved rice thresher-cleaner ing replaced by larger flatbed dryers for contractors and millers and then engaged local manufacturers and end users to de- (Gummert 2010). velop an African technical solution that is affordable, locally For the humid tropics, a speci�c drying crib has been constructed, and acceptable to farmers in the rice-growing designed for holding maize cobs (Boshoff 1979). It is of areas. The new rice thresher produces 6 tons of rice per day EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 24 TEC H NOLOGIES A ND PRA C TICES TO RED UCE PH L : A R EV IEW with a grain-straw separation rate of 99 percent, compared One approach to reducing PHL during storage is either by with manual threshing, which yields only 1 ton of rice per modifying existing store types so that they perform bet- day and requires additional labor for winnowing (Diagne et al. ter or by introducing existing traditional but more effective 2009). A high internal rate of return made the new thresher store types to those communities that do not already use extremely attractive for use in the Senegal River valley, but them (for example, mud silos). Mud silos (Figure 3.3) have the average purchase price of US$5,000 makes it unafford- been promoted in some districts of northern Ghana, where able for many smallholders. their use is not traditional. They offer potential for the bet- ter storage of food grains than more open store types can When the thresher is used for 90 days, the bene�t-cost offer, as they are well sealed. Survey work by Opportunity ratio reaches 2.3, well above unity. The economic life of Industrialization Centre, Tamale, has demonstrated that the new thresher is �ve years, with a salvage value of 30 PHL for grain stored in them remain low regardless of percent of the purchase price (Diagne et al. 2009). The whether the crop was treated with a grain storage pesti- technology became so popular in the Senegal River valley, cide (Azu 2010). following its commercial release in 1997, that its impact was recognized in 2003 when the president of Senegal In Gushiegu/Karaga district, over 1,000 silos have been presented the ASSI team with the special prize for sci- constructed through promotion projects by the Ministry ence research. Today, more than 50 percent of total paddy of Food and Agriculture, Ghana, Adventist Development produced in Senegal is threshed with the ASSI thresher- and Relief Agency, and OICT, where skilled artisans from cleaner, and there are the spill-over effects in other West mud silos–building groups have constructed silos for those African countries (Table 3.1). As a result of this experience, groups that do not already use this technology. A survey of WARDA and other partners are using this approach for fur- the new silos was undertaken for information to add to the ther development of rice harvesting technology. The ASSI experiences of earlier silo-promotional campaigns carried thresher has also been successfully modi�ed for threshing out in the region (Annex 2, Project 13).Varying degrees of fonio, through a collaborative project that involved FAO, success were noted, and important lessons were learned CIRAD, and national research institutions in Guinea, Mali, that have application for the successful extension of any and Burkina Faso (Annex 2, Project 27). technology (Box 3.1). Farmers provided evidence that there is much less insect infestation when commodities are stored in sealed mud silos. Sixty survey respondents, owning both mud silos and other stores, in Gushiegu/ STORAGE AND PEST MANAGEMENT Karaga during the 2002 storage season reported that of On-farm storage a total of 565 kg of insect-damaged maize, only 6.5 per- Adoption of an appropriate and effective method of grain cent of the damage occurred in mud silo structures. The storage can signi�cantly improve the quality and quantity of remaining 93.5 percent of storage losses occurred in other grain at outturn. For this reason, there has been a strong fo- local stores (e.g., kambons, jute sacks, and kunchuns). cus on the extension/modi�cation of existing store types as The survey concluded that mud silos offer the bene�ts well as on the introduction of new storage types. of improved food security by reducing storage losses and TABLE 3.1. Spillover effects from the ASSI thresher cleaner COUNTRY NUMBER OF USE RATE (%) PROJECT PARTNERS TECHNOLOGIES Senegal 250 75 WARDA, ISRA, SAED, SISMAR, AGRITECH, Local artisans, Producer groups Mauritania 50 15 SONADER, CNRADA, EL MALLY, GIE Mali 100 10 IER, Of�ce du Niger, local artisans Burkina Faso 10 10 INERA, CGF, PAFR, producer groups, local artisans Ghana 11 — MADR, World Bank, KAPONG Project Côte d’Ivoire 7 — ANADER, Local artisans Source: Diagne et al. (2009); information from WARDA. MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 25 FIGURE 3.3. Sealed stores—mud silo (a) and metal silo (b) a. Mud Silo b. Metal Silo (Postcosecha Type) Source: Rick Hodges. that they enable crops to be stored for longer, thus giving model granary sites became the focus of further postharvest greater marketing flexibility. demonstrations and training. Modi�ed farm stores can provide solutions to long-standing Introduction of new store types have been done, most of storage problems in Africa and elsewhere. While grain them recently. Sealed stores offer good opportunities to storage structures help protect against crop losses from in- minimize PHL. These stores, with a reasonable degree of sects, rodents, molds, theft, and �re, traditional designs are sealing but not fully airtight (hermetic), offer an effective not always effective, and building them is dif�cult for poor barrier to pest attacks but may require action to kill any communities where the hardwood supply is limited due pests at the time of loading (e.g., fumigation). Those that to deforestation. Smallholders in Zimbabwe experimented can be made hermetic have an additional advantage in that with PVC pipes �lled with concrete to replace timber, with the gas composition in the store changes over time, oxy- the added advantage that rodents and termites don’t attack gen is depleted, and carbon dioxide rises so that any pests these posts. They also produced a manual and video for present are killed. A wide range of different structures can facilitating extension to other countries (Annex 2, Project be sealed, and these can take the form of metal or plas- 10); however, the initial expense of the pipes and con- tic drums or of plastic bags, some of which may be fully crete has prevented farmers from widely adopting these hermetic. modi�cations. Clean metal oil drums (200 liter) have been stores of choice In Zimbabwe, storage structures were promoted that (promoted by the Collaborative Research Support Program were made of a concrete base with burnt brick walls and a project in Senegal and other countries) for cowpea storage thatched roof. This was basically a modi�ed version of the but would be equally good for grain storage. The drum is traditional pole and mud structure with a timber base rest- �lled with about 150 kg of sundried cowpeas and �tted with ing on stones. The modi�cations were mainly in response its cap. This should be greased before tightening to ensure to farmers’ concerns over dwindling construction resources that it is airtight. Similar-sized plastic drums with tight-�tting and of�cial concerns regarding the threat of the arrival of lids would be equally effective. LGB in Zimbabwe. The promotion centered on the construc- tion of a model granary, with the participation of local builders During the 1970s, tanks of about 1-ton capacity made of cor- and agricultural extension staff, and grain treatment demon- rugated, galvanized iron became popular in Swaziland; and by strations at the model site when the granaries were loaded the late 1990s, about 30,000 tanks were in use. The design with the farmer’s own maize. Farmers with excess maize was adapted from water tanks, and, although there was no were prepared to sell part of their harvest to construct their subsidy or major extension program, farmers were encour- own granaries using the trained builders. The model storage aged to place them on stands in the shade and to fumigate facility had a capacity of about 3 tons, and the total cost of the grain with phosphine. This type of storage continues to the store was equivalent to 1 ton of maize at the time. The offer an excellent option to reduce PHL. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 26 TEC H NOLOGIES A ND PRA C TICES TO RED UCE PH L : A R EV IEW BOX 3.1. Mud silo promotion in Northern Ghana (Annex 2, Project 13) Following the construction of over 1,000 mud silos in northern Ghana, with variable success, a review concluded the following: 1. Community-based organizations such as farmer groups or marketing cooperatives were needed as information channels, for the selection of the appropriate communities within which to promote silos, and to implement capacity building training programs. 2. A more rigorous and inclusive approach should be used (i.e., not top down) to decide on the communities to be involved and the speci�cs of the promotion methodology. 3. Farmers must be sensitized to pros and cons of mud silos and informed of the materials that must be prepared in advance of construction. 4. It is essential to ensure that the selection process takes into account the actual needs and priorities of the po- tential farmers and households as well as the availability of resources key to the construction and maintenance of the silos. The participation of these potential household bene�ciaries must be con�rmed. 5. In view of the relatively large number of structures that have collapsed in the promotion areas, it should be a prerequisite that in subsequent promotions an adequate number of farmers be trained in the care, maintenance, and utilization of the structures. 6. The design of structures must take account people’s diverse needs (e.g., size of opening be narrowed and design types be available for categories of people that include the weak, strong, adults, children, etc.), and com- partments must be introduced for increased usefulness and strength of structures. 7. Bene�ciaries need to be informed on how to locate and maintain structures for security and durability. 8. Both new and old users of silos need training in storage practices to prevent the introduction of pests during loading. Source: DFID. While postharvest specialists around the continent are in the silos. This can be done by placing a burning candle on familiar with the Swazi metal tank, it has hardly been the grain surface and then sealing the silo. In an appraisal disseminated in other African countries. Instead, metal of the potential for promoting metal silos in Tanzania and silos (Figure 3.3(b)), of a design originally introduced into Mozambique, it was concluded that it is critically important Central America by the Swiss Agency for Development to be able to obtain galvanized iron sheets of suitable qual- and Cooperation’s PostCosecha project, have been ex- ity. In both countries, the available sheeting failed to meet tended (Annex 2, Project 14). These are available in a range standards established under the PostCosecha project. of capacities from 0.1 to 3 tons. They achieved very high It was concluded, though, that the lack of supply did not adoption rates in Central America over a period of more pose a major problem. A postharvest project can create than 20 years by a social marketing approach that attend- the necessary demand in its area of operation to attract ed to all elements of the marketing mix—product, price, commercial supply of galvanized iron sheets that would be distribution, and promotion (Coulter et al. 1995; Coulter cut by local pro�lers and, subsequently, retailed through and Schneider 2004). By 2008, the project had recorded local hardware stores. However, to avoid facing an endless the transfer of 586,000 metal silos, mainly to smallholder chicken-and-egg supply problem, a project would need to farmers who received a wider range of bene�ts than origi- make the �rst order itself, pricing the sheeting at a level nally expected. that simulates expected commercial margins (Coulter and Schneider 2004). The main technical constraints for farmers using metal si- los are the need to have their grain dry before storage and In the 1997–2007 period, FAO was involved in extending the need to undertake phosphine fumigation against pest metal silos in nine African countries (FAO 2008). Although infestation. In some African countries, there is an of�cial many silos were distributed to farmer groups free of prohibition on farmers using fumigants; in such situations, it charge, they were also promoted through revolving credit would be possible to protect the grain by depleting oxygen funds and payments in grain (Annex 2, Project 15). By all MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 27 BOX 3.2. Farmers’ bene�ts from using the silo— be done by the extension services; and (iii) the silos were Central America targeted at the community, not the individual. The farmers’ main approach to storage was to have bags in their houses, ƒ The bene�ts consisted of improvements to family which they consider cheaper, more convenient, and more food security; reduction in postharvest losses; secure. increased income from selling grain at a later Metal silos clearly do offer continuing opportunities for the date; improving farmers’ negotiating position with reduction of PHL in SSA. CIMMYT is currently undertaking a middlemen (more of a sellers’ market, as there pilot research study investigating technical and social issues was no rush to sell); savings from not having to and promoting the silos in Malawi with CRS and with World buy back in the lean season; improvement in the Vision in Kenya (Kanampiu 2009). It appears that there is still position of women within the home economy considerable potential for extending metal silos in Africa. (reducing drudgery etc.); and improvement in However, it is important to take into account the lessons health, hygiene, and general household welfare; already learned in SSA and those learned by the PostCosecha easing the diversi�cation into pro�table cash project in Central America (Box 3.3). crops; and production of (high-yielding but less pest-resistant) hybrid maize. Bags and other storage structures made of plastic have the advantage that they can be made airtight (hermetic). Under ƒ The adoption of the silos not only bene�ted the such conditions, biodeterioration can be slowed. One such owner’s family but also nonowners within the method currently under extensive promotion is the use of same rural communities. More grain was being “triple bagging� for cowpea storage, although it could be stored and sold locally libreado (a pound at a adapted for grains. time). This advantage would be of great signi�- cance in Africa, where even in surplus-producing The triple-bagging technique was developed as an effective areas, a small minority of farmers normally hermetic storage method in Cameroon (Kitch and Ntourkam produces most of the surplus, and most farm- 1991), using two inner bags made of 80 micron polyethylene ers produce insuf�cient for their annual needs. and one outer, more durable bag to help protect against dam- When farmers have more grain to sell in the lean age. Well-dried cowpea �lls the �rst bag, which is tied shut season, it tends to force prices down in favor of securely using string. The �rst bag is placed within a second the consumer. bag, and this is closed securely. A third bag is used to enclose the �rst two and to protect against damage. Clear plastic Another important advantage of the silo was the con- bags are recommended so that the cowpea can be inspected venience factor. Despite the poverty of most farmers, easily for any signs of insect attack. It is also recommended the simplicity of the structure was a major attraction. It that the bags should remain sealed for at least two months could be purchased “ready to use,� without the need for after they are �lled, and after they are opened, they should the farmer to �nd the materials himself; it did not require be resealed quickly to prevent entry of pests. The bags must much maintenance and was easy to use. be kept safe from rodents that might make holes in them and Source: Coulter and Schneider (2004). so break the seal. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is currently funding a large regional West Africa food-security accounts, the extension in Africa was not without its prob- project (Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage), which is being lems. In Mozambique, the dissemination failed due to an implemented by World Vision and Purdue University with as- inadequate capacity for local fabrication. In Malawi, metal sistance from the National Agricultural Research Institutes. silos of 250-kg, 500-kg, 900-kg, and 1.9-ton capacities were The project is extending hermetic triple plastic bags of 100-kg made available, but the largest capacity supplied wouldn’t capacity, each costing ~US$1.8, to 12,660 villages through- �t inside most houses, and costs were considered high out Niger, Mali, Chad, Ghana, and Senegal (Schmidt 2009). In (US$120–450). Farmers were given very little training in use addition to supporting extension and farmer training, they are and were reliant on extension services to fumigate grain. linking with the bag manufacturers and retailers to enhance Consequently, many of the silos that were supplied free long-term access. They have found that the bags are eas- of charge were not used. The main reasons for this would ily accepted by farmers, provide a very high level of insect appear to be (i) security issues—farmers want grain to be control, and can be used for 3–4 years before they become inside their house; (ii) the need for fumigation treatments to too damaged. However, bag quality is an issue; the seams EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 28 TEC H NOLOGIES A ND PRA C TICES TO RED UCE PH L : A R EV IEW BOX 3.3. The lessons learned in metal silo promotion in Central America by the Swiss agency for development and cooperation (SDC) PostCosecha project 1. Willingness to buy the silo is a powerful indicator of demand. The measure brings together the various bene�ts that the farmer is deriving from the silo, which are dif�cult to calculate exactly in cost-bene�t terms. For this reason it was advantageous to have a major component of unsubsidized sales, as this provided the program with objective feedback on farmers’ own valuation of the bene�ts derived and of their willingness to invest in postharvest improvements. 2. The need for a long-term approach to marketing that involves (i) attention to all aspects in the marketing mix (product, price, distribution, and promotion) and quality control; (ii) focusing effort initially on a limited geo- graphical area; and (iii) the involvement of many collaborating transfer institutions. It takes considerable time for farmers to evaluate and adopt new storage technologies, and strong follow-up is needed to ensure that the structures are being correctly made and used. If this is not done, the whole concept can easily fall into disrepute. This provided a rationale for SDC’s 20+ year commitment to the PostCosecha project. Typically, such systematic long-term approaches are lacking in postharvest initiatives in Africa. 3. The silo lends itself to quality control better than most other structures do, given that this function can be focused largely on a limited number of artisans—650 at the last count, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of adopting farmers. Standardization of the silo in terms of both design and a small number of standard sizes made training and quality control much easier. 4. The silo was mainly used to store grain for home consumption, rather than for marketable surpluses that needed to be disposed of in wholesale quantities, due to the low speed of unloading through the outlet spout. 5. The involvement of the transfer institutions was very bene�cial in building up demand for the silo and developing artisans’ supply capabilities but may have diverted the artisans from developing their own markets directly with the farmers. It would appear that for sustainability, there is a need for a move from an “aid-driven� approach to an entrepreneurial and marketing-oriented approach. However, there is a continuing need for public investment in promotional activities that entrepreneurs cannot be expected to carry out individually. 6. Experience showed that it was possible to train small farmers to treat their grain safely with fumigant (phos- phine) when using the metal silo. Source: Coulter and Schneider (2004). are particularly crucial in obtaining a hermetic environment. maintain seed germination viability for much longer periods, Timely delivery of the bags is critical, as is thorough training control grain pests without using chemicals, and maintain of all partners in how to �ll, store, and maintain the bags. The grain quality for a longer period. Hermetic sacks are appar- project has also recognized the need to ensure that distribu- ently being traded in Africa (Table 3.2). It has been suggested tion channels are given more attention to help commercial that these cost around US$40 per ton and can be reused two sustainability after the post ends; in Niger, the project dis- or three times (FAO 2010). tributed free bags to �ve households in each of more than Plastic drums of all sorts, including water tanks, can be sealed 5,000 villages as part of the promotion activities, but other and used as effective hermetic grain stores. In Namibia, the households have been buying the bags. traditional termite-resistant mopane wood store has been re- produced in brown or blue plastic (Figure 3.5) by a water tank Also made available, instead of triple bagging, are hermetic manufacturer. The cost of these stores is US$200, and the sacks made of tough multilayer polythene material incorpo- manufacturers (in 2005) were looking for agricultural bank rating a gas barrier that restricts oxygen and water vapor support to make loans available to would-be purchasers. movement. These hermetic sacks (Figure 3.4) are made to hold from 50 kg to 3 tons of grain or seed. IRRI has tested super bags that �t as an airtight liner in the existing woven Pest management in storage bags used by the farmer. Studies with paddy storage in super Grain can become infested by insect pests prior to storage bags in the Philippines demonstrated that farmers are able to or during storage if the store structure is not insect proof. A MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 29 FIGURE 3.4. IRRI super bag (the gas- and moisture- TABLE 3.2. Hermetic sacks and hermetic proof liner) large-scale envelopes used in Africa SMALL-SCALE LARGE-SCALE HERMETIC SACKS HERMETIC ENVELOPES Ethiopia Seed and coffee Sudan Wheat Kenya Maize and coffee Kenya Maize Uganda Seed and coffee Uganda Maize Rwanda Coffee Rwanda Maize, sorghum, rice, beans Malawi Maize Tanzania Maize Ghana Maize Ghana Maize Zambia Maize Nigeria Maize Sierra Leone Sorghum Source: Rick Hodges. Senegal Peanut seed Source: Information from Grainpro Co. range of options to provide protection during storage is open to smallholder farmers not able or willing to adopt an insect- options open to them at time of harvest are potentially sig- proof, hermetic store. ni�cant contributions toward limiting PHL. This advice is The implementation of good hygiene and the training of farmers within the remit of the government and nongovernmental or- to calculate the cost and bene�ts of the pest-management ganization (NGO) extension services yet is rarely promoted. FIGURE 3.5. Plastic granary (left) and the traditional mopane wood model (right) Source: Rick Hodges. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 30 TEC H NOLOGIES A ND PRA C TICES TO RED UCE PH L : A R EV IEW It would seem an ideal subject for primary and secondary be introduced to groups who traditionally use less ef�cient school curricula, although it would have to be adapted for storage methods. prevailing storage conditions. The use of diatomaceous earths (DEs) for the protec- The judicious use of synthetic insecticides offers farmers tion of stored grain against insect infestation has a storing grain a potent means of protection against storage long history in China, but it is a novel approach in Africa pests. The best example of this has been the campaigns (Annex 2, Project 12). DEs are the fossil remains of aquatic against LGB, in which shelling of maize cobs, the admixture plankton and may be mined and then refined for use as of an insecticidal cocktail (mixture of organophosphorus and storage protectants. DEs are nontoxic to mammals and synthetic pyrethroid), and storage in sacks or other contain- therefore safe to mix with food (Quarles 1992). However, ers has limited grain losses. when particles of DE come into contact with insects, they absorb wax from the insect cuticle, causing water loss, LGB is a major storage pest that attacks maize and cassava desiccation, and death (Ebeling 1971). They have been in storage. The pest was accidentally introduced into Africa shown to be as effective as the synthetic conventional (Tanzania, East Africa, West Africa) during the late 1970s, insecticide, actellic super dust, in limiting insect dam- where it has spread rapidly. Trade and food relief are the criti- age on farm-stored maize, sorghum, and cowpea grains cally important routes through which LGB spreads. The pest in Tanzania and Zimbabwe for periods of eight months causes signi�cant losses to maize, making storage impos- (Stathers et al., 2002a; 2002b; 2008). However despite sible over long periods and thereby compromising food secu- significant research activity, the bottleneck of register- rity and lowering the quality of marketed grain. The potential ing and commercializing DEs in SSA has not yet been bene�ts of controlling LGB include reduced losses, improved overcome for either imported or locally available deposits quality and nutritional value, reduced need to sell early when of DEs. Many DE dusts are now available commercially prices are low, reduced disruption to trade, and reduced need and are registered for use as grain protectants in Europe, to secure alternative food to compensate losses. All this has United States, Australia, China, Japan, and the Middle prompted huge investments to deal with LGB (Annex 2, East. The potential remains for private sector companies Project 11). An impact study by DTZ Pieda Consulting found in African countries to register the use of DEs for stored that that the bene�ts accruing to Ghana and Tanzania have grain protection, to exploit their own deposits of DEs as more than exceeded the costs incurred by DFID (Goletti environmentally acceptable alternatives, and to import and Wolff 1999). Total bene�ts should have been higher if substitutes for synthetic insecticides. The incentive to do �gures from Benin, Kenya, and Togo were included in the this may increase as pressure is brought to bear to remove calculations. Total expenditure to control this pest amounted existing organophosphate-based products. However, it to £15.2 million at 1998 prices, while the gross savings for should be noted that DEs from different sources vary Tanzania and Ghana amounted to £17 million, a �gure that in their efficacy against insects (Katz 1991; McLaughlin would more than offset the total expenditures of donors, 1994; Korunic 1998; Mvumi et al. 2006); therefore, blan- also giving a bene�t-cost ratio greater than unity (Goletti and ket recommendations for local deposits of DEs prior to Wolff 1999). It is worth noting that the bene�ts of this inter- testing their efficacy would not be valid. vention will continue to accrue in future years while the costs remain the same or are not incurred, so the bene�t-cost ratio Exposing grains to heat treatment could have very bene�- should increase with time. cial effects, although to date the process is applied only to pulses. Traditionally, farmers have exposed pulses to sun- However, synthetic insecticides are falling out of favor for shine at various intervals after storage, and this has helped environmental and health reasons, and the future is likely to reduce losses from mold and insects by lowering moisture rest more on other approaches such as good hygiene, her- content and by driving off some adult insects and perhaps metic stores, and the application of alternatives to synthetic even killing some in the developmental stages. Sunning insecticides such as diatomaceous earths (see below). It is common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) is often practiced in also possible that the insecticides derived from local plant several parts of Uganda and Tanzania with a frequency of materials and used traditionally by farmers in certain areas every 1–4 weeks; it is usually combined with other types of can be introduced to those groups that do not already use treatment such as admixture of botanicals, ash, or even soil them, in much the same way as the use of mud silos can (Giga et al. 1992). Such treatments would be expected to be MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 31 effective for grains, but the larger quantities involved may closed using gastight zip fasteners are used in a wide range impose excessive labor requirements. of African countries (Figure 3.6). Envelopes of various capaci- ties are available, although in Africa they are commonly of Although sunning is advantageous, it does not normally re- 50 tons. A cooperative in Rwanda has been supplied with sult in a high enough temperature for a suf�cient period of 50-ton units, but experience has shown that these types of time to kill all the insects. However, if cowpeas are held at storage are not used effectively without good staff training. 65°C for about 5 minutes, all life stages of callosobruchus While these are undoubtedly good stores, the bene�ts of maculatus can be killed; at 57°C, all stages can be killed in being hermetic are lost if they are opened frequently for grain about 1 hour (Murdock and Shade 1991). To achieve lethal removals or deposits; and if they are less than 75 percent temperatures, pulses need to be solarized in a solar heater— full, the plastic walls are slack and prone to rodent attack. this can be as simple as placing the cowpeas on an insulating The cost bene�ts of this system against conventional meth- layer, covering them with a sheet of translucent plastic, and ods have not yet been demonstrated, although their use is weighing down the edges with stones. The solar heater is favorable under some circumstances (Annex 2, Project 17). kept in the sun for at least 5 hours and will kill all insects. It is suggested that they cost from US$180–$220 per ton, However, if the cowpeas are to be used as seed for plant- depending on size (FAO 2010). ing, this may not be an appropriate procedure; there is some evidence that it can reduce germination rates by up to 20 per- In northern Ghana, large, high-density polyethylene water cent. Plastic sheeting solar heaters have been successfully tanks (3,000–4,000 liters) were adopted by TechnoServe in a extended in Cameroon (IRA Cameroon/Purdue CRSP project) pilot scheme for the storage of cowpeas for small traders or as well as in Uganda and northern Ghana (Crop Postharvest farmer groups. An outlet was added at the base of the tank Programme, DFID project). An alternative to plastic sheeting for off-loading, and the tanks were placed on platforms and is to use a solar heater constructed from corrugated galva- provided with shade from the sun. The cowpeas loaded into nized iron; this can be used for larger quantities and is more the tanks were fumigated with phosphine, and good preser- durable than plastic sheeting, so may be a more cost-effective vation was achieved. Further testing was recommended to option in large-scale operations. The larger-scale option may determine whether the hermetic properties of the tank were be appropriate for the treatment of grains. reliable for the killing of insects without the need for fumiga- tion Although used for cowpea storage, this system would be expected to work equally well with grains. Large-scale storage Innovations in larger-scale storage have focused on the use of The government of Niger stored 10,000 tons of cowpeas hermetic containers that can control insect infestation with- in hermetic triple plastic bags in 2008–09 for strategic out the need for fumigation. Large, sealed, plastic envelopes food reserves. Clearly, the triple-bagging method can have FIGURE 3.6. Hermetic grain-storage envelope sealed shut with a gastight zip in Rwanda Source: Rick Hodges. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 32 TEC H NOLOGIES A ND PRA C TICES TO RED UCE PH L : A R EV IEW applications in large-scale storage, as can super bags. It would ƒ Storage structures: a variety of different storage be worthwhile to examine the cost bene�t of using sealed structures are available according to scale of opera- bags for grain preservation in large-scale storage against the tion and may either be open to air exchange or airtight use of conventional pest management with fumigation. (hermetic). Stores offer shelter to the grain, and in addition, hermetic stores by themselves also prevent pest damage. Grains can be stored in sacks of various SUMMARY OF THE CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES types on both a small and large scale. For medium- or AND PRACTICES AVAILABLE FOR PHL long-term storage, hermetic sacks may be used when REDUCTION bene�ts outweigh costs. In other situations, tradi- Examples of a range of technologies that can be applied at tional mud stores (as well as more modern plastic various points of the value chain are discussed above and are or metal silos) may signi�cantly reduce the PHL of also presented in Annex 4. Some of them have already seen smallholders. Such stores may be hermetic or at least wide and successful adoption; others less so—or are as yet suf�ciently sealed to prevent pest access to grain. unused. In summary, the current opportunities for smallhold- ers to reduce their PHL are the following: If these technologies and practices are to be given a rea- sonable chance of successful adoption, they must �rst be ƒ Crop varieties: grain varieties with better postharvest carefully evaluated from a technical, economic, and social characteristics should be developed. It is important to perspective and adapted as necessary. The success of such strive for grain varieties that have greater resistance technologies is also heavily dependent on smallholders hav- to damage from insect pests and fungi. However, ing knowledge, skills, and awareness of grain postharvest to date, little progress has been made despite many management for loss reduction. years of research. Genetic transformation may offer opportunities, but this may not be acceptable in many INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR GRAIN SSA countries. MARKETING ƒ Harvesting: use of minicombine harvesters may offer Improved postharvest technologies and practices may have opportunities to farmer groups to reduce labor require- limited effects if their introduction does not confer obvious ments and gather a full harvest. The costs of the tech- bene�ts such as a �nancial reward for improved grain quality, nology are high, so the bene�ts may only apply where the crop is suf�ciently valuable, for example in SSA’s BOX 3.4. Good storage hygiene is the single most expanding rice industry. Currently, in most situations important element in maintaining grain it is unlikely that changes can be made to traditional quality and reducing PHL during storage smallholder harvesting methods. ƒ Drying grain: use of various drying equipment reduc- Poor storage hygiene can lead to the perpetuation of es physical losses and potential contamination with storage problems from one season to the next. mycotoxin (Box 3.4). The type of equipment employed The principles of store hygiene are essential to good depends on the scale of farm production; tarpaulins pest management, and smallholders across SSA would can be used to cover small quantities of grain in damp make signi�cant progress in limiting PHL by observing weather, whereas larger quantities may be put into these practices. If stores are suf�ciently sealed to pre- drying cribs or processed in various types of mechani- vent pest access, prior treatment of grain by solarization cal dryers. Mechanical dryers would be more appropri- will disinfest grain and so prevent pest development. In ate for farmer groups than for individuals. stores that do not prevent pest access and where grain ƒ Threshing, shelling, and winnowing of grain: use stocks are to be retained for more than three months, a of mechanized rice threshers/winnowers and maize means of pest control is required. This may be achieved shellers can speed up postharvest operations and de- by admixing synthetic insecticide or by the use of non- liver improvements in grain quality and quantity. These toxic alternatives such as diatomaceous earths, as these may be hand powered or motor driven and have are available for use in the countries. In some situations, become more relevant as labor shortages increase. it may also prove appropriate to use insecticidal material Access to motor-driven equipment would need to be derived from locally available plants. through farmer groups or supplied as part of contract Source: Authors. farming arrangements. MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 33 prevention of signi�cant loss in household food security, food crop (Coulter 2009). High-value export crops, such as or nutritional value. Often, better �nancial rewards follow coffee or cashew, have fared better. Three main warehous- improvements in marketing channels, and these may be ing approaches have been implemented: private, public, and achieved by encouraging the formation of farmer groups to farmer-focused. Coulter (2009) discussed their bene�ts and achieve collective marketing and market institutions. The achievements in a recent paper. His results are summarized pros and cons of cereal banks as a form of collective market- below. ing aimed at improving food security were discussed in the Private warehousing has individual clients but no obligation previous chapter. In this section, an analysis is presented on to receive deposits from the public in general. It usually oper- market institutions such as inventory credit and WRS, and ates under tripartite agreements consisting of a bank, the other recent innovations in marketing systems in SSA. borrower, and a collateral manager, such as a local subsidiary Warehousing is a collective term for WRS and related inven- of an international inspection company. They have not been tory credit, which introduces liquidity into grain supply chains widely used for grains, with the exception of rice. They are and can help reduce PHL. Warehousing creates a framework common in South Africa where �nancial markets are well of accountability between the different parties involved (de- developed. It provides local enterprises with crucial access positor, warehouse operator, and �nancier) and for this rea- to credit, helping them compete against vertically organized son is usually effective in reducing PHL, inasmuch as these multinationals. The main limitation of private warehousing are signi�cant prior to the introduction of the warehousing with regard to grain supply chains in Africa is that it has little system. These institutions support value-chain development involvement with farmers and small traders because of the by setting standards, implementing quality control, and offer- large �xed cost that is required. ing storage facilities and credit. Farmer groups that supply Public warehousing, where operating companies receive warehouses within the WRS have a quality-conscious “cus- commodities from whosoever wishes to deposit (notably tomer,� and the better-quality grain produced in response farmers), can be highly effective in enhancing grain value to this incentive will produce lower PHL and higher income. chains. For example, public warehousing through silo cer- Further along the marketing chain, the storage capacity of ti�cates was crucial to the successful liberalization of grain traders is frequently inadequate in terms of both volume and and oilseed marketing in South Africa. Various other coun- the ability of their staff to manage grain stocks to maintain tries have started implementing, but progress is slower due quality; licensed warehouses used by a WRS potentially can to the relative scarcity of larger scale players, informality remedy this problem. of commodity chains, lack of bank involvement with grain value chains, and—above all—a dif�cult policy environment WRS are usually based on licensed commercial warehouses with politically sensitive food crops. The most immediate op- where grain can be deposited—provided it meets stated portunity seems to lie in Eastern Africa (particularly Kenya), quality grades and a minimum quantity (usually 10 tons or where trading structures are closer to those in South Africa more). The warehouse operator issues warehouse receipts and where there are prospects for effective regulatory for deposits; these receipts may be transferable. The opera- arrangements. tor also guarantees delivery of the commodity described on the warehouse receipt and is liable for any losses incurred. In the case of farmer-focused approaches, small groups of A transferable receipt may be transferred to a new holder producers or producer organizations store exclusively for their (such as a lender, if the stored commodity is pledged as members. Basically, there are two main variants. The �rst is security for a loan) or to a trade counterpart. Hence, deposi- the micro�nance-linked approach, where stocks are held in tors requiring short-term �nancing can obtain an advance the name of each individual farmer and �nance is provided by representing a percentage of the prevailing market value a micro�nance institution, often with bank re-�nancing. Such of the commodity from a bank, using stored commodity as schemes are characterized by high levels of repayment and collateral. The depositor can wait until such time as market are already having a positive impact on commodity chains conditions are conducive to sell the stored commodity. A and local food security; however, with rare exceptions, the depositor has to pay storage and, where applicable, col- scale of impact is limited thus far. For example, with paddy lateral management fees. Outside of the Republic of South rice in Madagascar, the approach has had a signi�cant impact Africa, the development of WRS in the African grain sector on agricultural lending and national price stability. The second has been slow due to the relative informality of the trade variant is the cooperative approach, where a bank �nances and the dif�cult policy environment of a politically sensitive collective storage and marketing of grain. Farmer-focused EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 34 TEC H NOLOGIES A ND PRA C TICES TO RED UCE PH L : A R EV IEW approaches have been in use in Mali, Tanzania, Niger and to be in organizations in order to deposit quantities that are Togo. �nancially viable to the warehouses. The implementation of WRS requires the careful design and concerted efforts on It is clear that a WRS can overcome a range of constraints, various fronts, including predictable price policies that do not including long marketing chains, lack of trade �nance, weak compromise the enterprise’s commercial orientation, with bargaining position of producers, lack of adequate market the dual objective of poverty reduction. Speci�c examples of information, a slow and costly bulking process, lack of quality WRS schemes are described in Annex 7. premiums at the farm gate, wide distribution margins, and large price risk. At the same time, the enforcement of com- Inventory credit can be seen as an alternative approach to modity grades associated with the WRS can help traders ac- the cereal banks discussed in section 2; however, ensuring cess more lucrative international and regional markets. There that the poorer members of the community bene�t from it are several donor-funded WRSs in SSA, but these have yet is a challenge. It has been instituted with varying degrees to show their full potential. of success. Inventory credit is a means of offering stocks of commodities as a physical guarantee for a cash loan. In most cases studied, while the theoretical bene�ts of WRS This approach creates links between �nancial institutions are clear, they have rarely functioned as they should have. and the trading sector. Inventory credit schemes can oper- The concept, while simple and appealing, is not mirrored by ate locally with small volumes and microcredit and can be the demanding requirements. In most places they are set up based around producer or farmer organizations; they have as a storage facility managed by insuf�ciently skilled manag- a business approach as opposed to a social approach. An ers with inappropriate government or donor support and are inventory credit scheme can also be upgraded into a WRS, characterized by subsidies and price-distorting policies. The involving larger volumes of grain in professionally managed basic rationale for WRS is risk management, and it needs warehouses, where the receipts are negotiable �nancial to be operationally sustainable—which requires consider- instruments that may be traded several times before the able throughput in order to offset the high �xed costs of stock is delivered from the warehouse to the receipt holder. running warehouses. Its scale and versatility allows public The larger systems may be accessible to farmer groups warehousing to play a larger role in enhancing the ef�ciency and producer associations, provided the minimum deposit of the commodity value chain. However, donors occasion- size is not too great (e.g., 10–100 tons; see Annex 7 for ally support these systems on the condition that the effort speci�c examples of inventory credit schemes). The way is targeted at smallholder farmers, which reduces their ef- forward for inventory credit schemes and WRSs in East and �ciency (Box 3.5). While it is desirable for smallholders to Southern Africa has just been reviewed in detail by Coulter have access to these public facilities, they need to do so (2009). on commercial terms, and producers would normally have There have been several other innovations in grain mar- BOX 3.5. Warehouse receipts systems keting in recent years, notably the WFP’s Purchase for Progress (P4P) initiative, which aims to re-orientate WFP’s Some of the most obvious failures in concept and de- procurement process toward local and regional sourcing. In livery have been commodity exchanges and WRS that this regard, P4P encourages local farmer groups and agro- have been set up quite often by donors rather than by industries to supply grains and other agricultural products the private sector. Although these are both ideas that according to WFP speci�cations. There are many technical, work well in formalized market situations and have logistical, and business challenges for farmer groups to great merit in the right situation, they have serious meet the WFP standards; nonetheless, the P4P initiative of- flaws when they are pushed into largely informal mar- fers an important and lucrative market opportunity to those ket places through political pressure and outsized sub- farmers and companies that can meet WFP requirements. sidies. These institutions will likely fail when support is withdrawn. These are typically multimillion projects The private sector has also been proactive in developing a that do not work, as the marketing environment is not number of innovative marketing arrangements. The East suf�ciently developed to support them. Even if they did Africa Grains Council (EAGC) draws membership across work, they would not help smallholders, which they are the value chain: producers, traders, and processors. often claimed to do. Service providers are associate members. The council op- erates as a nonpro�t, nonpolitical, nondenominational or- Source: Dr. Shaun Ferris (Sr. Technical Advisor, CRS). ganization that prepares, disseminates, and promotes the MISS ING FOOD TEC H N O L O G I E S A ND P RACT ICE S T O RE DUCE P HL : A R EV IEW 35 exchange of information on matters affecting the regional Transferring risk away from smallholders is aided through the grain industry. Among its activities, it supports regional provision of integrated services. An innovative approach to trade and provides training in postharvest handling. The support farm improvements has been piloted by Premium Grain Growers Association of Kenya (CGA) has a member- Foods in Ghana. The company has in place an integrated ship consisting of smallholder farmers who join through model for grain handling, consisting of an agribusiness center farmer groups, medium-scale farmers, large-scale farmers, that hosts a dryer, sheller, and storage facilities and is linked and other institutions af�liated with the agricultural sector. to farmer organizations, banks, and other stakeholders such CGA provides a number of services to farmers who lost as business service providers and input suppliers. The farm- the support of government following market liberalization: ers pay for extension services and receive training and capac- extension services through associate members such as ity building. Farmers deliver their harvest to the agribusiness input suppliers and �nancial institutions, training in post- center before it is dried. The center processes and sells the harvest handling, and support to collective marketing. CGA grain and pays off loans provided to the farmer by the input is aiming to set up village storage satellites, each equipped supplier. The center serves as the “change driver� as it be- with facilities (scale, moisture meter, and bag stitcher) for comes the core of a sustainable system through which provi- receiving grain from farmers. Investment in the satellite sion of technical assistance, training, and �nance to farmers store systems and the marketing systems around them can be facilitated. Transferring the responsibility of grain dry- would also create incentives for farmers to improve quality ing to the center reduced the time required to dry grain to and reduce PHL. only three days, which results in better quality and lower PHL. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK R E S P O N S E S T O P H L RE DUCT ION 37 4. RESPONSES TO PHL REDUCTION Early approaches to supporting postharvest improvements a range of approaches, from those based on single-entry- concentrated on making technological improvements to dis- point interventions to those that understand postharvest crete components of the value chain in isolation from one as a “system,� with opportunities to achieve postharvest another. Over the past decade, the rise of global and regional ef�ciencies throughout the value chain. The typology used supply chains and the renewed emphasis on ef�ciency and here to characterize the range of approaches to support compliance with quality and food safety standards have postharvest improvements distinguishes two main types of spurred a major paradigm shift in the way the postharvest approaches: those focusing on technological improvements system is conceived—from a series of individual components or “technology push� approaches; and those relying on the to an integrated system linking the producer and consumer. market, as the driving force to promote chain upgrades and It is postulated that adoption of this approach and the oppor- characterized here as “chain-wide� approaches. Although a tunities it presents can lead to improved systemic ef�ciency; chronological order can be identi�ed for the emergence of greater food safety and quality; and a clearer idea of the gaps these approaches, both types of approaches are currently in the ways the different chain functions are performed, who applied to support postharvest developments (Table 4.1). are the various participants along the value chain, and the bene�ts recurring to them. The challenge for postharvest The so-called technology-push approach targets improve- policy is to ensure that improvements in postharvest system ments at discrete points along the chain by applying a spe- upgrades along the value chain bene�t the majority of partici- ci�c technology or marketing arrangement to address an pants. This chapter reviews the past government and donor identi�ed constraint that results in signi�cant postharvest approaches to support postharvest improvements, and lays losses. Many of these types of interventions have traditional- out the background for determining requirements of future ly focused on removing constraints at the farm level (through successful operations. individual or collective action); however, with the increasing focus on “farm-to-fork� improvements, the entry points for During the 1960s and 1970s, development agency support support have expanded to include improvements down- to agricultural programs emphasized production improve- stream in the chain. Several single-entry-point interventions ments and support to public sector agriculture marketing were discussed in the previous chapter, including the very and distribution systems. As was discussed in the previous successful introduction of metal silos into Central America section, the impacts of market reforms undertaken dur- (Annex 2, Project 14) and the triple bagging of cowpeas, ing the 1980s and 1990s on smallholders and the market- which is the subject of a current intensive campaign in West ing and postharvest systems have been critical. They also and Central Africa (Annex 2, Project 20). Further evidence of have had signi�cant impacts on the approaches applied by the technology-push approach comes from the Kapchorwa development partners to support the agriculture sector, in- district in Uganda, where the timing of the harvesting and cluding support to postharvest improvements. The range of rainy seasons prompted the introduction of mechanized approaches has expanded from those concerned only with harvesting/cleaning equipment to reduce losses for wheat solving constraints to farm productivity—farming system– (Annex 2, Project 9). based approaches—toward broader strategies focusing on the performance of farmers and other actors within the con- A slight variation to the technology approach, also focusing text of liberalized markets for inputs and outputs. on single–entry-point interventions at the farm-level, has been implemented by several development partners. For ex- These developments have translated into a wider range of ample, in the early interventions of the FAO Action Program options applied by development partners and private ac- for the Prevention of Food Losses (PFL) Program, which was tors to achieve objectives for reducing PHL. These include established in 1977, the focus was overwhelmingly technical, EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 38 RES PONS ES TO PH L R ED UC TION TABLE 4.1. Chronology of postharvest-related interventions and approaches in grain chains YEAR EXAMPLE OF TYPE DEVELOPMENT AIM TYPE OF INTERVENTION OF INTERVENTION OR THEORY APPROACH 1970s Community stores Food self-suf�ciency import substitution Single-entry-point/single technology Central storage (silos) Improved on-farm storage 1980s–1990s Cereal banks Structural adjustment Single-entry-point/multiple interventions Improved on-farm practices Farming systems Participatory approaches 2000s Promotion of technologies and practices at Linking farmers to markets Market-based approaches, increasingly with a various stages of the supply chain Agricultural commercialization value-chain focus (both with single or multiple Market information systems Export orientation entry points) Commodity exchanges Liberalized trade Warehouse receipts Innovation system Source: Authors. utilizing the assessment of postharvest losses at storage have they focused on supporting sustainable participation of and the transfer of improved on-farm storage technologies. farmers in markets. Addressing PHL (physical) has, in most The support expanded later to more integrated assistance, cases, been a spill-over effect. Overall, in cases where inter- including the transfer of improved farm-based technologies ventions have speci�cally targeted PHL reduction objectives, and practices (e.g., sorting, drying, pest control, farm stor- they have done so by focusing on improved handling and age, etc.). IRRI, for example, has been implementing initia- facilitating adoption of speci�c technologies, particularly for tives under this type of approach for rice in Southeast Asia storage and drying. Examples were presented in the previ- (Annex 2, Project 18) and more recently in Africa (Project 19) ous chapter, ranging from the provision of plastic or metal through public and private partnerships. silos, jute, super or hermetic triple plastic bags for storage, tarpaulins for drying, and so on. During the mid-1990s, market-oriented approaches emerged focusing strongly on the market as the driving force for post- Lessons learned from failed attempts to push for postharvest harvest improvements and base their success on good busi- improvements by only focusing on technical aspects have ness practice and on facilitating farmer linkages to markets. highlighted the limitations of this approach. For example, This “system approach� to tackling postharvest issues em- early experiences of the FAO/PFL program in the 1970s– phasizes the links of on-farm activities with other operations 1980s, implemented with a focus on farm storage among within the food and commodity chain, while placing the chain subsistence farmers, presented very low adoption rates and within wider socioeconomic, business and political context. proved to be unsustainable. The effectiveness of technol- Under this approach, value chain coordination is a clear com- ogy to reduce PHL is important; however, a critical factor in ponent of the support. FAO’s Global Program on Postharvest creating impact is not only the technology per se, but also Loss Reduction: Linking Farmers to Markets, established its relevance to the situation, its acceptability, and favorable in 2002, was set up with this market-based focus. This ap- costs and bene�ts, which can be determined by factors and proach is well illustrated by the Kenya Maize Development constraints downstream on the chain—not necessarily at the Program (Annex 2, Project 25), which combines improved farm level. Understanding not only the ability of farmers to yields, provision of training aimed at improving production overcome constraints related to technical know-how but also practices and business skills, collective action for crop mar- the local availability of materials, �nancial resources, and over- keting, and provision of market information. The adoption of coming market constrains is critical. Farmers do not accept this approach can lead to greater system ef�ciency; reduced new postharvest technologies unless the bene�ts exceed PHL (both physical and opportunity losses); and a clearer un- the costs by a margin suf�cient to justify risks involved and derstanding of the various participants along the value chain, unless they are culturally acceptable. A more detailed review the opportunities for collaboration, and the bene�ts derived of the bene�ts, costs, and degree of adoption for a range of through improvements in the postharvest system. postharvest technologies is presented in Annex 3. The vast majority of grain-based interventions in Africa have Establishing PHL baselines is important for making a proper focused on improved production systems; only recently assessment of postharvest-related problems and their MISS ING FOOD R E S P O N S E S T O P H L RE DUCT ION 39 underlying causes. PHL are most often reflective of prob- prefer to keep their stored grain inside their houses because lems occurring along the chain steps; therefore, they provide of possible theft if the granary is outside. However, the small indications of functional and operational performance gaps. metal silos project in Malawi (funded by FAO and the Malawi When proper baselines are not established and the magni- government), which planned to distribute more than 5,000 tude of the problem is poorly understood, it is often risky subsidized metal silos to farmers for storage of maize, had to embark in the promotion of postharvest technologies, as not taken this issue into account. Additionally, the estimated they may well not be the main constraining factor. In the cost of these small silos was higher than anticipated in the Central African Republic, for example, the Postharvest Food proposal and therefore beyond the reach of most smallhold- Systems project was found to design its activities based ers. In Kapchorwa, a district of Uganda, the promoted silos on the assumption of high storage losses. Later on, this for drying and storing grains were not taken up by farmers assumption proved to be invalid for the target area and the because many of them were better than most farm houses. selected crop. Culturally, farmers could not accept an on-farm storage facil- ity that was better than their house. Ensuring the economic acceptability and affordability of the technology or practice being promoted is critical to its suc- The timeframe for adoption of PHL interventions must be cess. Farmers and communities must produce a suf�cient considered early in the planning process if technologies are saleable surplus of grain to allow for investment in new tech- to be successfully introduced and appropriate timing for the nologies or approaches. Thus, scale of production will deter- withdrawal of project support programmed. It is important mine the options for change and the type of technology that that projects be planned over a time span that can realistical- could be adopted. In northern Zimbabwe, for example, the ly deliver a successful outcome. The very successful metal project looked at replacing the timber posts of raised mud silo project in Central America (Annex 2, Project 14) was the granaries with PVC pipes �lled with concrete. These pipes, result of more than 20 years of donor backing. Donors need however, were considered expensive by the majority of to be convinced that their investment will not be wasted, farmers and, furthermore, were not always locally available. and this should be based on sound analysis at the start and As a result, the project was ineffective. Another example is rigorous evaluation at key milestones. from Malawi: the costs of small metal silos being promoted Although technology adoption has been the main focus of there were higher than anticipated and beyond the reach of many of the PHL-related interventions, with the transition to most small-scale farmers. market-driven systems and greater reliance on the private Although a lack of �nancial incentive and dif�culty in obtain- sector, there is increasing recognition that postharvest tech- ing credit are among the important causes of PHL, once the nologies or innovations must be embedded within the context �nancial framework is in place, the lack of technical knowl- of value chains and must leverage their success by building edge of farmers becomes a limiting factor. Lack of skills can synergies with the private sector. Focus must be placed on be addressed through the provision of appropriate vocational systemic interventions that improve the ef�ciency of the training to those who would engage in the postharvest sec- chain as whole, rather than as the stand-alone upgrades tor, whether through public or private sector interventions. common in the past. More ef�cient postharvest systems The development and adaptation of postharvest equipment will bring bene�ts not only to farmers but also to all other and the training of personnel in postharvest techniques offer chain actors, including consumers. This calls for farmers to a direct route to PHL reduction. Technical adaptations can be better organized, act collectively, and acquire stronger be achieved through the support of technical centers, train- group business and marketing skills in order to participate ing activities at farm shows, and farmer �eld schools. These effectively in the new value-chain context. can introduce improvements in postharvest methods at all Although value chain analysis has emerged as a useful tool links in the chain—especially in the areas of on-farm handling, to analyze functional and operational gaps along the chain preparation for market, and small- and medium-scale agro- (and to understand the incentives for upgrading), it has processing. Vocational training in postharvest technology is been poorly used in the cereal value chain analysis in Africa essential for the supply of personnel to operate in all stages to leverage postharvest improvements. Recent value chain in the supply chains and present career prospects with the analysis undertaken for maize value chains in the region public and private sectors. has focused on the understanding of marginal gains recur- Technologies and practices should also be culturally accept- ring to the different actors, with few efforts made to link able. In southern Malawi (and many other countries), farmers this analysis to functional and/or operational gaps and their EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 40 RES PONS ES TO PH L R ED UC TION implications on the magnitude of postharvest losses (see perceptions of stakeholders along the chain regarding their USAID 2005; 2008). A more recent study of marketing con- possibility for adoption. straints in regional value chains in Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya is a close approximation of the use of a more holistic The increasing importance of chainwide and holistic ap- analysis, including opportunities for postharvest improve- proaches to postharvest improvements is supported by the ments, although still very much focusing on losses at the responses of the postharvest experts interviewed for this farm level (World Bank, 2009). Thus, the recent emergent work (see Annex 1). The questionnaire asked these experts emphasis on value chain analysis represents an opportu- to recommend which future postharvest developments nity to revisit many speci�c value chains and re-analyze should be used to improve the quantity and quality of the them from the point of view of the impact of PHL on the grain supply from smallholders. For analysis, the responses chain as a whole. In particular, it could prove a valuable tool were grouped into one of four categories according to the for policy makers to locate where changes in policy with CGIAR postharvest framework (Arnold 1996). While target- regard to the postharvest system might have impact. It ing storage and harvesting issues directly remains an impor- has been argued that for the future, projects should not be tant area for future interventions to reduce PHL, this should concerned with single issues but must take a value chain be supported by better policies and institutions and improved approach using a sectorwide team to develop products and marketing opportunities, including value addition. With grow- solutions. ing urbanization and demands for better and safer foods, ad- dressing product quality is becoming a key issue (Figure 4.1). Many projects have achieved a measure of success in im- The respondents strongly believe that in the traditional area proving a speci�c aspect of a postharvest system. However, of PHL reduction, special attention should be given to the very few have achieved large-scale improvement, primarily drying of grains, given the signi�cant physical and economic because of a lack of commercial incentive in investing in and losses that occur as a result of poor drying. For many SSA scaling up such initiatives. To ensure sustainable improve- grain crops, proper drying can signi�cantly enhance storage ments in postharvest systems, the central role of the private life and product quality, avoid product safety problems, and sector must be recognized, and PHL-reduction strategies generate income gains by reducing both physical and eco- that provide economic incentives to those making the invest- nomic losses. ments need to be developed. If chain actors are not willing to co-invest, it is probably an indication that there is insuf�cient Linking farmers to markets (by methods including improve- economic incentive or that the intervention will only work ments in transport infrastructure) and the policy environment with external support. Therefore, the utility of the value chain FIGURE 4.1. Recommendations for future analysis lies in the possibility of better understanding entry interventions to improve the quality points for leveraging PHL reduction objectives. Therefore, and quantity of grain supply in SSA well-founded, single-entry-point interventions—“technology (expressed in percent of suggested push� projects—can be successful, provided that (i) they re- projects) spond to identi�ed demands and opportunities for upgrading within the context of the speci�c value chain; (ii) the expected outcomes are well understood by bene�ciaries; and (iii) they Products and are well situated within the context of the dynamics of the quality speci�c value chain. This increases the chances of adoption 11% and replicability. Harvest and Utilisation and storage As several authors have pointed out, it is not economical or marketing 40% 21% even practical to aim for zero percent losses, but to seek a better understanding of acceptable loss levels for spe- ci�c grain commodities, with speci�c production area and seasonal consideration, can be gained on the basis of cost- Policies and Institutions bene�t analysis. This implies not only the establishment of 28% proper baselines for PHL, but also a clear understanding of the effectiveness and applicability of proposed post-reduc- tion strategies, including cost/bene�t considerations and the Source: Authors. MISS ING FOOD R E S P O N S E S T O P H L RE DUCT ION 41 are key to providing incentives to farmers to invest and adopt standing of the contribution of postharvest improvements to PHL-reducing technologies. All-weather access roads to mar- aflatoxin management playing a pivotal role. kets are essential in ensuring that crops do not have to spend extended periods in farm storage and in helping to reduce There is also the need to be more proactive in raising aware- the high transport costs that reduce the incentives and in- ness and building capacity that will enable postharvest im- crease the risks of trading a low-value commodity. Once suit- provements to be effected and PHL reduced. This can be able transport links are established, collective transport of done through (i) inclusion of postharvest aspects in the cur- grain becomes feasible through the hire of trucks by farmer riculum of agricultural colleges; (ii) building farmers’ capacity groups. Similarly, improvements in legislation and the regula- through development of diverse informal as well as formal tory environment, which make it easier to establish agribusi- training and information channels, including rural resource ness and agro-processing companies, often provide greater centers or village info kiosks, exchange visits, and farmer incentive to purchase drying and cleaning equipment than do �eld schools; and (iii) harnessing the power of all types of free handouts of such equipment through NGO and donor media: radio, newspaper, television, and video. It should projects. Farmers who have outlets to domestic or regional not be forgotten that SSA’s rural communities’ media also markets have the incentive to dry, clean, and store in order embody different forms, including drama, songs, and street to bene�t from selling larger quantities of more valuable theater, and these can be valuable resources for sharing in- products. In contrast, farmers who are far from roads and formation, although their power is not well understood by markets and produce the quantity that they need for self- outsiders. consumption often �nd it cheaper to let the surplus go to Very few countries in Africa undertake research on PHL other waste than to store it. than for speci�c projects. This is reflective of the broader re- Although the market can provide important incentives for search community as indicated in a report by the University adoption of postharvest technologies, given the high level of California–Davis in 2009, which found that 95 percent of informality in grain markets in SSA, basic quality and of research dollars were directed at agriculture focused on safety attributes are frequently ignored, thus depriving production with only 5 percent of remaining dollars targeted farmers of incentives to invest in postharvest technologies on nonfarm challenges. Some countries have postharvest and SSA populations from capturing the health bene�ts of research units, but these are mostly concerned with grain improved postharvest methods that prevent and reduce storage. Where these units do exist, they are commonly in product contamination (e.g., aflatoxin). Acute exposure to agricultural research directorates and far from policy mak- aflatoxins can be lethal, as exempli�ed by more than 150 ers. Policy needs to be informed by appropriate research, deaths in Kenya in 2004 and 2005 that resulted from con- but there is a substantial lack of research capacity. Identi�ed sumption of aflatoxin-contaminated maize. When the mar- areas for research include investigating where losses occur ket does not reward these types of improvements (safety and the best means of tackling them. There is a need for issues), there is a clear case for public action, including more basic research that would contribute directly to PHL re- government engagement with private actors to facilitate duction by, for example, breeding crop varieties that improve adoption of improved postharvest technologies along the the shelf life of crops or have a lower susceptibility to post- value chain. harvest pests. National research activities can be integrated into LAs to implement and coordinate innovations, as suc- Grades and standards provide important incentives for post- cessfully done for several projects (see Box 4.1 and Annex 6). harvest system upgrades, yet they have only a limited role to play in reducing postharvest losses given the current state of Assessing diversity and gender roles is critical in determin- informality of grain marketing. This is particularly important ing the effectiveness of the proposed solutions to PHL. In in the case of safety standards. For example, several African SSA, women play a signi�cant role in postharvest handling, countries have established standards regarding aflatoxin lev- processing, marketing, and household food security. In ad- els; however, their limited capacity to enforce them prevents dition to gender, communities can be disaggregated by age, widespread safety assurance and leads to chronic exposure. wealth, household composition, health status, etc. This di- Furthermore, the establishment of aflatoxin regulations and versity is important. HIV/AIDS and increasing migration (due standards has limited effects on protecting health in the re- to population growth, decreasing land sizes and fertility, gion, as many farmers grow grains for their own consump- climate change, urbanization, and associated employment tion. The solutions to the aflatoxin problem, therefore, need opportunities) mean that in rural SSA, there are rapidly grow- to be holistic and multidimensional, with a better under- ing numbers of child-headed households, female-headed EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 42 RES PONS ES TO PH L R ED UC TION BOX 4.1. Learning alliances for PHL reduction households, widows or widowers, and elderly relatives look- ing after grandchildren. Rapid population growth in many A learning alliance (LA) is a process undertaken jointly by SSA countries means that youth now make up the majority research organizations, development agencies, policy of most of the population. Therefore, any assessment of makers, and private businesses. It involves identifying, opportunities for PHL reduction along the chain should in- sharing, and adapting good practices in research and de- clude gender and diversity considerations. For example, the velopment in speci�c contexts and on speci�c topics. It introduction of postharvest technologies and practices may, is not a case of looking for one right answer, but rather if men or women have little understanding of the require- for the combination and recommendation of knowledge ments of the next stage of the chain, unbalance existing from many different actors as they work together to gender divisions of labor, potentially resulting in losses in solve key problems. LAs seek to identify leverage points product quality or quantity. Also, labor saved for women may through which a system can be changed. often be more valuable than labor saved for men because The LA approach has been applied to a postharvest women have a higher propensity to invest saved time in research project looking into the use of diatomaceous wider family bene�ts such as child care or enterprise that earths as grain protectants (Annex 2, projects 12 and 23), bene�ts household welfare. Overall, the research into the as the team recognized that if the work was to have gender and diversity dimensions of PHL reduction is limited, widespread impact, the institutional context needed to although a number of interesting case studies, good prac- be examined and addressed. The alliance was viewed tices, and lessons learned are described in the Gender in as a microcosm of the whole postharvest innovation Agriculture Sourcebook. system (see below). The idea was that the project This assessment should consider that gender roles are not would not only improve the sharing and adoption of ex- static; change is taking place in response to many drivers, isting ideas but also create a framework within which in- with numerous diverse outcomes for different people in the stitutional constraints could be identi�ed and creatively community. Some recent postharvest projects are reported addressed, adaptive management be encouraged, and to have had positive bene�ts for women. For example, when local ownership of emerging solutions thrive (Morris mechanization is introduced, men often tend to take over et al. 2006; Mvumi et al. 2008). traditionally female roles, which can have both positive and The advantages of a LA negative outcomes for women and different wealth groups. Rural hammer mills, while typically operated by and employ- Postharvest Innovation Learning Alliance (PHILA) was ing men, have provided women with a way of saving hours created to establish better ways for organizations and of manually pounding grains into flour. This enables them to individuals to work together to promote the uptake of invest that time in other productive ways that bene�t the postharvest technologies, including the diatomaceous household. There is a need to improve the research base of earths for stored grain protection (Annex 2, Project 12). gender and diversity of PHL reduction and ensure that gender- Case studies addressing relevant postharvest and re- and diversity-sensitive data is collected, analyzed, and used lated issues were commissioned, and information and to inform decision making at all levels. A study by Gunther reports were shared widely among team members. LA and Zimbrich (1998) provides suggestions for questions that is a new approach that provides unique and interesting might be asked to help understand and work positively with challenges to its participants. More could have been gender orientation within the postharvest sector. Speci�c cri- achieved if the project timeframe were longer. For an teria identi�ed for selection of appropriate technologies that alliance to be mature and effective, a one-year formation are culturally acceptable for women include portable or easily period and three years of maturity is recommended. dismantled implements; multi-purpose implements, such as Source: William Riwa (Project Coordinator, Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives, Tanzania). those with exchangeable accessories for processing; and those with minimal consumption of resources. MISS ING FOOD LESS O N S L E A R N E D AND T HE WAY F ORWARD 43 5. LESSONS LEARNED AND THE WAY FORWARD Until recently, in the wake of higher food prices and a resur- non-�nancially sustainable investments; misidenti�cation of gence of concern about the performance of the agriculture the key constraints, such as focusing on enhancing storage sector in Africa, PHL reduction in grains has been a low while the economic incentives are missing; lack of cultural priority for the donor community. It is clear, given renewed acceptability of the approach or technology (e.g., introduction interest in African agricultural prospects, uncertainty fueled of silos where local populations prefer to keep stocks in their by climate change, and the future likelihood for grain prices homes); and assumptions that facilitating change can occur to remain 10–20 percent above historical levels, that invest- over a short period of time, such as a 3-year project. ments in PHL have become relevant. Effective postharvest Postharvest technology adoption has been slow in Africa, management can contribute to conserve scarce resources particularly for harvesting, drying, and storage technologies (labor, water, land, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.), while mini- that have most commonly been a target for PHL-reduction mizing the need to produce more food to cover the losses interventions, perhaps because of the low opportunity cost caused by lack of appropriate PHL-reduction technologies of labor. Technologies that have taken off in Asia, such as and strategies. Loss reduction is not just a matter of promot- small-scale rice-drying technology and the introduction of ing technologies and practices, which are increasingly avail- pedal threshers and rice mills, may become more interesting able in Africa as shown in chapters 3 and 4, but must also in Africa as migration, aging farming populations, and high be considered within a broader context, including the range rates of HIV/AIDS infection reduce available labor and raise of incentives, socioeconomic aspects, policies, and business wages. In this chapter, key lessons that have emerged from practices. past efforts to reduce PHL are presented, de�ning the frame- There are a wide range of technologies and practices avail- work of future intervention that appears to be supported by able that, if adopted, would enable smallholders and larger past experience. The key elements of that framework in- producers to improve the quality and quantity of grains dur- clude the following: ing postharvest handling and storage. These include better postharvest grain management, better pest management, ƒ The impact and success of any postharvest operations enhanced storage structures, and enabling policy and in- and PHL-reduction interventions are influenced by so- stitutional arrangements for grain marketing. The choice of cial and cultural norms. Consequently, planning and im- technologies and practices depends on circumstances such plementing of interventions need to be undertaken in as the scale of production, crop type, and prevailing climatic a way that takes account of both gender and diversity. conditions. Success stories, however, are mostly related to In Africa, women play a signi�cant role in postharvest technologies transferred from Asia to Africa in the context of handling, processing, marketing, and household food labor constraints and higher rural wages. Examples of these security. However, there has been limited research technologies include small-scale rice dryers, rice threshers, into the gender and diversity dimensions of posthar- and new bagging techniques. Successful interventions for vest loss reduction. Interventions that reduce drudgery more traditional grains such as maize, sorghum, and millet for women (e.g., the introduction of hammer mills and are more dif�cult to �nd. However, those identi�ed (such investments in dehulling equipment for processing sor- as improved sorghum milling technology in Botswana) have ghum flour in Botswana), offering women more time been linked to strong government support, �nancial incen- to pursue productive activities and increasing their abil- tives to early adopters, and an enabling environment that ity to care for their children, will reap greater develop- favors support for infant industries. Some of the identi�ed mental bene�ts. In some cases, however, adoption of reasons leading to failure to adopt a technology relate to processing equipment removes manual employment EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 44 LES S ONS LEA RNED A ND TH E WAY FORWA R D opportunities for women, particularly poorer women. interventions should be seen in the context of impacts Consequently, it is critical that a gender and diversity along the value chain. To ensure sustainability, inter- lens be used when reflecting on the merits of the ventions for net-surplus producers should not involve interventions and approaches needed. subsidies or should include only those that are market ƒ Technology adoption and impact may also differ, driven and carefully tailored to be eventually phased depending on the economic and social character- out. Examples could include �nancial incentives to early istics of the target groups and on the objectives of adopters of a technology. Net-surplus producers are interventions. A reduction in PHL has the potential to willing to adopt new technologies and approaches that address two key developmental objectives: increas- will improve grain quality and quantity, but only when ing incomes and enhancing food security. The two they have a clear �nancial incentive to do so. Adoption objectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but may also be supported by the provision of matching income enhancement is broadly applicable to small- grants depicts a framework for different interventions, holders who are net-surplus producers, while the depending on the target group and development objec- food-security objective is of priority for producers who tive, while Table 5.1 shows the expected impact of normally have a net de�cit or whose incomes are so various PHL interventions by target group. low as to render them food insecure. Support to both ƒ Increasing competition in grains markets and growing surplus producers and de�cit farmers or net consum- product differentiation necessitate that PHL interven- ers merits attention but requires different approaches. tions be embedded within the context of value chains Approaches focusing on enhancing food self-suf�ciency and that they leverage their success from building can consist of speci�c technology/institutional push synergies with the private sector. To ensure that im- interventions targeted at farm operations with some provements in postharvest systems are sustainable, degree of subsidy involved. Exit strategies should be focus must be placed on systemic interventions that envisioned, but economic sustainability need not be a improve the ef�ciency of the chain as a whole, and priority consideration. postharvest loss reduction strategies must be devel- ƒ Support to net-de�cit grain producers can reduce oped that provide economic incentives to all actors in their requirements for grain purchases and food aid. the chain. Economic incentives are likely to play a very Net-de�cit grain producers may be food insecure at signi�cant part in reducing PHL. Willingness to invest certain times of the year, and grain staples that would in improved postharvest approaches is fundamentally normally be stored until next harvest may suffer high dependent upon favorable economic returns. PHL that threaten the food security of this group dur- ƒ The value and impact of an intervention must be ing the “hungry period.� Addressing such PHL can analyzed within the context of the entire chain from ensure that people are not malnourished and can be production (including the inputs such as seeds, fertil- an alternative to food aid. Activities to limit PHL for izer, etc.) to consumption. As the value chain involves this group, who are often the most disadvantaged or many different players, it is essential to develop vulnerable within communities, may require different strategies that promote coordination, collaboration, interventions than those needed to help net-surplus and information flow among all actors in the chain. producers. Interventions targeted at disadvantaged Increasingly, PHL are symptomatic of the ef�ciency groups can focus on better harvesting, threshing, of a postharvest system, and a key baseline indicator shelling, and drying techniques or on the introduction of an intervention could be PHL �gures for targeted of collective storage through village cereal banks. actors in the value chain. When improvements require capital investments and ƒ Market-orientated public and donor interventions the covering of recurrent costs, subsidies could be need to involve the private sector and share costs and envisioned. Economic sustainability is not the prior- risks. Within value chains, the successful adoption of ity; rather, the key issues are identifying socially and technologies by smallholders is likely to be dependent culturally acceptable PHL technology packages for the upon the adoption of other innovations by private designated communities or households. sector players elsewhere in the value chain. A good ƒ Conversely, when the objective of the intervention is to example of private sector involvement is the provision increase incomes of surplus farmers through links with of improved rice threshing equipment, which is not markets and optimizing sales of agricultural products, affordable or easily maintained by farmers. However, MISS ING FOOD LESS O N S L E A R N E D AND T HE WAY F ORWARD 45 TABLE 5.1. Expected Impact of PHL Interventions on Self-Suf�ciency and Incomes PHL INTERVENTION IMPACT FOOD SECURITY VS. INCOME Better harvesting/threshing/shelling Reduces labor requirements leading to timely harvest- Net-de�cit farmers gain from greater food availability and ing and processing that reduce physical PHL. quality, and reduced risk of forced purchase. Surplus farmers may be unable to capture the gains of better quality without market access. Better drying Net-de�cit farmers gain from greater food availability and quality, and reduced risk of forced purchase. Surplus farmers may be unable to capture the gains of better quality without market access. Better store hygiene Grain with less physical deterioration, more and bet- Implementation costs very low, both net-de�cit and surplus ter quality grain available to consume or sell. farmers can capture the gains of greater quantity and better quality. Better on-farm storage Net-de�cit farmers gain from greater food availability and reduced risk of forced purchase. Surplus farmers gain through arbitrage. Collective storage Ef�ciency gains from group investment in more Net-de�cit farmers gain from greater food availability and effective storage methods. Grain with less physical reduced risk of forced purchase. deterioration, more and better-quality grain available Surplus farmers gain through arbitrage. to consume or to sell. Collective marketing Ef�ciency gains from group action to aggregate, move, Net-de�cit farmers unable to participate. and sell grain. Improved opportunities to sell grain, Surplus farmers gain through greater market access. improved prices. Market information Grain sold at highest available market price or bought Net-de�cit farmers gain when they have to purchase food. at lowest price. Improved opportunities to gain better Surplus farmers gain at time of sale. livelihoods from the market. Inventory credit Financing available at village level to improve liveli- Net-de�cit farmers unable to participate. hoods from grain production, and upgrade to technolo- Surplus farmers gain from greater liquidity. gies and approaches that reduce PHL. Warehouse receipts Increased demand for grain of better quality, creating Net-de�cit farmers unable to participate. marketing opportunities for producer group and better Surplus farmers gain from increased sales of better quality livelihoods from grain production. grain Source: Authors. it is in the �nancial interest of the private sector to center and the centers process, store, and market the grain. assist smallholders in attaining collective access to Most of these innovations are in the infant stages of develop- this technology (Annex 2, Projects 18 and 19). The ment, and results have been mixed thus far. Nonetheless, incentive for the private sector is that a reduction in the concepts show promise and are aligned with the market- PHL within the value chain is ultimately an increase in oriented value chain approach that has been recognized as pro�tability for all chain actors. a sustainable model for postharvest development. In this regard, they merit further development and testing. There have been a number of innovative marketing arrange- ments in recent years involving the private sector, all with Another innovative marketing arrangement is the WFP P4P the potential to bene�t smallholders. These include the initiative, which aims to re-orientate WFP’s procurement establishment of WRS; inventory credit schemes; and the process toward local and regional sourcing. In this regard, formation of national and regional trade associations that P4P encourages local farmer groups and agro-industries to provide a range of services to their members, including train- supply grains and other agricultural products according to ing in postharvest handling, input supplies, and support to WFP speci�cations. Farmers’ groups face many challenges collective marketing. A few private companies are piloting to meet these standards; nonetheless, the P4P initiative integrated models for grain handling. The model consists of offers an important market opportunity to those farmers an agribusiness center that provides drying, handling, and and agro-industries that can meet WFP requirements. storage facilities and is linked to farmer organizations, banks, and other stakeholders such as service providers and input Despite the growing influence of the private sector, the role suppliers. Farmers deliver their harvest to the agribusiness of the public sector in promoting the uptake of PHL-reducing EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 46 LES S ONS LEA RNED A ND TH E WAY FORWA R D technologies is essential. The private sector’s efforts to de- researchers to propose local solutions and to train farmers velop improved postharvest systems need to be underpinned and extension of�cers in innovative postharvest manage- by an enabling environment that encourages private sector in- ment practices and technologies. Extension of�cers need vestment. It begins with the improvement of price incentives, to promote these technologies and provide feedback to re- which in most African countries remain quite distorted (Figure search. A strong research-extension cycle creates improved 5.1), and the provision of basic public goods such as elec- opportunities for technology adoption and postharvest tricity and roads, which would not only make technologies improvement. affordable but also shift on-farm activities for PHL reduction to other value chain players. Improved access to markets, for The weak focus on postharvest issues at the national level example, would accelerate trade, thereby reducing the need is not helped by it being poorly represented in the curricula for on-farm grain storage and lowering losses. A predictable for agricultural education and in agricultural policy. There is price policy would support investments in off-farm storage, the need to increase awareness of the bene�ts of posthar- which could provide drying and storage services to small- vest improvements at farmer, private sector, and policy level holders at affordable fees and also unleash the underutilized and to build capacity to enable such improvements to be ef- power of the private sector to provide many PHL solutions. fected. This can be done through (i) including postharvest Overall, basic critical factors include (among others) predict- modules in the curriculum of agricultural colleges; (ii) building able policy and price environment, better roads and lower farmer and private sector capacity through development of transport costs, better access to electricity to allow local dry- diverse informal as well as formal training and information ing and processing, and improved access to rural �nance. channels (these could include rural resource centers or vil- lage info kiosks, exchange visits, farmer �eld schools, and An integration of PHL reduction into the agricultural research more-formal training courses and resource materials); and (iii) and extension services agenda is necessary to provide tech- harnessing the power of every type of media—radio, news- nical advice and locally affordable solutions to farmers and paper, television, and video. Implementation of postharvest private sector players. These services are the key to identi- innovations should be guided by learning alliances that en- fying local issues and opportunities and to helping farmers able a broad spectrum of public and private sector stakehold- and the private sector adapt technologies to their needs. The ers to jointly identify, share, and adapt good practices and research-extension cycle needs to be reinforced to enable solve key problems. The increased emphasis on competitive, market-oriented systems requires that farmers not only improve their techni- FIGURE 5.1. Trade and welfare reduction indexes, all cal skills but also be better organized, act collectively, and covered products, 19 African countries acquire stronger group business and marketing skills in order and regional average, 2000–041 to participate effectively in the value-chain context. Thus, 80 technical training must be accompanied by the development 70 TRI of business management and entrepreneurship skills. 60 WRI 50 Investments in research aimed at the identi�cation of cost- Percent 40 effective drying methods and business models to support 30 their adoption, as well as on promising options to replace 20 chemical insecticides during storage, can yield signi�cant 10 gains in terms of PHL reduction at the farm level. As dis- 0 cussed earlier, proper drying is a critical control point for d’iv i a Tan ire zam i a Za e ia Zim udan e Ca anda n nin o rkin had aso ga l i Se ia l ica nya Gh r Eth na ga sca Ma u bw roo Tog Co N i g e r zan mb iop minimizing the likelihood of high postharvest losses; o biq a Afr Be ne aF Ke C ba me S Ug da however, it cannot be achieved with proper management te Ma Mo Bu practices alone. Therefore, effective methods need to be Source: Croser and Andresen (2010). in place. Similarly, research has demonstrated that DEs are effective grain storage protectants (as well as being 1 Trade reduction index shows the average distortions for imports environmentally friendly) and have good potential to sub- and exports that restrict trade. These trade distortions affect stitute for chemical insecticides. Thus, further investment welfare, de�ning the welfare reduction index. This �gure shows that trade and (correspondingly) welfare distortions remain high in their research, promotion, and commercialization should in most African countries. be prioritized. MISS ING FOOD LESS O N S L E A R N E D AND T HE WAY F ORWARD 47 Similarly, investments in rural infrastructure and market de- outset and then properly measuring them ex-post so that it is velopment create a conducive environment for reducing PHL. clear where the real impact lies. Better all-weather feeder roads reduce transport costs and facilitate the delivery of grain (and other agricultural goods) New institutional arrangements (national and international) to the market. Affordable electricity promotes the adoption can support and coordinate efforts to reduce PHL. In recent of drying, threshing, and milling equipment and creates addi- years, the expertise in the community concerned with de- tional market outlets through agro-processing. Development velopment in the postharvest sector has eroded, and there of grades and standards that are commercially meaningful, is no longer clear leadership or a champion. This is despite business development services, and market information the fact that many national and international organizations systems are also conducive to reducing losses and enhanc- devote at least some of their resources to activity in this sec- ing the overall value of the chain. Improved access to capital tor. At the international level, there is currently no recognized can also increase the adoption of PHL-reducing technologies coordinating mechanism or community of practice for the through matching grants, loan guarantees, and equipment development of the grains postharvest sector. International leasing schemes. Additionally, it can provide support for the and national expertise needs to be focused on encouraging creation and operation of warehouse receipts systems and national-level analysts to think of PHL as a key indicator of capitalization of investments funds that underpin small and the ef�ciency of postharvest systems. The creation of a vis- medium agribusinesses. ible international “structure� is an essential contribution to reversing the trend of decline in postharvest expertise and The time frame for adoption must be considered early in raising activity within the sector. The new structure needs the planning process if interventions are to be successfully to connect those groups currently engaged in postharvest introduced. There are examples of successful adoption of activities, be representative of the whole grains postharvest postharvest improvements, such as the storage of maize in system, and be tasked with pushing developments into metal tanks in Swaziland and the hammer mills that have use—not just perpetuating individual postharvest interests. been adopted across Africa. In these locations, there are These practitioners would come from the NGO and private marginal but apparently certain returns on investment, and sector backed by the resources of national and international very little external assistance was required to promote adop- institutions with capabilities in the sector. The grouping could tion. In other cases, however, adoption needs to be fostered be built around the existing APHLIS network that is currently and facilitated, and the time required to achieve this should restricted to East and Southern Africa (but with planned ex- be a key element in the formulation of the project. Assisting pansion to include all of SSA). communities to adopt new measures (such as technologies that have been successfully adopted in Asia) requires a care- Understanding of the magnitude of the problem can lead ful socioeconomic appraisal to ensure that the interventions to opportunities to leverage food security and poverty are needed and acceptable. These innovations should also outcomes from PHL reduction strategies. The APHLIS da- be economically sustainable, and if subsidies are provided, tabase could be expanded to become an archive of posthar- there needs to be a well-de�ned exit strategy supported by vest projects and studies and the counterpart to the FAO increased value moving down the value chain. Often, the cre- INPhO system that provides information on postharvest ation of more responsive institutional arrangements is neces- technologies for all crops, but not data on speci�c projects. sary to mobilize these innovations, and LAs (as discussed in This approach would go a long way toward preserving the Chapter 3) are an effective approach for taking this forward. institutional memory on postharvest interventions for grain value chains. It could also possibly serve as the foundation Monitoring and evaluation should feature more prominently of a regional LA to build bridges between the research and in projects. With a few exceptions, the postharvest grain development community. However, beyond this repository interventions reviewed have not had elaborate baseline sur- function, there are other critical steps to make the PHL data veys, impact indicators, or ex-post evaluations. This paucity more relevant and useful. These steps include a collective of impact assessment and baseline data makes comparison effort to generate consensus on methodological aspects of of interventions impossible. By and large, research on PHL postharvest loss estimation; to strengthen the quality and has not made links between losses and household poverty accuracy of the data collected by APHLIS; and the de�nition or vulnerability. Future PHL projects, therefore, should place of indicators related to grain quality, safety, and economic much more emphasis on de�ning these causative links at the value to complement physical estimations of PHL. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK REFERENCES 49 REFERENCES Adamo, A. 2001. Participatory agricultural research processes in Bhattamishra, R., and C. B. Barrett. 2008. “Community-Based Risk eastern and central Ethiopia: using farmers social networks as Management Arrangements: An Overview and Implications for entry points. Cali, Colombia: CIAT Occasional Publications Series Social Fund Program Design.� Social Sciences Research Network, No. 33. CIAT. Working Paper Series http://ssrn.com/abstract=1141878 (ac- cessed December 17, 2009). Aker, J. C. 2008. “Towards measuring the impact of the World Food Programme’s Purchase for Progress Initiative.� Essay. 8 pp. Boardman, A. E., D. H. Greenberg, A. R. Vining, and D. L. Weimer. Centre for Global Development, 2006. Cost-bene�t analysis: Concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 187–205. Alston, J. M., G. W. Norton, and P. G. Pardey. 1995. Science under scarcity: Principles and practice for agricultural research evalua- Boko, M., I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Githeko, M. Medany, tion and priority setting. Cornell University Press. B. Osman-Elasha, R. Tabo, and P. Yanda. 2007. “Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.� In Arnold, M. 1996. “Harvest and postharvest problems in agriculture, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment forestry, and �sheries—the CGIAR contribution to research.� Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. Document No. SDR/TAC:IAR/96/5. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, Azu, J. 2010. Opportunity Industrialization Centre, Tamale, Ghana. and C. E. Hanson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Personal communication, January 2010. 433–67. BBC World Service Trust. 2006. African Media Development Borsdorf, R. 2001. “Economic impact of postharvest technologies Initiative. Research Summary Report, p. 142. http://downloads. adopted in Uganda under the postharvest handling and stor- bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/pdf/AMDI/AMDI_summary_ age project.� Technical assistance report submitted to USAID/ Report.pdf Uganda, 196. Benhalima, H., M. Q. Chaudhry, K. A. Mills, and N. R. Price. 2004. Boshoff, W. H. 1979. “On-farm maize drying and storing systems for “Phosphine resistance in stored-product insects collected from the humid tropics� FAO/DANIDA, African Rural Storage Centre, various grain storage facilities in Morocco.� Journal of Stored International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, Products Research 40(3): 241–49. FAO Technical Report, Rome. Benin, S., E. Nkonya, G. Okecho, J. Pender, S. Nahdy, S. Mugarura, Boxall, R. A. 2002a. “Storage losses.� In Crop postharvest: Science E. Kato, and G. Kayobyo. 2007. “Assessing the impact of the and technology volume 1 principles and practice, eds. P. Golob, National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) in the Uganda G. Farrell, and J. E. Orchard. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Sciences rural livelihoods.� IFPRI Discussion Paper 00724, p. 92. Ltd., 143–69. Bennett, B. 2010. A Thematic Evaluation of UNIDO activities in the ———. 2002b. “Damage and loss caused by the larger grain area of Standards, Testing, Metrology, and Quality Management borer Prostephanus truncatus.� Integrated Pest Management (SMTQ). Vienna: UNIDOBentley, J. W., O. Barea, S. Priou, H. Equise, Reviews 7: 105–21. and G. Thiele. 2007. “Comparing farmer �eld schools, com- Braun, A. R., J. Jiggins, N. Röling, H. van den Berg, and P. Snijders. munity workshops, and radio: Teaching Bolivian farmers about 2006. “A global survey and review of farmer �eld school expe- bacterial wilt of potato.� Journal of International Agricultural and riences.� Report prepared for ILRI. Endelea, Wageningen, The Extension Education, 14(3): 45–61. Netherlands. Berg, E., and L. Kent. 1991. The Economics of Cereal banks in the Chambers, R., R. A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp. 1987. Farmer First: Farmer Sahel. Bethesda, MD: Development Associates Inc. Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Best, R., G. Henry, and M. V. Gottret. 1994. “El impacto de la in- dustria de la yuca seca en la costa atlántica de Colombia.� El Chapman, R., R. Blench, G. Kranjac-Berisaljevic, and A. B. T. Zakariah. Desarrollo Rural en América Latina Hacia el Siglo XXI, Memorias 2003. “Rural radio in agricultural extension: The example of del Seminario—Taller Internacional. Pontí�ca Universidad vernacular radio programmes on soil and water conservation in Javeriana, Bogotá. N. Ghana.� AgREN Network Paper (No. 127). Bhattamishra, R. 2008. Cereal banks: An institutional and impact Chavez-Tafur, J. 2009. “Building on success.� In “Scaling up and sus- analysis. PhD dissertation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. taining the gains,� Farming Matters/LEISA Magazine, 25(4): 6–11. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 50 R EFER ENC ES Coulter, J. P. 2005. “Making the transition to a market-based grain Organization Meeting on the Role of Institutions in Rural marketing system.� Paper prepared for DFID/World Bank Price Community, Colombo, September 21–29, 1998. Risk Management Workshop, Washington, DC, February 28– Douthwaite, B., N. Beaulieu, M. Lundy, and D. Peters. 2009. March 1, 2005. “Understanding how participatory approaches foster innovation.� Coulter, J. P. 2007 “Farmer groups enterprises and the marketing International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(1): 42–60. of staple food commodities in Africa.� Collective Action and Earl, S., F. Carden, F. Smutylo. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building Property Rights (CAPRI) Working Paper No. 72. International Learning and Reflection into Development Programmes. Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, 23. International Development Research Center (IDRC) Canada, 120. ———. 2009. “Review of warehouse receipt system and inven- http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330–201–1-DO_TOPIC.html tory credit initiatives in eastern and southern Africa.� A work- Ebeling, W. 1971. “Sorptive dust for pest control.� Annual Review of ing document for comment commissioned by UNCTAD, under Entomology 16: 123–58. the All ACP Agricultural Commodities Programme (AAACP). UNCTAD 105. FAO. 1981. “Food loss prevention in perishable crops.� FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin. Coulter, J., Brussel, y M. A. P. Wright. 1995. Programa postcosecha en centroamericas; evaluation de impacto y de la sostenibi- ———. 1994. African experience in the improvement of postharvest lidad. Informe de consultoria para la Cooperacion Suiza para el techniques. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/w1544e/ Desarrollo, Berna, Suiza. Chatham, Kent: Natural Resources W1544E00.htm#Contents Institute (typewritten), 56. ———. 1996. Food for consumers: marketing, processing and Coulter, J. P., and P. Magrath. 1994. “Economics of grain handling distribution. World Food Summit Technical Background. and storage in developing countries.� In “Grain storage tech- Rome: FAO. niques: Evolution and trends in developing countries.� FAO ———. 2003. The one to watch: Radio, new ICTs and interactivity. Agricultural Services Bulletin 109: 1–24. Rome: FAO (in collaboration with Freidrich Ebert Stiftung), 122. Coulter, J., and K. Schneider. 2004. “Feasibility study of postharvest ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4721e/y4721e00.pdf project in Mozambique and Tanzania.� For the Swiss Agency for ———. 2006. Food security and agricultural development in Sub-Sahara Development and Cooperation (SDC) (typewritten), 94. Africa—building a case for more public support. Rome: FAO, 122. Croser, J., and K. Andersen. 2010. “Agricultural distortions in ———. 2008. “Household metal silos: Key allies in FAO’s �ght Sub-Saharan Africa.� World Bank Policy Research Working against hunger.� Rome: FAO Technical Report. Paper 5344. ———. 2009a. Framework paper on postharvest loss reduction in CRS (Catholic Relief Services). 1998. Notes from the workshop on Africa. Rome: UN Food and Agriculture Organization (AGS) (type- community-level grain storage projects (cereal banks): Why do written), 56. they rarely work and what are the alternatives? Hotel Alfa�fa Dakar, Senegal, January 19–22, 1998. ———. 2009b. Country reports from the FAO/AfDB in support of the “Framework Paper on Postharvest Loss Reduction in Africa.� Dales, M. J. 1996. “A review of the plant materials used for control- Rome: Working Papers, UN Food and Agriculture Organization ling insect pests of stored products.� Natural Resources Institute, (AGST). Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK. Bulletin No. 65, p. 84. ———. 2010. Examples of south-south cooperation technologies. De Lima, C. P. F. 1982. Strengthening the food conservation and Technical Report, FAO Liaison Of�ce Japan, GCP/INT/046/JPN, 232. crop storage section (Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, FAO/CFC/CIRAD. 2004. “Projet CFC/IGG-(FIGG/02) Amélioration des Swaziland). Field documents and �nal technical report, project Technologies Post-récolte du Fonio. � Rapport Final. par Cruz, PFL/SWA/002. Rome: FAO. Jean-François (CIRAD). Deka, N., and T. Paris. (undated). “Gender roles, constraints and oppor- FARA. 2006. Framework for African agricultural productivity (FAAP), tunities in postharvest operations of paddy: A case study in Assam, June 2006 http://www.fara-africa.org/�les/FAAP%20doc%20 India.� Presentation at Assam Agricultural University, India. version%20June06.doc Diagne, M., M. Demont, and A. Diagne. 2009. “Adoption and im- Farm Radio International. (undated). Traditional core program: pact of an award-winning postharvest technology: the ASI rice Scripts and voices. http://www.farmradio.org/english/partners/ thresher in the Senegal river valley.� Contributed paper for the scripts-voices.asp International Association of Agricultural Economists, Beijing, China, August 16–22, 2009. Feder, G., R. Murgai, and J. Quizon. 2004a. “Sending farmers back to school: The impact of farmer �eld schools in Indonesia.� Dick, K. 1988. A review of insect infestation of maize in farm stor- Review of Agricultural Economics 26: 45–62. age in Africa with special reference to the ecology and control of Prostephanus truncatus. Chatham, UK: Overseas Development ———. 2004b. “The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge: The Natural Resources Institute, Bulletin 18, p. 42. case of pest management training in farmer �eld schools, Indonesia.� Journal of Agricultural Economics 55: 221–43. Dilts, R. 1998. “Facilitating the emergence of local institutions: reflections from the experience of the community IPM pro- Ferris, S., P. Engoru, and E. Kaganzi. 2007. “Making market infor- gram in Indonesia.� Paper presented at the Asian Productivity mation services work better for the poor in Uganda.� Collective MISS ING FOOD REFERENCES 51 Action and Property Rights (CAPRI) Working Paper No. 77. Goletti, F. 2003. “Current status and future challenges for the post- International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington harvest sector in developing countries.� Acta Horticulturae 628: DC, 19. 41–48. Fraslin, J-H. 2004. CECAM: A cooperative agricultural �nancial Goletti, F. and C. Wolff. 1999. “The impact of postharvest research. institution providing credit adapted to farmers’ demand in International Food Policy Research Institute.� Paper presented Madagascar. Paving the way forward for rural �nance, an inter- for the meeting on Postharvest Research at the International national conference on best practices. Case Study. Madison, Centers Week, Washington DC, October 26, 1998. WI: BASIS—Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Golob, P., N. Marsland, B. Nyambo, K. Mutambuki, A. Moshy, E.C. Market Systems. Kasalile, B. H. M. Tran, L. Birkinshaw, and R. Day. 1999. Coping ———. 2005. “Une expérience de warrantage à Madagascar. Le strategies adopted by small-scale farmers in Tanzania and Kenya crédit Grenier Commun Villageois (GCV) des CECAM (Caisses to counteract problems caused by storage pests, particularly d’Epargne et de Crédit Mutuels).� Paper presented at the the Larger Grain Borer. Final Technical Report Project R6952. Methodological Capitalization Workshop on Inventory Credit, Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. Niamey, February 2–3, 2005. Golob, P., and D. J. Webley. 1980. “The use of plants and minerals as Friendship, C. A. R., and J. A. F. Compton. 1991. “Bag or bulk? A traditional protectants of stored products.� Report of the Tropical decision-making checklist.� Natural Resources Institute, Bulletin Products Institute. No. 45, 19. Greeley, M. 1982. “Pinpointing postharvest losses.� Ceres 15(1): 30–37. Gallat, S. 2009. UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Personal ———. 1986. “Food technology and employment: the farm- communication, December 15, 2009. level postharvest system in developing countries.� Journal of Geref�, G. 2001. “Beyond the producer-driven/buyer-driven dichotomy: Agricultural Economics, 37(3): 333–48. The evolution of global value chains in the Internet era.� IDS ———. 1987. Postharvest losses, technology and employment: The Bulletin 32(3): 30–40. case of rice in Bangladesh. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 345. Gergely, N., B. Guillermain, and L. De Lardemelle. 1990. Evaluation ———. 1991. “Postharvest technologies: Implications for food poli- des banques de céréales au Sahel. Synthesis report. Rome: FAO. cy analysis.� EDI Development Policy Case Series, World Bank. Giga, D. P., J. K. O. Ampofo, S. Nahdy, F. Negasi, M. Nahimana, Grolleaud, M. 1997. Post-harvest losses: Discovering the full story. M. Msolla, and S. Nchimbi. 1992. “On-farm storage losses due Rome: UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 34 (http://www. to bean bruchid and farmers’ control strategies.� In A report on a fao.org/docrep/004/ac301e/AC301e04.htm#3.2.1%20Rice). traveling workshop in eastern and southern Africa. September– October, 1992. Occasional Publications Series No. 8, pp. 35. Gummert, M. 2010. International Rice Research Institute. Personal communication, January 2010. Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD). 2008. “Media mat- ters: Perspectives on advancing governance and development Gunther, D., and E. Zimbrich. 1998. Gender orientation in the posthar- from the Global Forum for Media Development.� http://www. vest sector: Pointers for identifying gender-speci�c aspects in the internews.org/pubs/gfmd/mediamatters.pdf postharvest sector. Germany: GTZ. http://www.fao.org/inpho/ content/documents/vlibrary/gtzhtml/x0285e/x0285e00.htm. Glover, D. 1990. “Contract farming and outgrower schemes in east- ern and southern Africa.� Journal of Agricultural Economics 41(3). Haile, A. 2006. “On-farm studies on sorghum and chickpea in Eritrea.� African Journal of Biotechnology 5(17): 1537–44. Gockel, R., K. Hampton, and M. K. Gugerty. 2009. “Storage, trans- portation, and aggregation of agricultural products for smallhold- Hall, A. 2009. “Challenges to Strengthening Agricultural Innovation er farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa.� Prepared for the Agricultural Systems: Where do we go from here?� In Ian Scoones and John Policy and Statistics Division of the Bill and Melinda Gates Thompson (eds.), Farmer �rst revisited: Innovation for agricul- Foundation, August 2009 (typewritten), 36. tural research and development. UK: Practical Action Publishing Ltd., 30–38. Godtland, E., E. Sadoulet, A. de Janvry, R. Murgai, and O. Ortiz. 2003. “The impact of farmer-field-schools on knowledge Hall, A., V. R. Sulaiman, N. Clark, and B. Yoganand. 2005. “Chapter and productivity: A study of potato farmers in the Peruvian 11: Innovation systems perspective: From measuring impact Andes.� Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics to learning institutional lessons.� In participatory research and CUDARE Working Paper 963. Berkeley, CA: University of development for sustainable agriculture and natural resource California. management: A sourcebook. Volume 1: Understanding participa- tory research and development, eds. J. Gonsalves, T. Becker, Goetz, S. J. 1990. “Market Reforms, Food Security and the Cash A. Braun, D. Campilan, H. de Chavez, E. Fajber, M. Kapiriri, Crop: Food Crop Debate in Southeastern Senegal.� PhD thesis, J. Rivaca-Caminade, and R. Vernooy. http://www.idrc.ca/pan/ Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. ev-85054–201–1-DO_TOPIC.html Goldman, I. 2005. “Agricultural innovation systems.� Presentation Hall, A., V. R. Sulaiman, B. Yoganand, and N. Clark. 2003. “Postharvest made at the UK Department for International Development innovation systems in South Asia: Key features and implications (DFID) workshop Improving the Productivity of Smallholder for capacity development.� In Postharvest innovations in inno- Farmers in Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, September vation: Reflections on partnerships and learning, eds. A. Hall, 27–29, 2005. B. Yoganand, V. R. Sulaiman, and N. G. Clark, 78–93. Crop EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 52 R EFER ENC ES Post-Harvest Programme (CPHP), South Asia, c/o International Korunic, Z. 1998. “Diatomaceous earths: a group of natural insecti- Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), cides.� Journal of Stored Products Research 34(2/3): 87–97. Patancheru 502 324, Andra Pradesh, India: Crop Postharvest Kumar, H. 2002. “Resistance in maize to the larger grain borer Programme South Asia. Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae).� Hanbly Odame, H. 2009. “Linking media with rural communities.� Journal of Stored Products Research 38(3): 267–80. Presentation made at the Brussels Rural Development Brie�ngs Kutukwa, N., and A. Devereau. 2002. “Maize: Zimbabwe.� In Crop Session n°14 on ACP Agricultural and Rural Development: Why Post Harvest Science and Technology. Volume 2: Case Studies Media Matters. October 12, 2009. in the Handling and Storage of Durable Commodities, eds. Hardie, J. D. M. 1982. Sorghum milling in Botswana: A development R. J. Hodges and G. Farrell. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd., impact case study. Ontario: Of�ce of Planning and Evaluation, 42–51. IDRC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 44. Langyintuo, A. 2005. “Functioning of cereal banks and inventory cred- Henkes, C. 1992. “Investigations into insect population dynamics, it programs in West Africa: A trip report.� Zimbabwe: CIMMYT. damage and losses of stored maize: An approach to IPM in small http://www.cimmyt.org/gis/rfseedsafrica/documents/Reports/ farms in Tanzania with special reference to Prostephanus truncatus CBs_and_ICP_in_WestAfrica.pdf (accessed on December 18, (Horn).� GTZ, Pickhüben 4, D-2000: Hamburg, Germany, p. 124. 2009). Hilbeck, A., and D. A. Andow (eds). 2004. Environmental risk assess- Lewis, L., M. Onsongo, H. Njapau, H. Schurz-Rogers, G. Luber, ment of genetically modi�ed organisms, Volume 1: A case study S. Kieszak, J. Nyamongo, L. Backer, A. M. Dahiye, and A. Misore. of bt maize in Kenya. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. 2005. “Aflatoxin contamination of commercial maize products during an outbreak of acute aflatoxicosis in Eastern and Central Hodges, R. J., W. R. Dunstan, I. Magazini, and P. Golob. 1983. Kenya.� Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 1763–67. “An outbreak of Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in East Africa.� Protection Ecology 5: 193–94. Liang, L. 1993. “China’s Postharvest Grain Losses and the Means of their Reduction and Elimination.� Jingji dili (Economic Holmes, R., and R. Slater. 2007. “Realising gender in agricultural policies: Geography)Vol. 1: 92–96. The �ght for equality is not over.� ODI Opinion Paper 91. http://www. passlivelihoods.org.uk/default.asp?project_id=240&nc=4921 Lubulwa, G. 1995. “The human health bene�ts of research to reduce the hydrogen cyanide potential in cassava cultivars in Africa: A IGC. 2008. World Grain Statistics 2007. London: International Grain completed project assessment of ACIAR project PN 9007.� Council. Economic Evaluation Unit Working Paper No. 21, ACIAR. Itano, N. 2005. “Community solutions for Africa’s AIDS orphans.� Lubulwa, A. S. G., and J. S. Davis. 1994a. “Estimating the social South African Institute for International Affairshttp://www.saiia. costs of the impacts of fungi and aflatoxins in maize and pea- org.za/archive-eafrica/special-feature-community-solutions-for- nuts.� In Stored product protection: Proceedings of the 6th africas-aids-orphans.html (accessed on December 17, 2009). International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection, Jayne, T. S., B. Zulu, and M. Beaver. 2001. “Smallholder household eds. E. Highley, E. J. Wright, H. J. Banks, and B. R. Champ., maize production and marketing behavior in Zambia: Implications Wallingford, UK: CAB International., 1017–42. for policy.� Food Security Research Project-Zambia Number 20. ———. 1994b. “Estimating the social costs of the impacts of fungi Kanampiu, F. 2009. CIMMYT. Personal communication, 13 Dec. 2009. and aflatoxins.� Economic Evaluation Unit Working Paper No. 10, ACIAR. Kaseke, E. 2006. “The revival of Zunde raMambo in Zimbabwe.� VOSESA Focus 2(1): April. http://www.vosesa.org.za/focus/vol1_no4/ Lundy, M. 2006. “Change through shared learning.� LEISA Magazine index.html?article_3.html~content (accessed on December 17, 22(3): 18–19. 2009). Mallet, M., and P. Du Plessis. 2000. “A summary of current knowl- Katz, H. 1991. “Desiccants: Dry as dust means insect’s death.� Pest edge about pearl millet postharvest issues in Namibia.� Research Control Technology 82: 84. Report, CRIAA SA-DC, Windhoek. Kisangani, E. 2005. “Community cereal banks�. Technical Brief. Practical Mancini, F. 2006. Impact of integrated pest management farmer �eld Action.http://practicalaction.org/practicalanswers/product_ schools on health, farming systems, the environment, and liveli- info.php?cPath=87&products_id=50&osCsid=cm1o07n4jl3ug5c hoods of cotton growers in Southern India. Published doctoral 6vjfdligkr5&attrib=1 (accessed on December 17, 2009). dissertation, Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Kitch, L. W., and D. Giga. 2000. “Practical demonstrations of cow- Mangan, J., and M. S. Mangan. 1998. “A comparison of two IPM pea storage technologies.� In Postharvest storage technologies training strategies in China: The importance of concepts of for cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in southern Africa, eds. L. Kitch the rice ecosystem for sustainable insect pest management.� and T. Sibanda. Proceedings of a regional workshop, Harare, Agriculture and Human Values 15: 209–21. Zimbabwe, April 12–14, 2000. McLaughlin, A. 1994. Laboratory trials on desiccant dust insecticides. Kitch, L. W., and G. Ntourkam. 1991. “Airtight storage of cowpea In Proceedings of the Sixth International Working Conference in triple plastic bags (triple bagging).� CRSP Technical Bulletin on Stored-Product Protection, April 17–23, 1994, Canberra, 3. Afronomic Research Institute of Cameroon (IRA), Maroua Australia, eds. E. Highley, E. J. Wright, H. J. Banks, and B. R. Research Centre, RSP Cowpea Research Project, p. 11. Champ (Eds.). Oxford, UK: CAB International, 638–45. MISS ING FOOD REFERENCES 53 Morris, M. J., B. M. Mvumi, W. H. Riwa, and T. E. Stathers. 2005. New Agriculturalist. 2004. “Bridging the rural digital divide.� New “Postharvest innovation to improve food security in Tanzania and Agriculturalist, 04/3. Focus on Extension. http://www.new-ag. Zimbabwe: Learning alliance lessons.� In Proceedings of sympo- info/04–3/focuson/focuson6.html. sium on learning alliances for scaling up innovative approaches Norman, D. W., F. D. Worman, J. D. Siebert, and E. Modiakgotla. in the water and sanitation sector, June 7–9, 2005, Delft, the 1995. “The farming system’s approach to development and ap- Netherlands, eds. S. Smits, C. Fonseca, and J. Pels. Delft: IRC propriate technology generatio.� Rome: FAO. International Water and Sanitation Centre, 99–109. http://www. irc.nl/page/24792/offset/10. Okezie, O. B. 1998. “World food security: The role of postharvest technology.� Food Technology 52(1): 64–69. Morris, M., B. M. Mvumi, T. E. Stathers, and W. Riwa. 2006. “Postharvest innovation: Enhancing performance at the inter- Ospina P., B. Gottret, M. V. Pachico, and C. E. Leite. 1998. “CIAT’s face of supply and utilization.� Chatham, UK: Natural Resources integrated cassava research and development (ICRD) strategy: Institute. Project Final Report, January 15, 2005–January 31, A case study on adoption and impact in Northeast Brazil.� Draft. 2006, R8460 DFID Crop Post Harvest Programme. http://www. Mimeo. nri.org/projects/PHILA/reports/PFR_R8460_AS.doc. Pasteur, K., and P. Scott-Villiers. 2004. “If relationships matter, Morris, M., T. Stathers, B. Mvumi, D. Gasana, W. Riwa, and how can they be improved? Learning about relationships in D. Mathias. 2005. “Post-Harvest Innovation Learning Alliance development.� Lessons for change in policy and organizations, (PHILA): Review workshop, Tanzania.� Report of a workshop No 9. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. http://www. organized by the PHILA management team, Plant Health livelihoods.org/lessons/Learning/OrgLearn.html. Services (Tanzania), the Natural Resources Institute (UK), and the Perz, S. 2003. “Social determinants and land use correlates of agri- University of Zimbabwe, November 23–25, 2005, at the Muslim cultural technology adoption in a forest frontier: A case study in University of Morogoro, Tanzania. http://www.nri.org/projects/ the Brazilian Amazon.� Human Ecology 31(1): 133–63. PHILA/reports/RWS-report-Tz-Jan06.pdf. Pontius, J., R. Dilts, and A. Bartlett (eds.). 2002. “Ten years of Murdock, L. L., D. Seck, G. Ntoukam, L. Kitch, and R. E. Shade. IPM training in Asia: From farmer �eld school to community 2003. “Preservation of cowpea grain in Sub-Saharan Africa: IPM.� Bangkok: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac834e/ Bean/cowpea CRSP contributions.� Field Crops Research 82: ac834e00.HTM. 169–78. Porter, G., and K. Phillips-Howard. 1997. “Comparing contracts: Murdock, L. L., and R. E. Shade. 1991. “Eradication of cowpea An evaluation of contract farming schemes in Africa.� World weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in cowpeas by soar heating.� Development 25(2). American Entomologist 37:228–31. Qamar, M. K. 2005. “Modernizing national agricultural extension Muto, M., and T. Yamano. 2009. “The impact of mobile phone cover- systems: A practical guide for policy makers of developing age expansion on market participation: Panel data evidence from countries.� Research, extension, and training division, FAO. ftp:// Uganda.� World Development 37(12):1887–96. ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0219e/a0219e00.pdf. Mvumi, B. M., M. Morris, T. Stathers, and W. Riwa. 2008. “Doing Quarles, W. 1992. “Diatomaceous earth for pest control.� IPM things differently: Postharvest Innovation Learning Alliances in Practitioner 18: 1–10. Tanzania and Zimbabwe.� In Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods. Part III: Policy, Institutional and Market-Led Innovation Ramírez, R., W. and Quarry. 2004. “Communication strategies in (Chapter 12), eds. C. Pascal, P. C. Sanginga, A. Waters-Bayer, S. the age of decentralization and privatization of rural services: Kaaria, J. Njuki, and C. Wettasinha. London: Earthscan. http:// Lessons from two African experiences.� AgREN Network Paper www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=27831. No. 136. Mukhwana, E. 2009. “Improving agricultural produce marketing.� Reardon, T. 1992. “Food consumption survey issues and methods Nairobi: Sacred Africa. www.sacredafrica.com (accessed on for West Africa.� Mimeo Michigan State University. December 18, 2009). Reardon, T., J. Dione, A. Adesina, and J. Tefft. 1995. “Rice in West Africa before and after Franc CFA devaluation: Focus Mvumi, B. M., T. E. Stathers, V. Kaparadza, F. Mukoyi, P. Masiiwa, on CILSS countries.� In Irrigated Rice in the Sahel: Prospects P. Jowah, and W. Riwa. 2006. “Comparative insecticidal for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of an International ef�cacy of �ve raw African diatomaceous earths against Symposium held at Ndiaye, Senegal. March 27–31, 1995, eds. three tropical stored grain Coleopteran pests: Sitophilus K. M. Miezan, M. C. S Wopereis, M. Dingkuhn, J. Decker, and zeamais, Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica.� In T. Randolph. Bouake: WARDA. Proceedings of the ninth international working conference of stored-product protection. October 15–18, 2006, Campinas, Reardon, T., and M. Mercado-Peters. 1993. “Self-�nancing of rural Sao Paulo, Brazil. Bortlini, L. de O. F., M. R. Sartori, M. C. household cash expenditures in Burkina Faso: The case of net Elias, R. N. C. Guedes, R. G. da Fonseca, and V. M. Scussel grain buyers.� In Finance and rural development in West Africa: (eds.). (2007) Brazilian Postharvest Association. Campinas, Proceedings of the 12th Rural Economy Seminar, eds. Cuevas Brazil: 868–76. and Benoit-Cattin. Montpellier: CIRAD. Negi, G. C. S. 1994. “High yielding vs. traditional crop varieties: A Resilience Alliance. 2007. Assessing and Managing Resilience in socio-agronomic study in a Himalayan village in India.� Mountain Social-Ecological Systems: A Practitioner’s Workbook (Version Research and Development 14(3): 251–54. 1.0, June 2007). http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php. Rivera, EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 54 R EFER ENC ES W., and G. Alex (eds.). 2004. “National strategy and reform pro- earths have potential as gain protectants for small-holder farmers cess: Case studies of international initiatives.� Agriculture and in sub-Saharan Africa? The case of Tanzania.� Crop Protection Rural Development Discussion Paper 12, Extension Reform for 27(1): 44–70. Rural Development, World Bank. Stathers, T. E. 2008. “Smallholder food security in Sub-Saharan Riverson, J. D. N., and Carapetis. 1991. “Intermediate means of Africa: The case for diatomaceous earth grain protectants.� PhD transport in Sub-Saharan Africa: Its potential for improving rural thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, UK. travel and transport.� World Bank Technical Paper 161, 25. Stathers, T. E., R. I. Lamboll, and B. M. Mvumi. Forthcoming. Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th Ed. New York: Free Climate change and postharvest agriculture. Natural Resources Press. Institute, UK. Roling, N. 2006. “Conceptual and methodological developments in Stathers, T. E., M. Morris, W. Riwa, and B. M. Mvumi. 2004. Farmers’ innovation.� Proceedings of the Innovation Africa Symposium, livelihoods: What role for grain protection? Chatham, UK: Natural Kampala, Uganda, November 21–23, 2006. In Innovation Africa: Resources Institute. http://www.research4development.info/PDF/ Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods, eds. C. Pascal, P. C. Sanginga, Outputs/R8179farmerslivelihoods.pdf. A. Waters-Bayer, S. Kaaria, J. Njuki, and C. Wettasinha. Earthscan: London. Stathers, T. E., B. M. Mvumi, and P. Golob. 2002b. “Field assess- ment of the ef�cacy and persistence of diatomaceous earths in Roling, N., and E. van de Fliert. 1994. “Transforming extension for sus- protecting stored grain on small-scale farms in Zimbabwe.� Crop tainable agriculture: the case of integrated pest management in Protection, 21(10): 1033–48. rice in Indonesia.� Agriculture and Human Values 11(2/3): 96–108. Stathers, T. E., and W. Riwa. 2005. “Farmer and frontline exten- Samado E., R. G. Guei R, and S. O. Keya (eds.). 2008. NERICA the sion staff exchange visits: Case Study 6 of the Post Harvest New Rice for Africa—A compendium. (WARDA) Innovation Project.� Post-Harvest Innovation Learning Alliance Saunders R. M., A. P. Mossman, T. Wasserman, and E. C. Beagle. (PHILA) Inception Workshop. 1980. “Rice Postharvest Losses in Developing Countries.� Stathers, T. E., W. Riwa, B. M. Mvumi, and M. J. Morris. 2005. USDA Agricultural Reviews and Manuals ARM-W-12. Oakland, “Small-scale farmers’ utilization of diatomaceous earths dur- CA: USDA. ing storage.� Project Final Report, June 11, 2002–January 31, Schmidt, E. 2009. “World vision.� Personal communication, 2005, R8179 DFID Crop Post Harvest Programme. Chatham, UK: December 2009. Natural Resources Institute. http://www.researchintouse.com/ nrk/RIUinfo/outputs/R8179_FTR.pdf. Scoones, I., and J. Thompson (eds.). 1994. Beyond farmer �rst: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension Stathers, T. E., T. Sibanda, and J. Chigariro. 2000. “The Zunde practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. scheme, Chikomba district, Zimbabwe.� NRI Research Report. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. http://www.cphp. Shaxson, L., and J. Bentley. 1991. Economic factors influencing the uk.com/uploads/disseminations/R7034–004.pdf (accessed on choice of pest control technology by small-scale Honduran farm- December 17, 2009). ers. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. Tran, B. M. D., P. Golob, and A. Fuseini. 2001. “Storage of cowpea Shephard, G. S. 2008. “Risk assessment of aflatoxins in food in in plastic water tanks.� Technical assistance to TechnoServe, Africa.� Food Additives & Contaminants Part A Chemistry, Ghana: NRI Report 2585. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Analysis, Control, Exposure & Risk Assessment [Food Addit. Institute (typewritten), 29. Contam.], Vol. 25, no. 10: 1246–1256. Tripp, R., M. Wijeratne, and V. H. Piyadasa. 2005. “What should Shepherd, A. 1991. “A market-oriented approach to postharvest we expect from farmer �eld schools? A Sri Lanka case study.� management.� AGSM Occasional Paper No. 5. Rome: FAO. World Development 33(10): 1705–20. Singano, C. 2009. “Bvumbwi Research Station, Malawi.� Personal Tyler, P. S. 1982. “Misconception of Food Losses. The United communication, December 23, 2009. Nations University Press.� Food and Nutrition Bulletin 4(2), April. Smil, V. 2003. “Improving ef�ciency and reducing waste in our food http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food/8F042e/8F042E05.htm. system.� Environmental Sciences 1(1): 17–26. University of Ghana. 2008. “Harvest and Post Harvest Baseline Solleti, S. K., S. Bakshi, J. Purkayastha, S. K. Panda, and L. Sahoo. Study.� Draft report prepared by the Department of Agricultural 2008. “Transgenic cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) seeds expressing Economics and Agribusiness, University of Ghana. a bean α-amylase inhibitor 1 confer resistance to storage pests, van de Fliert, E. 2000. “Stepping stones and stumbling blocks in bruchid beetles.� Plant Cell Reports 27: 1841–50. capacity development of sweet potato ICM farmer �eld school Stathers, T. E., J. Chigariro, M. Mudiwa, B. M. Mvumi, and P. Golob. facilitators.� Paper presented at the UPWARD Conference 2002a. “Small-scale farmer perceptions of diatomaceous earth “Capacity Development for Participatory Research,� Beijing, products as potential stored grain protectants in Zimbabwe.� China, September 19–22. Crop Protection 21(10): 1049–60. van den Berg, H., and J. Jiggins. 2007. “Investing in farmers: The Stathers, T. E, W. Riwa, B. M. Mvumi, R. Mosha, L. Kitandu, impacts of farmer �eld schools in relation to integrated pest K. Mngara, B. Kaoneka, and M. Morris. 2008. “Do diatomaceous management.� World Development 35(4): 663–86. MISS ING FOOD REFERENCES 55 Wanvoeke, J., E. Zossou, and P. van Mele. 2009. “Moving Pictures: ———. 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond Sharing agricultural practices through video.� Farming Matters/ the Strengthening of Research Systems. Economic and Sector LEISA Magazine: Scaling Up and Sustaining the Gains 25(4): 28–31. Work. Washington, DC: World Bank, 135. http://ileia.leisa.info/index.php?url=show-blob-html.tpl&p[o_id]= 239145&p[a_id]=211&p[a_seq]=1. ———. 2008. Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: World Bank, 386. Watts, M., P. D. Little, C. Mock, M. Billings, and S. Jaffee. 1988. “Contract farming in Africa: Executive summary.� IDA Working World Bank, FAO, and IFAD. 2008. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Paper No. 87. USAID. Washington, DC: World Bank, 792. Williams, J. H. 2008. “Institutional stakeholders in mycotoxin issues: World Bank (2009). Eastern Africa: A Study of the Regional Maize Past, present and future.� In Mycotoxins: Detection Methods, Market and Marketing Costs. Economic and Sector Work, Report Management, Public Health and Agricultural Trade, eds. J. F. No. 49831-AFR. Washington, DC: World Bank. Leslie, R. Bandyopadhyay, and A. Visconti, 349–58. Wallingford, World Bank. 2010. Designing and Implementing Agricultural Innovation UK: CAB International. Funds: Lessons from Competitive Research and Matching Grant Winarto, Y. T. 2004. Seeds of Knowledge: The Beginning of Integrated Projects. Economic and Sector Work, ARD Report No. 54857- Pest Management in Java. New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia GLB. Washington, DC: World Bank. Studies. World Development Report. 2009. Reshaping Economic Geography. Wolfson, J. L., R. E. Shade, P. E. Mentzer, and L. L. Murdock. 1991. Washington, DC: World Bank, 383. “Ef�cacy of ash for controlling infestations of Callosbruchus Wu, F., and P. Khlangwiset. 2010. “Health Economic Impacts and maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored cowpeas.� Cost Effectiveness of Aflatoxin-Reduction Strategies in Africa: Journal of Stored Products Research 27: 239–43. Case Studies in Biocontrol and Postharvest Interventions.� Food World Bank. 1996. Sustainable transport: Priorities for policy reform. Additives and Contaminants Part A. Chemical Analysis Control Washington, DC: World Bank, 131. Expo Risk Assessment 27(4): 496–509. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK Q U E S T I O N N A I R E S URVE Y RE SP ONDE NT S AND AREA S OF EX PERIENC E 57 Annex 1. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND AREAS OF EXPERIENCE NAME POSITION CONTACT DETAILS RELEVANT AREAS OF EXPERTISE Business/ Priv Socio Anth Socio Econ Policy Pro Stor Tech Agr Econ Food aid Stor Ent PH Tech Agr Eng Agr Ext Comm Sec Ambrose AGONA Director NARO, previ- aagona@hotmail.com X X ously head of the National Postharvest Research Programme, Uganda Abel ATUKASE Assistant lecturer, atukwase@agric.mak.ac.ug Makerere University, Uganda Stephen BELMAIN Principal scientist, Natural s.r.belmain@gre.ac.uk X X X X Resources Institute (NRI) Jonathan COULTER Freelance consultant jcoulter01@yahoo.com X X X X (formerly NRI) Ben DADZIE Senior agronomist/ benkdadzie@yahoo.co.uk X Postharvest Specialist, ACDI-VOCA Shaun FERRIS Senior Technical Advisor, sferris@crs.org X X X X X X X X X Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Stephanie GALLAT FAO agro-industry and stepanka.gallatova@fao.org X X X X postharvest of�cer, AGST Denash GIGA Formerly prof. crop dgiga@gatorzw.co.uk X X X X X science, University of Zimbabwe. Peter GOLOB Freelance consultant petegolob@aol.com X X (formerly NRI) Kirstin HELL Postharvest technologist k.hell@cgiar.org X X X X CIP (formerly IITA) Patrick LAMECK INADES Formation pgmlameck@yahoo.co.uk X X X X X X Tanzania. Senior trainer and team animator Anne MBAABU AGRA, director, market ambaabu@agra-alliance.org X X X X X X X access program Kimondo MUTAMBUKI Kenya Agricultural mutambukikimo@yahoo.com X Research Institute/head: Entomology Brighton MVUMI Lecturer crop protection, mvumibm@hotmail.com X X X X X University of Zimbabwe Paul MWEBASE Formerly, postharvest and mp88@gre.ac.uk X X marketing specialist, ACDI- VOCA, Uganda Clare NARROD IFPRI; SR research fellow c.narrod@cgiar.org X X X continued EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 58 QUES TIONNA IRE SURVEY RES POND ENTS A ND A REA S OF E X PER IENC E (Continued) NAME POSITION CONTACT DETAILS RELEVANT AREAS OF EXPERTISE Daniel OBENG OFORI Deputy-provost of College dobeng@ug.edu.gh X X of Agriculture & Consumer Sciences, Legon, Ghana Alain RATNADASS Entomologist (CIRAD) and ratnadass@cirad.fr X principal scientist in IPM (ICRISAT) William RIWA IPM coordinator, Ministry william.riwa@kilimo.go.tz X X of Agriculture Food wilriwa052@yahoo.com Security and Cooperatives, Plant Health Services, Tanzania Charles SINGANO Principal agricultural chasinga2001@yahoo.co.uk X X research scientist, Malawi Key: PH Tech = Postharvest Technology; Agr Ext = Agricultural Extension; Agr Eng = Agricultural Engineering; Stor Tech = Storage Technology; Socio Econ = Socioeconomics; Agr Econ = Agricultural Economics; Policy Proc = Policy processes; Comm = Communication; Food Aid = Food aid/relief; Business; Priv sector = Business/Private sector. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 59 Annex 2. POSTHARVEST PROJECT PROFILES PROJECT NO. PROJECT TITLE 1 Inventory credit (Ghana) 2 Inventory credit (Niger) 3 Warehouse receipts (Zambia) 4 Warehouse receipts (Uganda) 5 Warehouse receipts (Kenya) 6 Market Information Service (FOODNET) 7 Purchase for Progress (P4P) 8 Food Security Project Title II (ACDI VOCA) 9 Postharvest handling and storage project (PHHS) 10 Improved design of indigenous stores—including minimizing the use of hardwood resources 11 Larger grain borer (LGB) control 12 Diatomaceous earth (DE) 13 Mud silos 14 Metal silos PostCosecha type (in Central America) 15 Metal silos PostCosecha type (in Africa) 16 Plastic stores 17 Commodity storage and loss reduction project (Grainpro cocoons) 18 Irrigated Rice Research Consortium 19 East and Southern Africa rice project 22 Improved cowpea storage (triple bagging) 21 Optimizing the indigenous use of pesticidal plants 22 Improving smallholder farmer market access 23 Postharvest innovation: enhancing performance at the interface of supply and utilization (PHILA) 24 Exploring the scope of cost-effective aflatoxin risk reduction strategies in maize and groundnut value chains to improve market access of the poor in Africa 25 Kenya Maize Development Program 26 NAADS Uganda 27 Improvement of postharvest technologies for fonio EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 60 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 1 Project title INVENTORY CREDIT (GHANA) Project type Utilization/marketing Project description Outputs Location Ghana Working with farmer groups, with about 16-year track record, to facilitate inventory credit for commodities Project dates 1989–2005 including maize, groundnut, and cowpea. TechnoServe assisted in the management of the groups, drying, Value (US$) n/a cleaning, and storing the produce and in obtaining inventory credit from �nancial institutions. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Although the farmers’ groups participating have Although the system is worthwhile, it can only really be imple- bene�ted from the inventory credit system, the scheme mented if it is accepted that some form of subsidy is necessary. It has been problematic because the scale of operation is considered that a pilot scheme of 5–7 years, where gains made was too small. Farmers typically accumulate about using inventory credit are forced into a credit saving scheme, would 50 tons. The existing �nancial institutions have little stand a much greater chance of success, especially where large- incentive to operate at this scale, with the result that scale replication would compensate for inadequacies of scale. TechnoServe had to make all the running to keep the system operational. The system was therefore not sustainable without subsidy. For this reason, it was discontinued in 2005. Source: Nick Railston-Brown, TechnoServe (Ghana), Dr. John Azu Opportunities Industrialization Centres (Tamale, Ghana) NO. 2 Project title INVENTORY CREDIT (NIGER) Project type Utilization/marketing Project description Outputs Location Niger Since 1999, FAO and other partners have implemented an The positive development of volumes hides important inventory credit system in Niger. It is an approach in which the interregional variations. However, the volume stored within Project dates 1999–present smallholders, through their producer organization (POs), store the framework of the system represents a little more than their products until the hungry period and secure loans from 0.1 percent of the production of grains and legumes plants Value (US$) micro�nancing institutions (MFIs) under a “dual key� control in Niger. system. The loans enable them to undertake income-generating activities or meet �nancial and social obligations. Subsequently, The operation of the direct credit MFIs increased very they can sell stock or retain it for family consumption during quickly. In 2008–09, the volume of the loans apparently the period before the new harvest, when prices are generally reached FCFA 593 million, which represents about 5,000 tons high. The project has also promoted the use of technologies to of products—especially of groundnuts and millet, but also increase production, especially the administration of fertilizer cowpea, paddy, sorrel, sesame, tiger nuts (in Maradi), dried by a system of microdosing (conservation farming). peppers (in Diffa), and several other dry products. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects FAO promoted inventory credit with other actors, and this In reviewing this progress to date, it was proposed that proved popular but fell into decline in 2003–04. There was a 5-year project should be implemented to accelerate the a problem with the mutual MFIs, which were very weak and adoption of inventory credit in Niger, with a target of FCFA dependent on external funding rather than members’ savings. 3 billion loans annually at the end, that is to say about The situation was corrected when direct-credit MFIs (supported 5 times current volume. Follow-up should include the by international investment funds and commercial loans of the following: trade banks) took over �nancing, causing an increase in the � Initiating a strong push to spread the approach used by volume of activity. As a whole, inventory credit in Niger is a the project and help to adapt quickly to realities on the success, leaving actual pro�ts for smallholders, and it is appar- ground. ently sustainable with a good repayment record. It is simple � Informing and training smallholders to help them take and controllable technically, making it possible for smallhold- full ownership and develop their approaches. ers to better manage their resources, facilitating the adoption � Taking a range of steps in the �nancial �eld, covering of technologies that increase agricultural productivity. In the supervision of MFIs, enhancing their analytical skills, southern part of Niger, inventory credit seems to be a more working with effective urban-based mutual MFIs to powerful tool than cereal banks in promoting food security extend their networks, legal aspects, and regulatory during the hungry period. In addition, it appears that inven- support for collateral management and to investigate tory credit is a good tool to encourage cooperation between the scope for monetary measures in support of WRS. smallholders—although, paradoxically, the main attraction of the approach rests mainly on the fact that the food is stored in � Arranging to ensure that the stores built by the project the name of the individuals, allowing more direct appropriation go to the groups that will make best use of them. of any gains. � Improving market information systems for the bene�t of the POs by involving �nancial institutions in the collec- tion, analysis, and use of information. Source: J. Coulter and S. Mahamadou (2009). MISS ING FOOD NO. 3 61 Project title WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS (ZAMBIA) Project type Utilization/marketing Project description Outputs Location Zambia With funding from the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC) The initial indications from ZACA were positive, and as of and other donors, the NRI assisted a range of Zambian parties March 2003 there were Project dates 2003–present (including farmers, bankers, traders, millers, and policy makers) to � Three warehouse operators with total storage capac- develop and implement a regulated warehouse receipts system ity of 23,000 tons certi�ed to issue ZACA-backed Value (US$) (WRS). The approach involved fostering the development of a WRS. national network of privately managed warehouses, which are � Staff of the certi�ed warehouses had been trained authorized to issue transferable warehouse receipts, and in which and certi�ed as competent in grading and sampling of trust is developed through a robust certi�cation and inspection soybeans, maize, and wheat. system. The WRS was regulated by a nongovernmental certi�ca- � Commercial farmers, millers, and small farmer groups, tion and inspection agency—the Zambia Agricultural Commodity who were keen to make deposits had at least been Agency (ZACA Ltd.). However, ZACA did not perform well for a identi�ed. variety of reasons, and this led to its closure and the establish- ment of the Zambian Agricultural Commodity Exchange (ZAMACE) � Five �nancial institutions (including two international through the intervention of a USAID project called PROFIT commercial banks) had shown a readiness to �nance (Production, Finance, and Improved Technology) and the private ZACA-backed WRS. sector. ZAMACE started trading in October 2007. � Government had indicated strong support for program and is willing to enact supportive legislation for WRS and to discuss enabling policies. Following pilot-phase success, warehouses under the control of four grain traders and an international inspection company were certi�ed to issue warehouse receipts during the 2004–05 season. Available certi�ed storage space rose from 8,000 to 105,000 tons, and about 66,000 tons of maize were deposited in the certi�ed warehouses. Commercial farmers have predominated among the early adopters of this system, but smallholders were also getting involved, depositing nearly 5,800 tons of grain. However the performance of the system declined thereafter. In 2007 it was replaced by ZAMACE, which has focused on the commercial grain sector so that economies of scale will reduce service costs to enable the participa- tion of smallholders. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects The initial project under ZACA certi�ed a number of warehouses � Certain economic factors favor a successful outcome accessible to various depositors of different sizes, with the in Zambia. There is signi�cant production by large- minimum size of grain deposit of between 10 and 30 tons, a scale commercial farmers, and the prior existence of certi�cation system designed to encourage investment in relatively inventory credit facilities under collateral manage- small-scale rural warehousing services. A low capital threshold ment agreements run by international inspection was established (US$ 50,000), with warehouses being able to store companies suggests that the underlying economics up to 10 times their net worth. The warehouse operator must meet are favorable to the establishment of a system of solvency criteria, provide a �nancial performance guarantee, show transferable warehouse receipts. Relative to its neigh- evidence of professional competence and integrity, and accept bors (Zimbabwe and Malawi), Zambia enjoys relative frequent, unannounced inspections. Only commodities (maize, freedom of trade and movement of currency; and the wheat, and soya bean) that met prescribed weight and grades were level of seasonal price variability in the leading crop, to be receipted. Warehouse operators and their front-line staff maize, is very high. The challenges faced in introduc- (samplers, graders, and weighers) were trained and certi�ed in ing WRS in Zambia include disabling elements in the commodity quality and quantity assurance to facilitate enforcement policy environment, legal issues, engendering con�- of commodity standards. Certi�ed warehouse operators either own dence among bankers, scale economies, and ensuring or lease sheds or silos on commercial terms and are free to charge smallholder participation. Governments often resort to economic storage rates. WRS �nancing was on commercial terms ad hoc interventions, which can potentially undermine and unsubsidized, except that it got USAID credit guarantees, inventory credit programs, on food-security grounds. which banks only took up for a minority of lending, did not include This phenomenon hampered two schemes in Ghana “soft� credit lines from government or donors. However, despite during the 1990s. Building stakeholder consensus and these efforts, ZACA apparently failed due to the following issues: policy coherence has emerged as critical to reduc- � Lack of a transparent and volume-driven national, commercial ing, though not eliminating, ad-hoc interventions. commodity market—no scale. In the case of Zambia, this approach enabled local � Limited demand for WHR, for warehouse certi�cation, and no stakeholders to effectively counter pre-electoral policy con�dence by the �nancial sector. reversals and prevent the project from being derailed. � Legal underpinnings of WHR never established—no clear enforceability of title. � Project support provided for a heavy focus on smallholder participation while not taking due care of other aspects vital to ZACA’s survival. � Lower-than-anticipated performance. � End of funding in 2006. ZAMACE has a stronger commercial focus and is linked to the Malawi Commodity Exchange and to a regional Internet-based trading platform. Source: Coulter and Onumah (2002), Onumah (undated), Andrews et al. (2007), Cottan (undated). EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK NO. 4 Project title WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS (UGANDA) Project type Utilization/marketing Project description Outputs Location Uganda The goal was to create an ef�cient, effective, and At the time of writing, three warehouse operators have been licensed properly regulated WRS, based on a network of to issue warehouse receipts, and �ve others are in the pipeline, so the Project dates April 2006– licensed commercial warehouses. The WRS is WRS is operating on a small scale but with promises of growth. The March 2009 regulated by the Uganda Commodity Exchange and growth should have been faster were it not for the high investment will make the agricultural marketing system more requirements for warehouses and the processing equipment. UCE Value (US$) 1.3 million ef�cient, bene�ting both producers and consumers states that deposits to date are only maize and are: in Uganda. The WRS will overcome a range of con- straints including long marketing chains, lack of trade 1. Agroways—2,209 mt �nance, weak bargaining position of producers, lack 2. Masindi Growers—500 mt of adequate market information, a slow and costly 3. Nyakatonzi Growers—340 mt bulking process, lack of quality premiums at the farm gate, wide distribution margins, large price risk, PHL, The other warehouses will start depositing this season. Farmers are and food shortages. At the same time, the enforce- being helped to participate through training and through provision ment of commodity grades associated with the WRS of moisture meters so that they can check moisture content before will help Ugandan traders access more lucrative coming to the warehouse—to minimize rejections. The system is international and regional markets, as well as provide accepting maize at either grade 1 or grade 2 (East African standard). further value addition—for instance, grain milling. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Maize, coffee, cotton, or beans may be deposited � The WRS is nascent and needs more warehouse operators to be at licensed warehouses provided they meet stated certi�ed before the planned improvements in the grain market can quality grades. The minimum deposit is 10 tons, be delivered. There are two barriers to increasing the number of where the warehouse operators issue transferable operators: the relatively small number of warehouse operators in WRS for deposits through an electronic system Uganda and liquidity requirements for licensing. A further issue is the based in South Africa. UCE signed an MOU with incentive for depositors to market their grain through the WRS, given Housing Finance Bank to �nance warehouse receipts that most existing trade is in grain of low quality and widely variable where the receipt issued will be placed as collateral moisture content. This has been boosted since the UN WFP has ad- for a loan with the bank. The bank will �nance opted more flexible procurement modalities through its Purchase for 60 percent of the value of the commodity deposited Progress (P4P) project. WFP will now purchase warehouse receipts, at a UCE-licensed warehouse and this has the advantage of enabling them to buy from stock at a predetermine quality. However, WFP would only ever be expected to “prime the pump�; the ultimate aim should be to encourage regional grain traders to purchase the Uganda maize surplus. Source: Mr. Valerie Alia, UCE chief warehouse examiner. NO. 5 Project title WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS (KENYA) Project type Utilization/marketing Project description Outputs At the time of launch (�rst half of 2008) the Location Kenya A WRS was launched in April 2008. It was supported by the Financial warehouse received 1,000 tons of maize from 10 Sector Deepening Trust, the USAID Kenya Maize Development Program individual farmers and was encouraging smallhold- Project dates (KMDP), and Regional Agricultural Trade Expansion Support (RATES). ers to form groups and submit their harvest in bulk. The scheme is regulated by the EAGC, which certi�es warehouses on Value (US$) Six of the ten farmers applied and received loans the basis of compliance with regulatory conditions and of reports by from Equity Bank (totaling about US$130,000), using inspection companies. Although many banks were reluctant to provide the warehouse receipts as collateral. In the past two credit based on grain as collateral, Equity Bank developed a special seasons, the combination of low yields and favorable �nancial product to serve this scheme. weather encouraged sun-drying of maize and storage in houses so that farmers could bargain for higher producer prices from the government. To appease farmers, the government instituted price controls, increasing the price of 90 kg of maize from Sh1,300 to a high of Sh2,300, which made the WRS offer unattractive. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects The �rst storage facility EAGC certi�ed in April 2008 was the wheat WRS operation has been hampered by government silo complex at Nakuru, operated by Lesiolo Grain Handlers, under price intervention. The government’s intention to re- lease from the National Grains and Produce Board (NCBP). The WRS structure both the National Grains and Produce Board was successfully piloted in that year, with Equity Bank as the �nancial (NCPB) and the grain trading system may give an intermediary but on a limited scale. Since then, implementation seems opportunity to expand the WRS, especially to Eldoret, to have slowed as a result of dif�culties in the policy area, although Kitale, and the South Rift regions. Lack of warehous- the EAGC Web site indicates that two further warehouses have been ing facilities may present dif�culties, although since licensed. Farmers can deposit maize at the licensed warehouses launch, Lesiolo Grain Handlers has been joined by during the harvest period between the months of December to March Export Trading with warehouses in Eldoret and Kitale. in exchange for a warehouse receipt. Farmers may then use receipts as collateral for loans, after which they can sell their stored maize at an increased margin in the months of May to August, when prices are expected to have risen. To date, EAGC has approved only maize as the acceptable commodity, and the minimum deposit is 100 tons. Source: http://eastafrica.usaid.gov/en/Article.1159.aspx. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 63 NO. 6 Project title MARKET INFORMATION SERVICE (FOODNET) Project type Utilization/marketing Project description Outputs Location Uganda FOODNET was launched in 1998 as an Association FOODNET led a series of competitive grant programs and commis- for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East sioned studies along the value-chain approach. This included proj- Project dates 1998–2004 and Central Africa (ASARECA) postharvest and ects based on (i) market studies, (ii) Agro-enterprise development, market research network for East and Central Africa (iii) value added via postharvest processing, (iv) BDS development, Value (US$) $2,700,000 implemented by IITA and was the �rst noncommodity (v) policy analysis, and (vi) capacity building. Projects �nanced and regional research network, with a steering committee training provided can be accessed via http://www.foodnet.cgiar. that was comprised of researchers, extension, NGOs, org/Projects/projects.htm. This work was complimented by a series universities, and the private sector. FOODNET headed of commissioned grants. The two funding mechanisms were used to a campaign to introduce demand-led strategies into maintain focus on project objectives, as it was found that competi- the regional research agenda, such that products tive grant systems, despite being fairly proscriptive, led to a higher and services would match producer and processor degree of divergent research pathways than anticipated. needs. The team worked in a value-chain approach, which included (i) market studies, (ii) agro-enterprise The areas of project support aimed to focus on �ve areas, which development, (iii) business development support, and included (i) market studies,(ii) enterprise development, (iii) product (iv) processing, all of which aim to facilitate linking research, (iv) business development services, (v) policy studies, and poor agricultural producers to markets. In addition to (vi) impact studies on previous postproduction research. this work, the FOODNET team also implemented and collaborated on, many postharvest and marketing in- 1. Results from FOODNET projects were published on the Web formation projects funded outside the main ASARECA site and used by the ASARECA commodity networks. framework by a consortia of donors including, DFID, 2. FOODNET built up strong networks through PhAction and World Bank, EU, ARD, USAID (ACDI-VOCA), GOU developed a close working relationship with the CIAT agro- (NAADS, MAAIF), CTA, and RELMA NRI. FOODNET enterprise project. worked with both public and private partners. 3. Agro-enterprise LA training programs were developed for leading NGOs and national research programs. The guide The main investment grant supported by USAID, was from this work was published at: http://webapp.ciat.cgiar. �nalized in 2004, and yet part of the staff continue org/africa/agroenterprises.htm, and to implement Uganda’s Livestock Market Services 4. FOODNET developed a number of market information (LiMIS), supported by Ministry of Agriculture Animal services at the local, national, and regional levels. Industry and Fisheries(MAAIF), while also collaborat- ing with FarmGain Africa Ltd. to disseminate crop FOODNET developed a network of cassava-processing companies price information. that were able to manufacture cassava graters, chippers, and drying equipment. This work was based on a links between East African private companies and researchers in Vietnam and China. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects In general terms, the project had a considerable impact Although the project was of�cially closed in 2004. Many of the on other networks, in terms of them having to start their outcomes from the project continued to develop. own processes of market analysis and market justi�ca- 1. Agro-enterprise training with international NGOs contin- tion for their investment portfolio. The FOODNET team ues to expand, CRS have included more than 50-country was also asked to publish work on major economic programs in this work, and a cohort of consultants trends affecting the region such as “globalization.� continues to use the agro-enterprise guides to expand the Several national agricultural programs asked for formal approach. training in market analysis for their socioeconomic 2. Market information services are working on many of the teams, and the idea of value-chain approaches became second-generation MIS ideas that were being developed. a more common part of the research lexicon. 3. Cassava processing has potential in East and Southern The FOODNET project gravitated toward a number of Africa, and equipment for projects such as the BMG key value chains that were of importance in the region. Foundation–funded CAVA project could draw upon the This led to seven regional market studies being under- private sector capacity to supply small enterprise manuals taken and published; these included studies on maize, and power processing equipment. beans, banana, sesame, rice, cassava, and sweet 4. There remains a large gap in the ability of national potato. Since that time, value-chain approaches have research and extension services to provide marketing sup- become important to most agricultural projects’ R&D. port. This will at some point in time need to be addressed The FOODNET team led approaches for multisec- if these services are to provide relevant support to the tor governance through a steering committee that farming communities. Projects with the market-led ap- included research, extension, private sector, NGOs, proach led by FOODNET, would be well placed to provide and universities. Links with research agencies outside public sector agencies with this type of training and to of the region also led to ASARECA being engaged link new R&D products more effectively into value chain in groups such as PhAction. Training of NGOs was options. undertaken over the following six years, and the agro-enterprise learning approach and impact of the agro-enterprises was published by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 2009, see publications library within the CRS PQSD agriculture section. http://www.crsprogramquality.org/category/ agriculture-and-environment/ Source: IITA Project 9 Improving Postharvest Systems Report; Dr. Shaun Ferris (ex IITA). EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 64 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 7 Project title PURCHASE FOR PROGRESS (P4P) Project type Utilization/marketing Project description Outputs Location Many developing The UN WFP has procured food in develop- In the �rst year of operation (2008), 42,000 smallholder farmers all over countries ing countries locally and regionally for many the world have been involved in selling food to WFP through the P4P pilot. years; in 2008, WFP purchased US$1.1 billion In Uganda, WFP has supported the warehouse receipt system (WRS) Project dates 2008–present worth of food in 73 developing countries. P4P through which smallholder farmers can deposit their commodities in a builds on local procurement by enabling WFP certi�ed warehouse in return for a receipt that can be exchanged for cash Value (US$) $50 million to develop model procurement modalities that at a local �nancial institution. The value of the receipt is, on average, would enable smallholders and low-income equivalent to 60 percent of the market value of the deposited commod- farmers to supply food to WFP’s global opera- ity, and the balance is paid after the commodity is sold, less storage and tions and to gain more by doing so. P4P will cleaning costs. In 2008, P4P Uganda purchased 358 tons of maize through enable WFP to adopt and institutionalize new the WRS and in 2009 purchased 600 tons. Through the WRS, farmers procurement approaches and at the same time can access cash at harvest time without having to sell their produce in will give farmers the know-how and the tools a rush. The main advantage to the arrangement with WFP is that it can to be competitive players in the agricultural buy from a stock position where quality and availability are assured; this marketplace. It will also put more cash directly resolves two common reasons for defaults when purchasing directly from into their pockets in return for their crops. This farmer organizations: side selling or not meeting WFP speci�cations. In initiative is funded mainly by the Bill & Melinda Mali, P4P partner, Afrique Verte has worked with farmers’ and women’s Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett organizations to teach them fundamental market skills like quality and Foundation. packaging standards or the relevance of delivery on time. Africa Verte educates farmers about how the market works to ensure their sustainable integration into the economy. As a result, one of the farmers’ organizations involved, Faso Jigi, was able to win a competitive tender to supply 600 tons of grains to WFP. In Zambia, WFP is working with ZAMACE, a recently established public trading platform. WFP has bought 7,700 tons of maize and beans from the exchange, helping it become a robust market outlet that promotes price transparency and provides an alternative market outlet for farmers. Meanwhile, WFP and partners are supporting farmers’ organiza- tions that meet the quantity and quality standards required. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Through P4P, WFP is shifting a small percentage WFP has the opportunity to adopt methods of procurement that will of its overall procurement focus from the higher bene�t markets in developing countries. Especially though purchases levels of the marketing chain (large-scale trad- from warehouse receipt systems that bring discipline to markets though ers and processors (WFP’s traditional point of enforcement of quality grades. The establishment of markets that supply entry) to the lower levels (farmers’ organizations quality grain from a stock position to WFP will encourage other buyers to and small- and medium-scale traders) in order purchase grain surpluses, bringing reliable demand and sustainability to to have a more direct impact on smallholder the market. farmer’s income and livelihood. In order to achieve this, WFP is: � Adjusting procurement practices in order to facilitate FOs and small- and medium-scale traders’ participation in WFP tenders. � Piloting new ways of buying—for example, through commodity exchanges (Zambia and Uganda), warehouse receipt systems (Tanzania and Uganda), grain fairs (Mali) or through direct or forward contacts with FOs. � Depending on the country context and the availability of supply-side partners, entry points may be lower, grass-root level asso- ciations or higher-level FOs, including unions and federations that are better able to realize economies of scale. Source: http://www.wfp.org/purchase-progress and P4P Newsletters. MISS ING FOOD NO. 8 65 Project title FOOD SECURITY PROJECT TITLE II (ACDI VOCA) Project type Utilization/ Project description Outputs marketing The objective of the �scal year 2002–06 Title II DAP was to mitigate The number of new farmer groups adopting im- Location Uganda food insecurity in rural areas of Uganda by enhancing agricultural proved postharvest practices is 76–380 percent production, marketing, rural �nancial services, and increasing over the 2005 target of 20 percent. Households Project dates 2002–2006 nutritional awareness. Target bene�ciaries are approximately 20,000 adopting improved postharvest practices rose families in “food-insecure� target areas who are organized by local from 33,600 at baseline to 50,334 in 2005 Value (US$) $11,369,692 NGO grantees to receive training in health and nutrition, “farming (90 percent of 2005 target of 56,000). More as a business,� improved agricultural practices, and postharvest than 200 maize cribs were constructed during Agric-food security 7,281,320 handling and storage. the life of the project. The project initiated col- lective storage and marketing in the districts of Roads 2,500,000 The project was funded by USAID/Washington and delivered by Iganga and Kiboga. By the end of the project, ACDI/VOCA. It was implemented through grants to local NGOs three farmer associations sold grain collec- Rural �nance 500,000 formerly referred to as “grantees.� tively to WFP. Rural market roads have a high Monitoring 796,370 impact in terms of opening market access to isolated areas. The program has rehabilitated 490 km of market road through December 2006. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects One of the main outcomes is the pilot warehouse receipts system that ACDI/VOCA is implementing a new phase of was implemented in Iganga district by NALG. This group marketed the food security project and a postharvest over 1500 metric tons of grain to WFP and Kenyan traders quarterly, handling and storage technician to provide TA using the WRS. The group revitalized 10 dilapidated stores formerly to agricultural grantees. Previously, this type of belonging to the Uganda cooperative society that collapsed. This was TA was provided through the IDEA Project. This an indirect outcome of the project. was to ensure sustainability when the funding was terminated. The program provided a grant to IITA to cover over 80 percent of the costs of FOODNET, a national market information service in Uganda that collects and disseminates market data for 19 different commodities from 19 different market centers. The information is processed and disseminated through various radio stations, national newspapers, and by e-mail, text messaging, and fax to major trading companies, government departments, agricultural development agencies, famine-early warning agencies, and cell phone owners. Farmers targeted by the Title II program were most likely to receive information by FM radio in the local language. There is consensus that FOODNET provides reliable, up-to-date market information, especially useful for large commercial farmers, transit traders, ministry of�cials, and regional wholesalers. Source: ACDI/VOCA Title II DAP 2002–2006 Final Report. NO. 9 Project title POSTHARVEST HANDLING AND STORAGE PROJECT (PHHS) Project type Utilization/ Project description Outputs marketing The objective of the postharvest handling and storage (PHHS) project was to By 2001, the projected constructed over 50 Location Uganda disseminate improved drying, threshing, cleaning, and storage technologies in maize cribs, 30 mechanical maize threshers, the major grain-producing areas of Uganda. The project was funded by USAID and 10 flatbed grain dryers. Project dates 1996–2001 and Uganda and was initially planned to be housed at the national posthar- vest program (Kawanda); however, the project was merged with the IDEA The project introduced 10 walk-behind Value (US$) $3 million project. The project was implemented by the food and feed grain institute tractors to help with plowing and transport. (FFGI), Kansas State University (KSU). It also oversaw the design, testing, and roll out of three wheat/rice harvesters in For low-value crops, the project targeted grains including maize, rice, wheat, Kapchorwa, the only district where wheat is and beans in the major grain-producing districts of Uganda. The project produced in Uganda. was active in the districts of Kapchorwa, Iganga, Masindi, Lira, Kasese, and Kiboga, where large volumes of maize are produced annually. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects The project started the manufacture of a range of new postharvest equipment The mandate, equipment, training pack- in Uganda, based on permission and design from IRRI. By the end of project, ages, and personnel of the PHHS project it had helped to establish three local workshops in Uganda to manufacture were transferred to the national postharvest locally threshers and dryers as well as cleaning and grading equipment. These program (Kawanda) to continue with the factories have continued to operate since the end of funding in 2001. work and ensure sustainability. JBT Engineering works, Makerere Road, P.O. Box 11091, Kampala. Phone: +256-77-502709. TONT enterprise, Uganda Afritech Uganda Source: Final unpublished report submitted to USAID (Borsdorf 2001). IITA report http://www.betuco.be/manioc/Cassava%20-%20Processing%20equipment%20uganda%20iita.pdf. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK NO. 10 Project title IMPROVED DESIGN OF INDIGENOUS STORES—INCLUDING MINIMIZING THE USE OF HARDWOOD RESOURCES Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage In Zimbabwe, a modi�ed farm store design was PVC/concrete legs were initially validated by on-station trials with 12 Location Zimbabwe developed using PVC pipes �lled with concrete modi�ed and 12 unmodi�ed stores by researchers from the Institute of to replace traditional vertical timber supports, Agricultural Engineering (Zimbabwe) and NRI (UK). Further, demonstration Project dates 1996–1999 which totally excluded rodents and termites. stores were built elsewhere, and a rapid assessment was made of their appropriateness to farmers’ needs. Relevance and affordability were Value (US$) greater in some locations than others. Outputs were validated by on-farm The project was undertaken within the Crop Postharvest Program (DFID, UK) trials in Binga district Zimbabwe in 1996. Subsequently, demonstrations were undertaken in Buhera and Mutoko districts. The areas concerned have semi-arid production systems and smallholder, rain-fed, dry-farming systems. Following the development of this technology, its extension was inhibited by a serious weakening of agricultural support services in Zimbabwe coupled with problems in the supply of PVC pipes. At the time, the project was supported by staff of the Institute of Agricultural Engineering, which provided essential capacity to advise on building issues. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Zimbabwean smallholder farmers at several It has become harder for smallholder farmers to invest in PVC pipes locations are using granaries with concrete legs. due to high costs. The lo gistics of making the pipes available locally in The technology has not been extended to other Zimbabwe is problematic, and the business community in the Zambezi countries, but a manual and video are available Valley no longer stocks the PVC pipe because of low demand. When eco- to facilitate this. Currently, in Zimbabwe those nomic conditions improve, it would be expected that the use of concrete farmers who previously adopted stores with con- legs in store construction would resume because smallholder farmers, crete legs in Binga, Buhera, and Mutoko districts although apparently not desperately short of timber, do know that timber have continued using them, as they are durable of the right size and species for store building is dwindling. In Zimbabwe, and would be effective for many years. the decline of support from agricultural services of all kinds is a current barrier to any adoption. Source: Department for International Development (UK) “Crop Postharvest Program� (R6658). NO. 11 Project title LARGER GRAIN BORER (LGB) CONTROL Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage In the 1980s–1990s, several research projects were supported by DFID Programs funded by DFID and others allowed Location East and West (UK) to tackle the newly introduced pest of farm-stored maize, LGB these measures to be introduced into several Africa (Prostephanus truncatus). On average, this would cause a doubling of countries, with huge results. In Tanzania alone, grain losses in storage from around 5 percent to as much as 10 percent. DFID funding of £0.8 million resulted in a reduction Project dates 1982–2000 Following investigations of monitoring and pest management, control in maize losses equivalent to total gross savings campaigns and projects were implemented. of £21.5 million. At last, farmers were able to �ght Value (US$) back against LGB. Meanwhile, research into large- scale storage led to the development of a common set of procedures, the Phytoguide, which have been widely introduced in ports and at land borders throughout East Africa. This reinvigorated the grain trade and increased foreign exchange earnings. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects A method of monitoring the pest based on its own chemical attractant The lessons learned from the LGB campaigns are was developed, as was an insecticide cocktail that would be appropri- that provided with enough incentive (the threat of ate for admixture to shelled maize grain. The shelling of maize and losing much of their grain), farmers are willing to admixture of pesticide represented a considerable change of practice change their practice given good technical support by farmers, most of whom would store maize cobs for lengthy periods. and access to technologies that will protect their Control and awareness campaigns were initiated to encourage good grain. Widespread problems with LGB are not likely storage practice and the effective use of insecticide treatments. This in the future, but it is important that those respon- included good hygiene practice, not treating with insecticide the portion sible for farmers remain alert and in a position to of crop that would be consumed soon after harvest, looking out for the implement remedies if required. pest and shelling maize when it is found, treating it with the appropri- ate insecticide, and storing in a secure store. Biological control was also implemented with the release of a speci�c predator from meso- America—Teretrius nigrescens, into several countries. Although preda- tor numbers grew in the few years after release, they have reached very low levels or disappeared in most locations (Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi). LGB is, however, still a serious but sporadic problem, causing occasional but devastating damage (e.g., Southern Kenya 2003–04). Source: Evaluation of LGB projects by DTZ Pieda Consulting (1998); Dr R. J. Hodges (2010). MISS ING FOOD NO. 12 Project title DIATOMACEOUS EARTH Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage Many smallholder farmers rely on imported organophosphate The project established that DEs were ef�cacious as Location Zimbabwe/ pesticides to protect stored grain against insect pests. Farmers grain protectants in a range of agro-ecological zones in Tanzania and various authorities are increasingly questioning the safety Zimbabwe and Tanzania; that the technology—both prod- and ef�cacy of these chemicals. Other households, who use uct and process—was readily usable by diverse smallhold- Project dates traditional materials such as ashes, botanicals, and sand to con- ers in the multiple research locations; and that food stocks trol storage insect pests, are faced with inconsistent and often were successfully protected for periods of more than eight Value (US$) poor results. This project explored the ef�cacy of the inert dusts months. The research tested both imported commercial DEs known as diatomaceous earths (DEs), which occur as deposits and a few of the many local deposits of DE found through- that can be mined. DEs are soft whitish powders formed from out SSA. The ef�cacy of imported commercial DEs were the fossils of tiny plankton that lived in oceans, rivers, and lakes. validated in three AEZs in Zimbabwe (Buhera and Binga After processing—mining, grinding, and drying—these powders districts and Harare), for two consecutive storage seasons can be mixed with grain to kill insect pests. When DEs come into (1998–2000), using maize, sorghum, and cowpeas, under contact with insects, they absorb the wax from the cuticle of the on-farm and on-station conditions. The latter included both insect, which then loses water, dehydrates, and dies. DEs have researcher- and farmer-managed trials. Similar work was extremely low toxicity to mammals and are therefore very safe to conducted in Tanzania, where the LGB (Prostephanus trun- mix with food. In industry they are used as �lters to help clarify catus), a devastating pest of stored grains, is endemic. The fruit juices, beers, wine, pharmaceuticals, and as �llers in paints, Tanzanian work, carried out over three consecutive seasons plastics, and coating agents in fertilizers among many other (2002–2005) and took place in three agri-ecological zones things. DEs are currently registered for use as grain protectants (AEZ) (Dodoma, Manyara, and Shinyanga regions), where in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, China, Germany, Indonesia, different postharvest practices prevailed. These trials Japan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, the included maize, sorghum, and beans. The ef�cacies of DEs United Kingdom, and the United States. from local deposits were also validated in �eld trials in Zimbabwe and Tanzania, during the period 2003–2005. DEs The project was undertaken within the Crop Postharvest Program protect household grain reserves and extend their storage (DFID, UK) life. Value might be added if this technology is part of a package of good practice aimed at optimizing and building on bene�ts throughout the crop cycle and postharvest sequences. Validation of the DE research involved on-farm researcher-managed trials (RMTs) and farmer-managed trials (FMTs) in three different AEZs in both Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The longest studies extended over three successive storage seasons. Farmers, national and local government staff (researchers, plant health specialists, extension and registration authorities), and NGO staff, par- ticipated in the implementation and monitoring and evalu- ation of the RMTs. DEs proved extremely successful in both sets of trials, with the FMT farmers particularly impressed with the quality and quantity of grain safely stored for the duration of the storage season, especially when compared with some traditional practices. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects DEs remain as yet unregistered for general use in Tanzania and Despite acceptance elsewhere in the world, registration Zimbabwe. However, as many as 300 farmers in �ve districts of DEs in Tanzania and Zimbabwe for general use remains in Tanzania and Zimbabwe have tested the DEs and are very problematic. In Tanzania, where only existing agro- keen—price issues aside—to continue using them. Many other chemical companies are likely to be able to complete the local farmers and extension staff, who have witnessed the suc- DE registration process, currently most of the interested cess of the trials, are also keen to use DEs, and communities in companies have �nancial commitments with the prevail- Kagera region (Tanzania) and Beitbridge region (Zimbabwe) have ing organo-phosphate–based (OP) pesticides, which long been using DEs from local deposits, to treat stored com- remain cheaper to import. While concerns relating to the modities and whitewash their houses, respectively. safety of these OP chemicals are not acted upon, this situation is likely to persist. In Zimbabwe, the registration Dissemination of the project’s �ndings led to DEs being included process initiated in 2002 is still pending because of the in research activities in Zambia and Uganda. As they are not economic situation. In Zimbabwe, bulk importation costs of�cially registered for use in the two research countries, their of commercial DEs were estimated to be similar to their distribution for general use (i.e., outside research) remains chemical equivalents, but in Tanzania the estimates (for prohibited. Price will influence their eventual usage and rate application at the rate of 0.25 percent w/w for the control of spread, but while available commercial pesticides are found of LGB) were estimated to be twice that of importing the wanting by those farmers who can afford them, it seems highly active ingredients of synthetic pesticides (e.g., actellic probable that, once legally available, their usage will spread super dust, shumba super dust). However, further work rapidly. This observation is underpinned by the positive response is needed to con�rm these various estimates in order to that DEs have generated among the public and voluntary sector decide whether the price of imported DEs would make extension staff, registration agency staff, and others involved in them prohibitive for small-scale farmers. The use of the trials. The active interest and rapid follow-up by researchers locally sourced DEs will probably offer more economi- and entrepreneurs in Zambia and Uganda further corroborates cally sound (i.e., to the state) and �nancially viable (i.e., this view. Currently, Dorowa Minerals Limited in Zimbabwe to business and to farmers) options in the longer run; has claims over the Zambezi Valley deposit and is mining the further work is �rst required to establish and implement local DE on an experimental basis for industrial purposes, and safety, extraction, and processing protocols. A preliminary there is keen interest to widen the product base to include grain environmental impact assessment of the Zambezi Valley protectants following the research �ndings. There is also some DE deposit revealed concerns that mining activities may evidence that individuals familiar with the research �ndings have degrade the environment of the national park. However, made land claims in those areas where local DE deposits exist in DE deposits are not uncommon in Africa, and others may anticipation of future business opportunities (e.g., in Uganda). have less signi�cant environmental impact if mined. Source: Department for International Development UK, Crop Postharvest Projects R7034 and R8179. Dr. T. E. Stathers. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 68 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 13 Project title MUD SILOS Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage This project is a composite of several interrelated efforts to Mud silos were adopted by over 1,000 farmers in the Gushiegu/ Location Ghana promote the use of mud silos in northern Ghana. Mud silo Karaga district of northern Ghana; most of those surveyed are adoption programs were launched in northern Ghana to currently using them successfully. Mud silos—for the survey Project dates offer this structure to smallholder farmers who tradition- sample of 60 farming families—include the following bene�ts: ally do not use it. Local artisans were used to demonstrate Value (US$) the building of mud silos, and this was easily achieved � Reduction in storage losses. Mean losses now about 50 kg because groups that traditionally construct mud silos lived maize per year compared with 300 kg in two districts adjacent to groups that use other store types and were Saboba-Cheriponi and Gushiegu/Karaga. the subject of the extension program. Adoption of mud � Improved food security for household. Farmers said they silos by new users was validated in June–July 2003 in were generating and maintaining larger food surpluses, as three districts in northern Ghana—Saboba/Cheriponi, East evidenced by storage of maize for up to 12 months. Mamprusi, and Gushiegu/Karaga. The production system– � Time-saving for other household assignments. Although mud farming system for all districts was the same: semi-arid, silos require maintenance, labor inputs are less than with smallholder, rain-fed dry. conventional stores. � Reduced exploitation of wood lots. Can avoid travelling long distances to obtain the correct type of wood for the construction of traditional stores. � Annual savings by not buying jute sacks. A small but positive �nancial incentive. � However, incomes not much better; surplus not suf�cient to risk sales of staple crops later in the season to bene�t from higher prices. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Mud silos were evaluated by socioeconomic survey and Further promotion of mud silos is not currently being undertaken technical studies in northern Ghana. The socioeconomic but guidelines for achieving better promotion are available from survey (PRA) examined expectation and demand, and it a leaflet on the CPHP Web site: showed that expectations of the effectiveness of mud silos were similar to the reality of what they provide. In selected (Andan F. H. (2004) Ensuring better promotion of mud silos villages, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) in northern Ghana. Leaflet. Ministry of Food and Agriculture, and partners constructed a mud silos demonstration in Tamale, Ghana. 2 pp, at http://www.cphp.uk.com/media/ six districts of the northern region. By 2000, the positive default.asp?step=3&sf=2) feedback on the use of mud silos led the Opportunity Industrialization Centre of Tamale (OICT) and MoFA to undertake a large mud silo extension program in two districts with USAID funding. To evaluate the success of program to promote the silo to new users, an 8-day �eld survey was undertaken in northern Ghana of 60 farmers to examine impact on food and cash security and observe any problems with these new structures. Source: Department for International Development (UK) Crop Postharvest Program Project R6502; Dr. John Azu (OICI), Tamale Ghana. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 69 NO. 14 Project title METAL SILOS POSTCOSECHA TYPE (IN CENTRAL AMERICA) Project type Project description Outputs Location Metal silos of a range of sizes—0.1 to 3 tons, suitable Several technical/sociological evaluations by consultants hired for smallholders have been promoted by the PostCosecha by the SDC, up to 2002, have reported that metal silos in Latin Project dates 2008–present program in Central America supported by SDC (Swiss America are very effective as storage structures used by small- Agency for Development Cooperation). holders, and their promotion has proven very successful. Under Value (US$) the SDC project, there have been 266,000 of�cial transfers of metal silos in Latin America, mostly to smallholder farmers. However, it is estimated that the actual number transferred to date is around 6,000,000. The latest evaluation estimated that subsidies represented 40 percent of the effective demand and that this is growing because the governments of the three countries concerned (Honduras, Paraguay, and the Dominican Republic) are planning massive transfer programs of their own. Metal silos have been validated in Latin America in wide-ranging production and farming systems and have been the subject of large-scale extension programs involving donors, government organizations, and NGOs. Success has been achieved by promo- tion to farmers and their households and simultaneous support to micro-industries meeting demand for the silos. To implement metal silo programs, it is essential to have the materials (sheet metal of appropriate quality) and to train the local artisans to construct them to the required standard. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Current scale of use in Latin America is relatively large, Very high adoption rates have been achieved in Central America, with perhaps 1.5 units for every 100 head of population, over a period of more than 20 years, by a social-marketing and is set to increase as Honduras, Paraguay, and the approach that attended to all elements of the marketing mix— Dominican Republic are planning transfer programs. In product, price, distribution, and promotion. Continued interest Swaziland, current use is about 10 units per 100 head by countries in the region adopting the same approach will see and stable, maintained by a strong incentive framework further adoption of the technology. for maize production. When properly sited and used with adequately dried grain, the metal tank shows major pest control advantages over traditional systems of storage. A three-country survey in 1995 of more than 500 farmers, craftsmen, and others showed positive impacts on poor households (direct and indirect) and livelihood impacts related to micro-industries manufacturing the silos. Direct improvements in the grain economy are: � More grain (and grain of better quality) available to the family, especially at times of the year when grain is less available. � Drastic reduction in PHL so additional income is achieved as more grain is available for sale, especially in times of elevated prices, or family debts reduced as less grain needs to be purchased when prices are high. � Situation of women improved, noted particularly in the case of Guatemala, as silos and food management rest with women. Silo ownership gives better control of grain management, and because grain is stored shelled and clean, calculations on whether or not there can be sales are more easily made. Source: Max Striet (SDC), the PostCosecha Web site, and review reports (especially Coulter et al. 1995). EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 70 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 15 Project title METAL SILOS POSTCOSECHA TYPE (IN SELECTED COUNTRIES IN AFRICA) Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage FAO headed a program for the promo- By all accounts, the extension in Africa was not without its problems. In Location list tion of the SDC design of metal silos Mozambique, the dissemination failed due to an inadequate capacity for local fab- in Africa, and they have also been rication. In Malawi, metal silos of 250-kg, 500-kg, 900-kg, and 1.9-ton capacities Project dates promoted and researched by a current were made available, but the largest capacity supplied wouldn’t �t inside houses, initiative involving CIMMYT and NGOs and costs were considered high (MK 17,000–65,000, = US$120–450). Farmers Value (US$) (World Vision and CRS) in Kenya and were given very little training in use and were reliant on extension services to Malawi. Many silos were distributed to fumigate grain. Consequently, many of the silos that were supplied free of charge farmer groups free of charge; they were were not used. The main reasons for this would appear to be (1) a security issue— also promoted through revolving credit farmers want grain to be inside their house, (2) requirement for a fumigation funds and payments in grain. treatment being done by the extension services, and (3) the silos were targeted at the community rather than at the individual. Currently, the farmers’ main approach to storage is to have bags in their houses, which they consider cheaper, more convenient, and more secure. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Details of the successful (or otherwise) The current tax situation in Tanzania makes purchase of the appropriate quality of promotion of silos in countries other sheet metal to construct SDC-style silos very expensive—cost issues have to be than Malawi and Kenya are expected addressed. However, the prospects for the extension of metal silos in Africa are from the CIMMYT study and from a good, provided care is taken to ensure that they are promoted to those who would review planned by SDC. gain by not using sack storage and that suitable effort is taken to address all ele- ments of the marketing mix—product, price, distribution, and promotion, as well as socio-cultural consideration such as individual ownership. Source: FAO (Stephanie Gallat); Malawi (Bvumbwie RS—Charles Singano); CIMMYT (Dr. F. Kanampiu). NO. 16 Project title PLASTIC STORES Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage Plastic water tanks can be adapted Plastic water tanks were validated at 13 sites in 2001 by traders who stored and Location Ghana as grain stores, and this has been fumigated cowpeas in them. This was done in Tamale, northern Ghana, in a semi- demonstrated for use by cowpea traders arid production system and in smallholder, rain-fed dry-farming. Project dates in northern Ghana. Several years of testing options for a viable warehousing Value (US$) business model for rural enterprises and of using brick and mortar stores, butyl rubber stores, and plastic tanks have shown the latter to be the best option. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Plastic tanks had been used by traders, The initial success of plastic tanks in northern Ghana was based on an opportunity who found them suf�ciently hermetic to supply a commercial company in southern Ghana with local produce (cowpeas). when �lled with cowpeas that there The opportunity was identi�ed by an NGO (TechnoServe) and the technology were no insect problems, even without adapted successfully to the traders’ bene�t. However, the continued and expanded fumigation. However, usage has use of the technology was hindered by a failure in the ability of traders to secure declined, with only a few traders still cowpeas of suf�cient quality from farmers. The lesson in this case is that the using them in October 2006. This was needs of each link in a new market chain must be carefully de�ned and supported because Nestle Ltd. (Ghana), who had until the whole chain is well established. been interested in purchasing cowpeas, would not do so because produce qual- ity was below speci�cation. Source: Tran et al. 2001. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 71 NO. 17 Project title COMMODITY STORAGE AND LOSS REDUCTION PROJECT Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage The objective of this World Vision Relief and Development A two-month test showed little difference in performance Location Commodity Storage and Loss Reduction Program was to between Cocoons™ and other warehousing. Differences could reduce constraints associated with food aid commodity, often be attributed to error (e.g., improper closure or inaccurate Project dates seed, and PHL in four countries through the implementa- moisture meter calibration). The following was concluded: tion of a pilot project to test the effectiveness of hermetic (1) When used properly, the Cocoons™ performed as described Value (US$) grain store. The project implementation activities were as in GrainPro literature and in many instances performed follows: better than traditional alternatives. (2) Optimal results often � Angola: compared warehouses to hermetically sealed were compromised due to various constraints: silos, tunnels, and Cocoons™ for storage of food aid � hermetic seal (zipper problems) commodities; one small seed/postharvest test � rodent damage (in storage, when not full, when high � Mozambique: traditional local storage was compared density of rodents) to hermetically sealed silos, tunnels, and Cocoons™ for � set-up complexity of large units. storage of postharvest domestic production (3) After storage in a Cocoon™, there was no differ- � Sierra Leone: compared warehouses to hermetically ence in seed germination over 60 days of storage. (4) sealed silos, tunnels, and Cocoons™ for storage of food Disadvantages included: aid commodities � not an in/out technology � Sudan: compared warehouses to hermetically sealed � requirement of exact tonnages Cocoons ™ and tunnels for storage of locally purchased grain and seed. � security (value of asset, easy access) � if there is a “problem, it might go undetected. (5) Advantages for use in some situations: � smaller Cocoons™ useful for temporary storage in outlying areas/villages (no hermetic advantage) � able to segregate commodities within large warehouse (damaged commodities) � provides longer-term storage if warehousing is scarce. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects It is dif�cult to compare the cost of a Cocoon™ with local It is believed that Cocoons™ can be a useful technology in storage because there is no investment cost in local Africa, particularly as a means of alleviating labor constraints. storage structures. Mud, wood, and other required storage It is an environmentally friendly technology and can preserve materials are available locally. WV/Mozambique therefore grain quality to result in increased income for farming house- attempted to place a money value on the labor required holds. As the storage period for these studies was short, fur- for local construction, but the assigned monetary value is ther research is needed before recommendations can be made too low for comparison. The Cocoons™ are expected to to farmers concerning the use of Cocoons™. Further research is deliver �nancial bene�ts to the farmers. An analysis found needed on the following issues: that a 5-ton Cocoon™ must have a life span of three years for farmers to break even. This analysis was based only on � length of time grain can be stored while still maintaining the initial cost of the Cocoon™ and assumed that farmers quality for sale and consumption would pay cash rather than by credit at a 20 percent inter- � resistance to moisture migration est rate. The opportunity cost of the use of the money is a � structural dif�culties in closing the bags variable that can affect pro�tability, and this was not taken � evaluation of weight loss due to actual insect damage as into consideration in the analysis. opposed to reduction in moisture content The Cocoons™ pose the following constraints/ � appropriate training of farmers disadvantages: � resistance to penetration by rodents. � high investment cost � tying down of capital which could result in �nancial loss � structural dif�culties in closing the Cocoons™ � rodents can penetrate folds in the Cocoon™, thereby destroying the hermetic seal and allowing insects to gain entry into the Cocoons™. Source: Commodity Storage and Loss Reduction Project Dissemination Workshop, Port-Au-Prince, Haiti June 29–July 2, 1998; Johannesburg, South Africa, July 27–29, 1998. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 72 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 18 Project title IRRIGATED RICE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM Project type Product quality, Project description Outputs harvesting, and storage Partnership with the stakeholders from the public and Working with an initial basket of technologies developed under private sector to increase the value of farmers’ rice crops other projects, further technologies were added as needs were Location Loas, Cambodia, through improved crop and postharvest management identi�ed. These included hermetic storage (cocoons and super Indonesia, and market knowledge. Four different but interrelated bags), low-cost moisture meter, methods for milling evaluation Myanmar, Vietnam working groups implement the project: “Postproduction,� and improvement, a milling chart, village market information “Productivity and Sustainability,� “Water Saving,� and system, mini-combined harvester, flatbed dryer with rice husk Project dates 1997–present “Labor Productivity.� For postproduction, the technologies furnace, granary improvements, and balances for weighing offered were combine harvesters, dryers, and hermetic paddy sold by farmers. Value (US$) storage. Phase I of the project was largely managerial. Phase II: Discussions about including postharvest in the consortium. Initial activities on component technology development and testing. Phase III: Veri�cation of posthar- vest technologies at farm level in �ve countries. Phase IV: Developing business models for using PH technologies and facilitation of a multistakeholder platform to embrace the different stakeholders from public and private sectors needed for out scaling. The project is still in Phase III. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Dryers: Target has been contractors that provide drying The project has established important preconditions for technol- services to farmers and the commercial sector (mainly rice ogy uptake. All technologies: A technology champion pushing millers and a few traders).Six dryers] were installed; two the technology, some sort of multistakeholder platform engaging in Myanmar at farmers’ groups, two in Cambodia were the stakeholders from the public (research, extension, policy) installed at farmers’ groups, and two in Vietnam at farm- and private (farmers, manufacturers, millers, traders, banks). ers’ cooperatives. Historically, no successful introduction Dryers: Double-cropping systems with one harvest season in the of dryers to individual farmers except the SRR low-cost wet season or other problems that limit sun drying (e.g., lack of dryer in Vietnam (US$100, 1-ton capacity), but this dryer pavements and roads, market incentive for better quality, avail- served as an entry point to promote dryers and is now ability of either capital at end users or credit lines) —investment being replaced by larger flatbed dryers for contractors and and working capital to buy crop, if not on fee basis—local millers. Combine: Target is larger farmers and harvesting manufacturing capacity, extension support. The dryer is typically contract service providers. Hermetic storage: Super for contractors or millers, so scale of production is not that bags (50 kg) target mainly farmers, entry point is farmers’ important (4–8 t in 8 hours), but crop needs to be available for seeds but also for grains. Second target is rural seed several months of operation per year. Combine harvester: producers, third is larger seed producers. Cocoons (5 t): Plausible promise (suitable technology or concept prototype), commercial sector (seed producers, millers) and farmers’ high harvesting cost, and labor shortage during harvesting. groups (cooperatives in Indonesia and Vietnam, farmers’ Contractors’ machine, mini combine, can harvest very small groups in Cambodia). The main target group is farmers, �elds (1.1 m cutting width, 1 ha per day), some technical skills but we also work with the private sector because if the for maintenance and servicing, availability of capital or �nancing private sector establishes a market for a technology, schemes, suitable soil conditions during harvest time for mobility. it also becomes available to farmers. Problem at the Super bags and cocoons: Entry point is seeds, so there are moment is the lack of supply chains for the super bags in problems with traditional seed storage methods (e.g., rapid loss most countries reaching farmers as end users. of germination), supply chain for the bags reaching to villages (e.g., through farm input providers), extension (public or private), understanding of seed quality and factors that affect it and that farmers store their own seeds. If used for grain storage, there must be suf�cient storage time and problems with traditional storage. Source: Martin Gummert, IRRI, Philippines. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 73 NO. 19 Project title EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA RICE PROJECT Project type product quality, Project description Outputs harvesting and storage Project implemented by IRRI and WARDA, partnership with the Several manufacturers have already expressed stakeholders from the public and private sector to increase the value of a strong desire to collaborate with IRRI in Location Mozambique, farmers’ rice crops through improved crop and postharvest manage- manufacturing the equipment locally. One local Tanzania, Kenya, ment and market knowledge. Demonstrating a range of technologies, equipment dealer and manufacturer, said, “This Uganda, Rwanda, already successfully extended by IRRI (project 9) in SE Asia, including is the opportunity that we have been waiting for, Burundi, Malawi two-wheeled tractors, threshers, cleaners, a drum seeder, cone weeder, and we want to work with IRRI to manufacture super bags, and the IRRI moisture meter. The project premise is that the thresher and the other equipment locally.� The Project dates 2007–present delays during harvesting, threshing, and drying cause losses in grain IRRI moisture meter and the IRRI super bag have quantity and quality. Losses range from 15 to 50 percent mostly due drawn a lot of attention, as they can be used for Value (US$) to poor postharvest management, outdated postharvest technology, other crops, especially maize and soybean. Most of and poor and unhygienic storage facilities. Because the crop is hand the equipment demonstrated will be tested further threshed, farmers prefer to harvest at lower moisture content as this in a new collaborative village-level rice project in makes threshing easier. This means that the crop is left in the �eld a Zambezi Province in central Mozambique. IRRI will month longer than necessary. This results in less grain and poorer grain work with IIAM, the Tropical Research Institute of quality. Farmers also tend to sell their grain at point of harvest; the Portugal (IICT), and Eduardo Mondolane University value of the crop rises 20–30 percent within 2–3 months of harvest, so of Mozambique (UEM) to develop a model for a there is a premium to be gained from better storage. sustainable rice business at the village level. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Approach—the use of equipment must show a strong �nancial ben- Project is still in relatively early stages. e�t, have local ownership and dealer support, have a local champion, have government support, and provide training for all players. IRRI’s ex- perience in Asia suggest that it takes 8–10 years for the mechanization program to develop fully—from initial testing to local ownership and wide-scale adoption. On-farm demonstrations, support for the private sector and local training in the use and maintenance of equipment are already taking place. Hire of machinery contractors in Africa is very high—large tractors US$70–80 per hectare for one pass; rice millers charge US$80–100/ton for contract milling. These costs are nearly three times those of their Asian counterparts. However, labor costs are similar: US$1–2 per day. Imported machinery is also very expensive, a tractor costing US$2,500 in Thailand and US$5,000 in Tanzania. In the short term, cooperative ownership appears to be the obvious solution for purchasing equip- ment, and local credit organizations have already started working with them. Source: Mr. Joseph Rickman, representative of the IRRI, East and Southern Africa. NO. 20 Project title IMPROVED COWPEA STORAGE (TRIPLE BAGGING) Project type Product quality, Project description Outputs harvesting, and storage The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is currently funding a large regional In Niger bags have been distributed free of West Africa food security project (Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS), charge to �ve households in each of >5,000 Location West Africa being implemented by World Vision and Purdue University), with assistance villages as part of the promotion activities, but from National Agricultural Research Institutes. The project is extending other households have been buying the bags. Project dates hermetic triple plastic bags of 100 kg capacity, each costing ~US$1.8, The PICS project is using two inner bags made to 12,660 villages throughout Niger, Mali, Chad, Ghana, and Senegal (E. of 80 micron polyethylene and one outer, more Value (US$) Schmidt, World Vision, per communications in December 2009). In addition durable bag to help protect against damage. to supporting extension and farmer training, they are linking with the bag The government of Niger stored 10,000 mt of manufacturers and retailers to enhance long-term access. cowpeas in these hermetic triple plastic bags in 2008–09 for strategic food reserves. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects The bags have been found to be easily accepted by farmers, providing a The long-term objective of the project is to very high level of insect control, and they can be used for 3–4 years before reach 3 million households so that within they become too damaged. However, bag quality is an issue particularly re- 5 years, 50 percent of cowpea stored in the garding the seams, which are crucial in obtaining an air-free environment. target areas will be in triple-layer plastic bags. Timely delivery of the bags is critical, as is thorough advanced training of The “one-time� cost for triple bagging is around all partners in how to �ll, store, and maintain the bags. They have also US$3, while the average increase in household recognized the need to ensure that distribution channels are given more income is estimated to be US$150 (http://www. attention to help commercial sustainability postproject. entm.purdue.edu/news/murdock_gates.html). Source: http://www.entm.purdue.edu/news/murdock_gates.html. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK NO. 21 Project title OPTIMIZING THE INDIGENOUS USE OF PESTICIDAL PLANTS Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage Smallholder farmers have problems with insect infestation during Botanicals are commonly used for the protection of Location Ghana storage. This risk can lead to early sales of grain when market all grains and legumes stored at the farm level with prices are low. Farmers could achieve a much higher price if they research showing effects against all common insect Project dates January 1996– were to sell their grain later in the season, but they must control species that attack stored products. Often the same March 2002 insect infestation during this period. Botanicals with pesticidal plant species used in crop protection have uses in properties are already used by farmers as a means of reducing the livestock protection and for human medicine. Some Value (US$) impact of insect pests on stored commodities. However, farmers pesticidal plant materials are common food additives need reliable information on botanicals to support their decision and spices (chili, pepper, basil, orange peel). Using making with respect to the quality of control they can expect when farmer participatory trials, it was shown that some bo- using a particular plant material. Farmers’ traditional methods of tanicals used by farmers for stored product protection botanical use are highly variable; the subsequent degree of success offer comparable protection to commercial synthetics is equally variable. when following best-practice application methods. Farmers were able to make botanical selections due This project undertook surveys of the ethnobotanicals used by farm- to their own comparative analyses and base further ers in Ghana, and it undertook laboratory, �eld, and farm trials to decision making on this new knowledge. Reviving and assess their ef�cacy in replicated trials. The chemistry and bioactiv- modernizing farmer practice through the optimization ity of plants was assessed to understand how active ingredients of ethnobotanicals has shown that farmers can make may vary depending on where, when, and how plant materials cost-bene�cial postharvest pest management decisions were collected. Mode-of-action trials assessed the mechanisms of when appropriate application guidelines are followed. ef�cacy (e.g., repellency, toxicity), and potential dangers to people Botanicals can be used reliably and safely to treat food (vertebrate toxicity) were evaluated. stored at the farm level. Knowledge on application concentration, method of application, preparation of bo- The project was undertaken within the Crop Postharvest Program tanicals, and duration of control expected can be used (DFID, UK). to promote botanicals as cost-effective and environ- mentally sustainable pest management for small-scale farmers. As plant materials are often collected from the wild, they offer a key incentive for habitat conservation, which is easily grasped by local stakeholders. They can, therefore, be tied into agricultural production programs related to land use, including land preparation tech- nologies, forestry programs, biodiversity conservation programs, livestock programs (related to grazing land and their veterinary use), and human health programs. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects Project research evaluated botanicals to protect maize, mil- Our research showed that indigenous knowledge about let, sorghum, rice, cowpeas, bambara nuts, and wheat. Twelve botanicals does not easily spread across regions and botanicals are widely used by subsistence farmers following local ethnic groups because of lack of communication chan- traditions throughout SSA for pest management in pre- and post- nels. Improving the means through which information harvest and livestock sectors. Surveys carried out in the Ashanti can spread beyond local boundaries between farmers region of Ghana with small- to large-scale farmers indicated that could assist in knowledge transfer. It has been argued botanicals were used by 26 percent of all farmers with signi�cant that indigenous knowledge is also being degraded variation dependent on education level and locality. Studies in through HIV/AIDS and an increasing disregard for old the three provinces in northern Ghana showed that 74 percent of traditions by the educated youth. National institutions farmers used botanicals, with 95 percent of farmers in the upper can play a role in facilitating the spread of knowledge east region using pesticidal plants. Although comparative studies by repackaging it through the education system as well are not available, West Africa tends to have the highest rate as other national programs of extension. Promotion of of botanical usage, followed by East Africa and then Southern botanicals in pest control is happening all over Africa Africa. In the villages that were involved in research activities, the through the efforts of NGOs and national agricultural majority of farmers previously did little to protect their stored grain research systems (NARS) . However, some of this (>60 percent). The majority of farmers would sell their grain soon promotion is perhaps ill advised, and pesticidal plants after harvest because they knew they could not maintain their grain are sometimes promoted in an extemporized manner in a good quality due to high levels of postharvest insect damage. based on existing indigenous knowledge that has been Insecticides for treating grain are not widely available in rural vil- taken out of context. For example, Tephrosia vogelii lages, and the majority of villagers consider commercial synthetics is traditionally used as a �sh poison and contains the to be too expensive in areas where they are available for purchase. known toxin rotenone that has acute and chronic toxic Synthetics also pose problems through poor labeling, expiration, or effects in humans, including hepatotoxicity, nephrotox- adulteration; so farmers are worried that the synthetics they buy icity, neoplastic, reproductive, and teratogenic effects. might be dangerous or ineffective. Their involvement in the botani- Its ef�cacy in the laboratory against stored grain cal research has shown the farmers that they can maintain their beetles has been evaluated, and this work may have grain quality over a longer period than without treatment, meaning contributed to extension programs that promote the use that farmers can sell their grain later in the season when prices of Tephrosia vogelii for on-farm stored grain protection, are higher. It also means that the quantity of grain is maintained potentially leading to the toxin being ingested by with stocks for household consumption lasting longer. Thus, food people. The rational and considered approach taken security and incomes are increased when using botanicals. Our to the botanical research in Ghana has paved the way assessments showed that all farmers clearly preferred botanicals for promotional activities to take place with minimal over synthetics for postharvest protection because they were health risk and optimal gain to farmers who take up �nancially cheaper to use and worked nearly as well as synthetics the outputs by ensuring that the science has been done in most situations. before botanicals are promoted. Source: Dr. Steve Belmain, Natural Resources Institute, UK, Crop Postharvest Program projects R6501 & R7373. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 75 NO. 22 Project title IMPROVING SMALLHOLDER FARMER MARKET ACCESS Project type Utilization/ Project description Outputs marketing The project targeted the problem of poor market access of rural-based The output mainly focused on maize enter- Location Uganda smallholder farmers who experienced this because of poor quality and low prise. The strategy was primarily grain quality volumes of tradable produce due to heavy reliance on traditional practices improvement through adoption of improved Project dates January– of grain handling and storage. The output aimed at contributing to poverty postharvest technologies, volume assurance December 2005 reduction by increasing the competitiveness of rural farmers’ maize, and it through collective storage, and sustainable improved market access through high quality, large volume, and sustainable market supplies through links with major grain Value (US$) supply of produce in the marketing chain as a result of sustainable use of buyers. This entailed a shift from individu- appropriate postharvest technologies and approaches. alistic storage and marketing to collective storage and marketing. This required building The government Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA), which es- of farmers’ capacity in group dynamics, leader- pouses a shift from subsistence to commercial production, lacks a pragmatic ship, and entrepreneurial skills as the initial framework that enables smallholder farmers to work in coalitions with step for greater cohesion among them. The providers of postharvest technologies for improved produce quality, agri- strategy helped in changing farmers’ attitudes cultural advisors, and extension agents, grain buyers, and resident NGOs. and building trust from the very beginning. The output was therefore considered timely, and it provided the opportunity Once the farmers had experienced the bene�ts of trailblazing the role of the public sector in catalyzing links between the of working together, they adapted and applied private sector, smallholder farmers, agricultural advisors, and NGOs through the same approach gained from maize market- strategic coalition partnerships, especially, in enhancing farmers’ access to ing on other enterprises: sunflower, beans, pro�table markets. sorghum, or beans that are cultivated in the districts where the output was trailblazed. The project was undertaken within the Crop Postharvest Program (DFID, UK). Outcomes and impacts Future prospects The lack of suitable postharvest technologies (dryers, shellers, stores, pest Linking farmers to market requires a consor- management packages) that optimize grain quality and quantity; lack of tium of experts, expertise, and stakeholders organized farmer groups involved in collective storage and marketing; poor to effectively produce results. No single group market access and information flow; poor pricing; lack of credit access; and working independently and in isolation can saving culture were identi�ed as some of the major challenges contributing generate, utilize, or promote effective utiliza- to poverty, especially of the smallholder farmers in the two districts. The tion of the required technologies, knowledge, second stage involved the identi�cation of the coalition partners, depending and approaches. The output focused primarily on their core competencies, especially, in technology generation and dis- on the postharvest subsector with the as- semination (NARO), agricultural knowledge and provision (DAO), pro-poor sumption that large volumes of maize were rural development (NGOs: ASDI and BUCADEV), market information and available. It was learned, however, that the pricing system provision (Afro-Kai), and output end users (farmer groups). demands of the grain buyer (Afro-Kai) far Stakeholders held meetings in which the roles and responsibilities of each outstripped supply, and this called for invest- of the core coalition partners were de�ned. NARO trained farmers on the ments production inputs (e.g., more land and use and maintenance of the postharvest technologies and of the importance improved seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides). of grain quality standards and maintenance, provided primary processing Therefore, in linking farmers to markets, it is equipment (shellers, dryers, sieves, moisture meters, weighing scales, fumi- important that production as well as posthar- gation kit including sheets, protective clothing, fumigants), and conducted vest technology packages are considered in technical backstopping. The district agricultural of�cers of Apac and Kiboga totality rather than segmenting them between and the two NGOs helped in farmer group mobilization, sensitization, different actors. Apart from encouraging farm- and monitoring of activities. Afro-Kai Ltd. provided market information as ers to produce for the markets, it is also impor- well as the market for the farmers produce. The end users—smallholder tant that they be given the latitude to decide farmers, classi�ed as poor, having less than 2 ha of land and living on less how much they should keep for domestic food than US$1.00 per day—produced and supplied the maize for collective consumption; otherwise, there is no guarantee storage and marketing. Other partners included National Council of Uganda that �nancial security would ensure food small business organizations that provided training on entrepreneurship, security at home. Involvement of women in the leadership, credit access, and utilization. One of the training recommenda- group leadership in decision-making processes tions was at least a 30-percent representation of women in the group and in sharing the proceeds was considered leadership. The local governments participated through the local councils, a very positive lesson—�rst by empowering whose interests were in the tax regimes of produce leaving the subcounties the marginalized and second by ensuring and the sales of land for increased production. At the district level, district transparency and accountability of men to their coordination committees were constituted between NGOs, farmer group families on income from produce sales. representatives, and DAO to monitor project implementation processes and challenges for rapid response and feedback. Source: Crop Postharvest Program Project R8422, http://www.cphp.uk.com/projects/default.asp?step=6&projid=170. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 76 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 23 Project title POSTHARVEST INNOVATION: ENHANCING PERFORMANCE AT THE INTERFACE OF SUPPLY AND UTILIZATION Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage, utilization/ Postharvest service provision and supporting research initia- Output 1. Institutional learning and change: improvements to marketing, tives have focused on the development of technologies, with understanding and effectiveness of LAs as agents of change little attention paid to distinguishing between the needs and advanced. Location Tanzania priorities of different households or to understanding delivery Output 2. Facilitation of in-country PH knowledge management: system constraints. This project aimed to identify constraints Practical “insights� from current working practices devel- Project dates January 2005– and opportunities at the supply-utilization interface associ- oped, and improved practice recommendations generated. January 2006 ated with “responsiveness� and “demand,� respectively. The resulting practical insights and policy recommendations for Output 3. Ability of diverse private sector players—farmers Value (US$) $220,000 in-country postharvest knowledge management expressly and commercial enterprises—to access and utilize relevant facilitated a more equitable or “inclusive� approach to ad- PH information, explored and improved. dressing rural poverty. Output 4. Policy and implementation strategy recommenda- tions to improve the performance of PH knowledge–manage- ment organizations and enhance related decision making by farmers and commercial enterprises generated and promoted. Project partners adopted a multistakeholder LA approach: key postharvest stakeholders from all sectors (public, private, voluntary) formed a LA with the same strategic aims as the project—better mobilization of national innovation systems to sustain the uptake and adoption of postharvest knowledge for the bene�ts of poor farmers—but set the speci�c challenge of exploring better ways of working and learning together. Core activities of PHILA were: collaborative research initiatives, internal information sharing (with an emphasis on information and communication technologies (ICTs), and engagement with other influential players in the postharvest system. Case studies critically examining current service pro- vision practices; farmer demand mechanisms; and the bear- ing of current policies, their formulation, and implementation dynamics on postharvest situations were commissioned in the two countries. Insights from the LA process and the case studies are currently being used to generate practical guidelines and policy recommendations for wider in-country postharvest knowledge management. Inception workshops were used to promote and launch the LA, and �nal review workshops provided opportunities for further engagement, sharing of the case study �ndings, and consolidating learning. By commissioning diverse members to implement pivotal collaborative research, or through their more general collaboration or participation in these studies, PHILA sought to raise awareness and extend the individual and organizational capacity of its members. The research case studies, which focused on the interface of postharvest supply and demand, also involved and bene�ted other poten- tial end users who were not necessarily PHILA members. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects PHILA has provided a safe and effective space for diverse key PHILA provides a model for similar postharvest LAs to individual stakeholders from multiple organizations within the use and would be a good forum for discussing any future national innovation systems to work and learn together and postharvest-related research activities in either Tanzania to improve interorganizational relationships. or Zimbabwe, and its structure could be scaled up to have more regional representation as necessary. Its short time PHILA has promoted recognition of the diversity of rural frame (11 months) followed by a change in funding approach circumstances and livelihoods to ensure that service provi- of DFID led to PHILA becoming dormant in terms of further sion is more responsive in meeting the needs and priorities of large-scale activities needing external funding. However, the different groups, including poorer individuals and households. institutional and personal links have not been dormant, and signi�cant interactions still occur. PHILA has actively sought to share all of its �ndings on enhancing postharvest performance at the interface of supply and utilization with key players in the national innovation systems; and PHILA itself provides a living legacy to continue and consolidate this work through its expanding membership and through the PHILA Web site (http://www.nri.org/PHILA/). Source: Department for International Development UK, Crop Postharvest Projects R8460; Mr. Mike Morris (ex NRI now WWF); Dr. T. E. Stathers (NRI); Dr, B Mvumi (UZ); Mr. W. Riwa (PHS, Ministry of Agriculture, Tanzania); www.nri.org/PHILA/. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 77 NO. 24 Project title EXPLORING THE SCOPE OF COST-EFFECTIVE AFLATOXIN RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES IN MAIZE AND GROUNDNUT VALUE CHAINS TO IMPROVE MARKET ACCESS OF THE POOR IN AFRICA Project type Project description Outcomes and impacts Location Kenya and Mali The project objectives are to The project is still in early stages, but it is expected to provide empirical evidence Project dates 2008–present 1. Estimate the economic consequences of aflatoxin contamination on of the cost effectiveness of technologies human and livestock health, farmer livelihoods, and trade currently used in developing countries Value (US$) $220,000 2. Develop a database of the prevalence of aflatoxin and the effectiveness to reduce the risk of human and animal of control strategies along value chains for groundnuts in Mali and maize exposure to aflatoxin contamination in Kenya and to understand what is preventing 3. Perform risk analysis to identify cost-effective control strategies for these technologies from being adopted reducing aflatoxin risk as control strategies in Africa. With this 4. Map the maize and groundnut value chain and investigate the knowl- evidence and understanding, it is expected edge, awareness, attitudes, practices, and perceptions of aflatoxins by that identi�ed cost-effective measures the actors within those value chains as well as their willingness to adopt will be implemented, thereby clearing a and pay for aflatoxin testing and control strategies path for farmers to produce aflatoxin-free crops and improving market access for Led by IFPRI and partnered with CIMMYT, the International Crops Research poor farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), ACDI-VOCA, the University of case studies of interest are groundnut and Pittsburgh, the U.S. Uniformed Health Service, Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER), maize value chains in Mali and Kenya. and Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). Funding from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Source: Dr. Clare Narrod, IFPRI, http://www.ifpri.org/pressroom/brie�ng/impact-aflatoxin-kenya-and-mali. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 78 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 25 Project title KENYA MAIZE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (KMDP) Project type Harvesting/ Project description Outputs storage, utilization/ KMDP was originally funded under a 4-year coopera- Established a network of market information centers serving as marketing tive agreement to increase rural household incomes locations for prices and trade information within local and regional but has been extended. KMDP boosts household markets. Through these centers, buyers are able to post purchase Location Kenya incomes by raising productivity, improving the effec- bids while farmers can review offers and sell their stocks to tiveness of smallholder organizations, and increasing buyers. Kenyan farmers have been able to take advantage of the Value (US$) $11.2 million access to agricultural markets and business support widespread use of mobile phones to acquire quick and accurate services. Led by ACDI/VOCA, the program involves a information through the short messaging system (SMS). diverse consortium of partners within the maize value chain, including the Grain Growers Association of Supporting 80 farmer associations (in 2008) with a total membership Kenya, Farm Input Promotions Africa Ltd. (FIPS), and of approximately 250,000 farmers, and training an average of 12,000 the Kenya Agricultural Commodity Exchange (KACE). farmers each quarter in business practices, particularly business skills for association leaders and their members. Training curricula is expanded to include a business start-up training program targeting entrepreneurs in the agricultural and business sector. Published the Kenya Maize Handbook, a summary of the maize production process and industry trends Facilitated the �rst-ever private sector-focused maize industry busi- ness fair in September 2003 to bring together over 3,000 farmers and 200 business service providers to create effective business links. Since then, KMDP has held annual business fairs with as many as 80 exhibitors and 20,000 people participating in the 2008 event, resulting in smallholder producers connecting directly to mar- ket service providers and thereby reducing the number of middlemen in the value chain. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects KMDP has achieved nearly tripled smallholder maize yields from a baseline output per unit of 8 bags per acre (each bag weighs 90 kg) to an average of 32 bags per acre, only dropping to 25 bags per acre when fertilizer prices increased and farmers were forced to reduce their usage. This has resulted in increased net earnings of $206 million for 370,000 smallholder farm- ers (almost 30 percent of whom are women). Of these farmers, over 100,000 have completed the project- designed training course in Farming as a Family Business. The training provides practical information on improved production methods and better crop marketing through organized markets systems. This dramatic growth in smallholder productivity is brought about by improving farmer business management, tailoring input distribution speci�cally for smallholders (new types and smaller packages), and bulk purchas- ing and marketing through the groups. Smallholder farmers are learning to adhere to international quality and linking directly with private sector business de- velopment services. Through KMDP, there is increased demand for business service; it provides links and awareness of the services and products available while addressing constraints on the delivery of these services. Source: Catharine Phiri, ACDI-VOCA, Washington DC. MISS ING FOOD POS T H A RV E S T P R OJ E CT P ROF IL E S 79 NO. 26 Project title NAADS UGANDA Project type Project description Outputs Location Uganda The National Agricultural Advisor Services (NAADS), a World A survey by IFPRI found that the proportion of house- Bank–funded agricultural extension initiative in Uganda, aims to holds recently becoming aware of drying technolo- Project dates 2001-2008 disseminate improved production and postharvest technologies for gies, storage facilities, grading practices, information smallholder producers. The program was launched in the year 2001 on prices and markets, and collective marketing Value (US$) and is ongoing for another 25 years. practices was signi�cantly higher in trailblazing NAADS regions, ranging from 8 percent to 22 percent The NAADS program is in its fourth year of its �rst phase of of households. The share of marketed output was implementation. The program design stipulates for a mid-term slightly higher among households in NAADS subcoun- review (MTR) of the program in the third year of implementation. ties (28–33 percent) compared to their counterparts in The general objective of the MTR was to assess NAADS impact non-NAADS subcounties (24 percent). and intermediate outcomes to date as well as the emerging good practices and lessons learned. The MTR also aimed at reviewing program design based on the diverse lessons and experiences arising out of implementation. Outcomes and impacts Future prospects NAADS performance was looked at from two angles: the overall The MTR suggest a production-oriented impact national perspective and district perspective that focused on of the NAADS programs so far, with improvement Kabarole and Mukono districts. The review �ndings reveal high in postharvest technologies and use of marketing levels of participation and decision making by farmers’ groups and information lagging behind. This situation needs to be farmers’ fora (64 percent in Lira, 87 percent in Soroti, and 75 percent corrected quickly before the potential gains in yields, in Kabarole). The Scanagri MTE survey found that 88 percent of the derived from the observed increase in adoption of farmer groups believed they had greater ownership of the extension new production technologies, cause prices to col- system. In addition, the National Service Delivery Service Survey lapse, which could reduce the gains to improved pro- undertaken by UBOS showed that farmers in NAADS districts duction technologies. There are intended strategies express a greater demand for specialized extension/advisory services to help improve the situation. The PMA marketing than those in non-NAADS districts. The Scanagri MTE survey also and agro-processing strategy (MAPS) is the �rst key found high levels of awareness about NAADS; around 52 percent of that sets out to address issues relating to collective non-NAADS farmers’ groups surveyed were aware of the program action (support to farmers’ organizations, coopera- and knew it provided training to farmers. Preliminary evidence shows tives, and outgrower schemes); physical infrastructure that NAADS groups have adopted new technologies (including (roads, energy, telecommunications, markets, agro- postharvest) after exposure to TDS and training services. Sixty-four processing units, and postharvest storage); policies percent of the farmers’ groups reported replicating some aspects of and legislation (commodity exchange and warehouse the technologies provided under NAADS. Independent econometric receipts, grades and standards, and taxation); and analysis of survey data also showed a positive impact of NAADS on market information. These will be critical for creating household crop production and a high return to investment. the incentives for reducing post-harvest losses Source: World Bank EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 80 POS TH A RVES T PROJECT PR OFILES NO. 27 Project title IMPROVEMENT OF POSTHARVEST TECHNOLOGIES FOR FONIO Project type Threshing, Project description Outputs decortica- tions, drying,The project was implemented in response to requests from proces- Objective 1: marketing, sors, most of them women, who were encountering dif�culties in � Improved technologies and techniques for thresh- product postharvest handling and processing of fonio to supply the rapidly ing and winnowing innovation. growing market in urban areas of the West Africa region as well as diaspora populations originating from the region. Executed by CIRAD, Objective 2: Location Burkina Faso, supervised by FAO, and co-funded by CFC, the project adopted a � Machines for dehusking developed Guinea, Mali multidisciplinary approach involving breeders, machine fabricators, � Improved technology for winnowing dehusked engineers, technologists, and socioeconomists. Project activities grain and for sorting, precooking, and drying fonio Project 1999–2004 were carried out in all three countries around the following �ve grain dates speci�c objectives: 1. Improve on-farm postharvest technologies Objective 3: Value (US$) 1,451,582 2. Develop processing techniques that are appropriate for the � Marketing channels and consumer requirements needs of end users (farmers’ groups, artisans, and small for fonio better understood businesses) 3. Improve understanding of the needs of consumers and devel- Objective 4: opment of marketing chains � Information on fonio postharvest systems dissemi- 4. Raise awareness on fonio postharvest operations in the nated in West Africa target countries � A regional network developed and information 5. Support local fabrication of processing machines for fonio exchange fostered Objective 5: � Local fabrication supported Outcomes and impacts The project developed technologies for the different facets of the postproduction chain, including on-farm threshing, cleaning, dehusking, winnowing, washing, precooking, and drying. Key lessons from the approach taken include: there was evidence of economic incentives to facilitate adoption of technologies developed; technolo- gies developed did cover the entire postproduction chain; national research institutions from the three bene�ciary countries as well as key stakeholders including processors and machine fabricators were involved; a market-oriented approach was taken with the require- ments of the intended consumers of fonio guiding the development of the technologies. Source: FAO/CFC/CIRAD (2004). MISS ING FOOD B E N E F I T S , C O S T S , AND DE GRE E OF ADOP T ION OF TEC H NOLOGIES 81 Annex 3. BENEFITS, COSTS, AND DEGREE OF ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES LOCATION IN TECHNOLOGY BENEFITS COSTS DEGREE OF PROSPECTS VALUE CHAIN ADOPTION CROP IMPROVEMENT All farming situations Grain varieties with better Potential to maintain Likely to be genetically No variety yet available Uncertain as devel- and especially maize PH characteristics. quality by resistance to modi�ed (GM) crop and commercially, so no opment may not be grain. insect infestation. would need purchase adoption. possible. from seed supplier, so more expensive than traditional and improved local varieties. Potential of�cial resistance. HARVESTING Rice farming with �elds Mini-combine harvester. Harvesting quicker and High �nancial cost relative Technology developed in Will become more accessible to mechaniza- with lower labor require- to farm incomes. Would Southeast Asia by IRRI relevant as the African tion, for large farmers or ment. Improvements in need to be purchased by but not yet introduced rice industry expands. groups of smallholders quantity and quality from farmer groups or harvest into Africa. more timely postharvest contract service providers. operations (project 18). THRESHING, SHELLING, WINNOWING Rice/wheat farming, for Mechanized thresher/ Threshing quicker and High �nancial cost relative Technology developed Will become more large farmers or groups winnowing. with lower labor require- to farm incomes but good in Southeast Asia by relevant as the African of smallholders ment. Improvements in payback. Would need to IRRI and now being rice industry expands. quantity and quality from be purchased by farm- introduced into Africa as more timely postharvest ers’ groups or provided part of current project operations (project 19). through contract farming activities (project 19); schemes. signi�cant adoption typi- cally takes 8–10 years. Also in West Africa (Mali and Senegal) the ASI thresher successfully introduced. Maize farming, for large Mechanized shelling. Shelling quicker and with High �nancial cost relative Technology of hand- Becoming increas- farmers or groups of lower labor requirement. to farm incomes. Would driven and mechanized ingly relevant as smallholders. need to be purchased by shellers well established labor constraints affect farmer groups or provided and have been extended production. through contract farming for many years (e.g., schemes. project 9), but adoption rates low due to costs. DRYING Maize farming by small- Tarpaulin to assist drying Reduce physical losses Relatively high �nancial Successful adoption by Particularly useful for holders in areas where of maize. and potential mycotoxin cost for smallholders. If farmers in Uganda. very small-scale produc- there can be rainfall dur- production as grain is good quality tarpaulin ers. Increasingly useful ing the drying period. protected from rainfall. purchased, a life of at as weather conditions least 5 years possible. become more variable Affordable credit or because of climate subsidy. change. continued EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 82 BENEFITS , C OSTS , A ND D EGREE OF A D OPTION OF TEC H NOLOGIES (Continued) LOCATION IN TECHNOLOGY BENEFITS COSTS DEGREE OF PROSPECTS VALUE CHAIN ADOPTION Maize farming by farmer Maize drying crib (Boshoff Drying more quickly in a Relatively high �nancial Have been promoted by Good prospects in humid groups or large farmers, type). crib and sheltering maize cost for smallholders and projects in hot, humid areas where small-scale in areas where sun dry- from rain and pest attack life of wooden structure areas, but adoption producers are content to ing is slow or dif�cult. leads to improvements limited by termite dam- appears to have been store collectively. in quantity and quality, age. Affordable for farmer achieved through including reduced myco- groups. subsidy. toxin contamination. Rice farming by large SSR low-cost dryer for Drying quicker leads to High �nancial cost relative Technology developed Uncertain farmers or groups of paddy rice. improvements in quantity to farm incomes (US$100 in Southeast Asia by smallholders. and quality from more for 1 ton capacity). IRRI, but preferred timely postharvest opera- Purchase by large farmers option is to encourage tions (project 18). or farmers’ groups or sup- farmers to send paddy plied by contract farming to contractors or millers schemes. for drying, not to dry their own paddy. Not yet introduced into Africa. Rice farming by large Flatbed dryer for paddy Drying quicker leads High �nancial cost makes Technology developed in Will be more relevant farmers or groups of rice. to improvements in this type of machine Southeast Asia by IRRI and cost effective as smallholders. quantity and quality from only suitable for drying and 7,000 installed in the African rice industry more timely postharvest contractors and millers. Vietnam. Ten flatbed dry- expands. operations (project 18). ers installed in Uganda Offers good payback in (project 9). Vietnam. STORAGE STRUCTURES a) Sack storage—increasing storage capacity in small increments i) Open-weave sacks Smallholder and large- Jute or polypropylene Convenient both as a Low cost, but does not Widespread organic adop- Likely to grow without scale storage, short- or sacks. means of storage and to limit pest damage, so tion, now very popular the need for promotion long-term storage. pack grain for marketing. reliance on pest manage- with smallholders for except among the poor- ment using pesticide storage in the house. est groups. is needed for storage periods of more than 3 months. ii) Hermetic sacks—kill pests due to airtight environment Relatively high costs Increasingly available in Could see use as a �xed (US$40/ton) but less la- SSA but still low adoption storage method for grain bor intensive than triple rate. to be used in household Super bags. bagging. Cost ef�ciency subsistence and also based on reuse, so may preservation of seed Smallholder (rarely large- be unsuitable container grain. Can signi�cantly limit for marketing grain. scale) storage, where at deterioration of grains in least 2 months’ storage Relatively low cost Widespread successful Could be promoted for storage. anticipated (US$18/ton) but more promotion for cowpea grains storage, mostly as labor intensive than su- storage. a �xed storage method Triple bagging. per bags. Cost ef�ciency for grain to be used in based on reuse so may household subsistence. be unsuitable container for marketing grain. b) Improved, open-access farm store Smallholder storage Fired brick storage. Can signi�cantly limit Relatively high cost Some successful but not Uncertain. in a wide range of deterioration of grains in (equivalent to about widespread adoption in environments. storage, long life, easily 1 ton of grain). Zimbabwe. available construction materials, can be built with good capacity (3 tons), easy access. MISS ING FOOD B E N E F I T S , C O S T S , AND DE GRE E OF ADOP T ION OF TEC H NOLOGIES 83 (Continued) LOCATION IN TECHNOLOGY BENEFITS COSTS DEGREE OF PROSPECTS VALUE CHAIN ADOPTION c) Sealed stores—prevents pest access, when placed in store grain needs to be well dried and pest free Smallholder storage Mud silo. Mud silo. Can signi�- Relatively low cost but Examples of successful Has potential in appropri- in arid and semiarid cantly limit deterioration requires signi�cant adoption in northern ate climatic zones where environments. of grains in storage. maintenance. Ghana. there are mud silo– Provides local employ- building skills. ment for construction and uses readily avail- able local materials. Metal silo. Can signi�cantly limit Relatively high cost Very extensive adoption Despite failures in Africa deterioration of grains in (US$120–450) but in Central America after to date, could do well storage. Provides local only requires modest 20 years of a social mar- with a social marketing employment for construc- maintenance. Supply of keting approach. approach. Smallholder storage tion. Wide range of suitable materials can be in a wide range of bene�ts (see box 3.2). limited. environments. Plastic stores. Relatively high cost Manufactured locally Shows good potential as (US$200) for 1- to 1.5-ton in Namibia but still to a durable, locally avail- Can signi�cantly limit capacity. achieve signi�cant adop- able store. deterioration of grains in tion due to cost. Large-scale storage for Plastic silos. storage and requires only Relatively high cost, To date, only tested Shows good potential as groups or traders. modest maintenance. can be constructed from experimentally with a durable, locally avail- modi�ed water tanks. cowpeas, combined with able store. phosphine fumigation. d) Hermetic stores—kill pests due to airtight environment Large-scale storage for Sealed plastic envelopes. Can signi�cantly limit Relatively high cost Have been adopted in Very useful for long term groups or traders where deterioration of grains in for initial investment several locations in Africa. storage in situations grain movements in storage. Mobile storage (US$180–220/ton). Staff where normal grain man- and out of storage are structure with a life time needs to be well trained agement is problematic. infrequent and storage of several years. in use. periods are at least 3 months. PEST MANAGEMENT IN STORAGE All farm and large-scale Improvement in store Can signi�cantly limit Increased labor Poor adoption, but very Excellent prospect for storage situations, regard- hygiene. physical PHL in store with requirement. little effort to encourage signi�cant impacts on less of length of storage little or no �nancial outlay farmers to adopt more PHL. period. required. hygienic practices. Synthetic insecticide. Relatively expensive Widespread adoption but Likely to be phased out Can signi�cantly limit for smallholder but problems with adultera- gradually. However, with deterioration of grains in cost effective in many tion and of poor training more emphasis on grain, storage, relatively simple situations. Imported and of farmers in usage. quality could see a rise in to apply. negative associations of usage in the short term. food treatment. Smallholder and large- DE. Can signi�cantly limit Relatively expensive but Not yet available although As use of synthetics is scale storage where deterioration of grains in could probably be made registered in some phased out, DEs would more than three months’ storage, relatively simple available at similar cost countries. be expected to offer an storage anticipated. to apply. Avoids toxicity to synthetic pesticides. effective alternative in Compatible with a wide issues of insecticides and Could be produced many situations. range of storage methods can confer organic status. locally, so offering import including jute and polypro- substitution and poten- pylene bags. tial export market. Smallholder storage of Solarization. Could signi�cantly limit Inexpensive means of Has been adopted on a Larger-scale solarization small quantities of grain. deterioration of grains disinfesting grain prior to small scale for cowpea systems would be suit- when combined with storage. treatment prior to sealed able for grains but needs sealed storage. storage in Ghana and to be developed. Uganda. continued EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 84 B ENEFITS , C OSTS , A ND D EGREE OF A D OPTION OF TEC H NOLOGIES (Continued) LOCATION IN TECHNOLOGY BENEFITS COSTS DEGREE OF PROSPECTS VALUE CHAIN ADOPTION Large-scale producers, Fumigation with the gas Can signi�cantly limit Relatively inexpensive Widely adopted in SSA for Will continue as the farmers groups, traders, phosphine. deterioration of grains. (US$ 1–2 per ton) means treatment of large-scale main mean of killing and millers, where stor- of killing insect pests on stores (e.g., treatment of insects on grain in large- age of grain in bags or in grains, but treatments bag stacks under gas-tight scale storage. Service silos exceeds 3 months. may need to be repeated sheets or treatment of provided by commercial every 4–6 months. small or large gastight pest control companies, storage structures). In although standards are several African countries, sometimes very low. smallholders are prohib- ited from fumigating. MISS ING FOOD O V E RV I E W O F P H L RE DUCT ION P RACT ICE S BY DIF FERENT ORGA NIZATIONS 85 Annex 4. OVERVIEW OF PHL-REDUCTION PRACTICES BY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS This document is a brief review of activities undertaken to The following table summarizes the information obtained reduce PHL for grain staples in SSA, with particular focus from Internet searches, discussions, and personal experi- on East Africa. The project is concerned with PHL reduction ence. The detailed information about the PHL-related activi- for grain crops, mostly at the farm and village level. Losses ties of each organization is available in the project �les and will be de�ned as: physical (weight and quality), opportunity available upon request. (failure to market or inability to get a reasonable price), and external (losses through the need to use pest control or socio-environmental costs of pesticides). THEMATIC FOCUS OF THEIR POSTHARVEST WORK GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS Market information Postharvest aware- Storage structures ness raising/com- ances/ innovation Large scale grain Community grain munication/ info. Postharvest pest house receipting PH learning alli- Southern Africa stores or ware- Market access PH equipment Central Africa management and disease West Africa East Africa systems storage Lead implementing organization Action Aid X African Agricultural Capital X X X AGRA X X Catholic Relief Services X X Concern Worldwide X X X X X ENDA Zimbabwe X X EAGC X Faida Market Link Company Limited (FaidaMaLi) X X Farm Concern International X X FEWS Net Famine Early Warning NetworNetworkk X X X X X X FoodNet X X X X INADES Formation Tanzania X X X X X Intercooperation/Rural Livelihoods Development Co. X X X X Kilimo Trust X MVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania X X X X NRI X X X X X X X X X X X NetHope X X X X X Oxfam Ireland X X continued EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 86 OVERVIEW OF PH L R ED UCTION PR A C TICES BY D IFFER ENT ORGANIZATIONS (Continued) THEMATIC FOCUS OF THEIR POSTHARVEST WORK GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS Practical Action X X X X X RATES (Regional Agricultural Trade Export Support) X X X X X X X RATIN (Regional Agricultural Trade Network) X X X X X SNV (Netherlands Development Organisation) X X X X Winrock International X X X X World Vision X X X X X X MISS ING FOOD C O M MU N I T Y G R A I NS BANKS: HIST ORY AND L E SSONS 87 Annex 5. COMMUNITY GRAINS BANKS: HISTORY AND LESSONS Community cereal banks come in a variety of forms and have against food insecurity within the community (Stathers et al. numerous different purposes, including the following: 2000; Itano 2005; Kaseke 2006). Zunde ramambo originally existed at three hierarchical levels: household (the husband’s ƒ improving food supply over the agricultural cycle, granary was used to supply whichever wife’s was depleted especially during the hungry season and extended �rst), the village (the village had a zunde �eld, and all donated drought periods; their labor to feed the disadvantaged when their food ran ƒ providing a locally based, in-kind savings and loan out), and the chief (the community provided labor to produce facility; food for the disadvantaged and for guests fed by the chief). ƒ helping to stabilize commodity prices locally through The ancestral Zunde scheme phased out in the 1950s due to grain storage (reducing the intra-annual price variation, many reasons, including marketing practices undermining the temporal arbitrage); incentive to work communally and the introduction of govern- ƒ providing a nearby and reliable market for produce; ment feeding programs (Stathers et al. 2000). In Zimbabwe ƒ providing an uncommon form of community-based and Swaziland, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has resulted in these insurance against covariate risk; traditional institutions being revived to help support the grow- ƒ reducing PHL; ing numbers of orphans and vulnerable children. ƒ reducing the “overselling� problem of grain by However, most community cereal banks are set up as donor- farmers; conceived interventions and not initiated as traditional com- ƒ providing a local emergency buffer stock of food; munity coping strategies, which may be the key factor be- ƒ strengthening village-level organizational capacity; hind their frequent failure. This intervention became popular ƒ increasing real incomes; in the 1970s following serious droughts (FAO 1994). NGOs ƒ assisting local producers to market their grains in that have sponsored cereal banks in West Africa, especially urban markets with higher prices. in Sahelian countries, include the CRS, Fondation Nationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité (FONADES), Afrique The main features of grain cereal banks are described below. Verte (Burkina Faso), Institut Syndical pour la Cooperation au Development (ISCOS), ACOPAM project of the International Initiation process Labor Of�ce, and SNV. German Technical Assistance (GTZ) Grain cereal banks are frequently initiated by agencies external and FAO have also supported cereal banks in the past. to the community, often following participatory discussions, According to an exploratory report, in 2005 no externally needs assessments, and suggestions. However, historically, initiated community grain cereal banks existed in Southern grain cereal banks have been integral parts of many communi- Africa (Langyintuo 2005). However, the NGO Sacred Africa ties’ collective food security coping systems. In India, cereal Africa, supported by the Rockefeller foundation, has helped banks are a descendent of the traditional system of grain farmers in western Kenya who are frustrated by poor mar- golas, in which surplus grains were collected postharvest keting conditions by setting up 25 cereal banks, despite the into a common pool that was controlled by the village head poor history of collective marketing (Mukhwana 2009). The and from which disbursements were largely discretionary Millennium Villages project has supported cereal banks in 10 (Bhattamishra and Barrett 2008). The indlunkhulu (big house) African countries in an arrangement whereby farmers who practice in Swaziland and the zunde ramambo in Zimbabwe received free seed and fertilizer inputs then provide the proj- were traditional social welfare systems whereby food crops ect cereal banks with three bags of maize grain after harvest. were grown on common land using communal labor to protect Part of this grain is used to support a school feeding program EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 88 COMMUNITY GR A INS BA NKS : H ISTORY A ND LES S ONS in the village, and the remainder is kept and sold during the 2005). As there should be community ownership of the store, hungry period. it is important that adequate consultations be made with all categories of people in the village regarding the aims of the In community cereal banks, grain is typically bought just af- grain cereal banks, the type of store needed, its location, how ter the harvest when prices are low, either from the village to access the initial grain to get started, whether it should be or elsewhere; it is then stored until it is needed, when it run for pro�t or just to serve the interests of the community will be sold to the villagers at a reasonable price (Kisangani alone, which types of grains should be banked, and how it will 2005). Because the cereal bank is nearby, villagers save on operate. Additionally, the members need to agree in advance time and transport costs. If initiated by an external agency, on the activities and supervise them. decisions need to be made about whether they donate a conditional loan (grain or cash) or a gift, or whether the com- The cereal bank’s members need to elect a management munity will contribute the initial grain stock through farming committee, which might have the following composition a communal �eld or making individual contributions. Starting and responsibilities (Kisangani 2005). These members must the cereal banks with both cash and grain may be a good be honest, upright, dynamic, literate, and dedicated to the solution. Cash will help the management committee learn well-being of the village. The members should also be rep- about the realities of the grain market, competition with resentative of the diversity within the community (gender, traders, and aspects of how formal banking systems work, age, class, etc.). The committee is likely to need additional although there could be the temptation to use the cash for training, particularly on the accounting system. other purposes. Starting with only grain may result in the village seeing the cereal banks as just a source of food aid The storage facility (Kisangani 2005). NGOs are often involved in initiating com- The storage facility will vary by community. It can be built by munity cereal banks, with involvement from national govern- the villagers using either local materials or more expensive ment departments on storage management and so on. It is purchased materials, but it must aim to exclude rodent, bird, dif�cult to get a feel for just how many community cereal and insect pests. Borrowing or renting a store may be easier banks exist, but they are particularly popular in the Sahel. at the beginning, but a clear understanding with the owner During a 1998 workshop organized by the CRS on commu- is required to prevent disruption during the cereal bank’s op- nity-level grain storage projects (cereal banks), the following erations. The location needs to be acceptable to and easily was discussed: Why do they rarely work, and what are the accessed by all; it should be somewhere secure where it can alternatives? A 1991 study was referred to, which found that be safely guarded. The members need to decide how much 3,300 cereal banks had been established in the Sahel, half of grain the cereal bank needs to store in order to take the vil- which were in Burkina Faso; by 1998 it was estimated that lage through the hungry season and whether they have the this number would have increased to over 4,000 (CRS 1998; resources to safely purchase and store that capacity of grain. Gergely et al. 1990). Community ownership OPERATING THE CEREAL BANKS Practical Action point out that although there is no blueprint Buying process, the decision to set up a cereal bank should be based Buying usually happens just after the harvest when the on a commonly felt need in the village, such as a grain shortage market price is at its lowest; the cereal bank buys �rst from during extended drought periods or prior to harvest (Kisangani members, then from surrounding villages, then from traders. POSITION RESPONSIBILITIES Chairperson Responsible for and overseeing of the cereal bank’s activities. Main point of contact with the outside world. Secretary To record all the administrative and accounting operations of the cereal banks. Will need to be trained in the accounting system. Storekeeper To take in the grain that has been bought by the cereal banks and subsequent sale of the grain. Responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the store and for maintaining and safeguarding the condition of the grain inside it. Will need to be trained in the accounting system and good grain-storage management. Treasurer In charge of the money. Needs to have simple accounting skills to effectively manage a system of four books (the book of: the treasurer, the purchasing of�cer or buyer, the secretary, and the storekeeper) and double-entry bookkeeping. Buyers Arrange for the cereal banks to buy grain at the best possible price, sometimes traveling long distances and arranging transport for the grain back to the village. Will need to be trained on the accounting system and on effective purchasing. MISS ING FOOD C O M MU N I T Y G R A I NS BANKS: HIST ORY AND L E SSONS 89 The cereal bank may decide to pay its members a slightly to buy grain at very high prices during the hungry season� higher price than the prevailing market price. The location (CRS/ Ghana 1994, as cited in CRS 1998). However, sev- of the cereal bank will determine its buying policy. If it is lo- eral studies of farmers’ grain sales patterns (Goetz 1990; cated in a village that suffers from chronic food de�cits, it Reardon and Mercado-Peters 1993) show that this isn’t the may make more sense to buy grain from outside the village. case and that farmers tend to spread their sales of grains throughout the year. In a village in a semiarid central zone of Tanzania, one of the poorest households was found to Selling strategize by using their casual labor income to purchase The cereal bank members need to decide on when to start grain during the period immediately after harvest (when the selling the grain (e.g., should it be throughout the year, just grain price is lowest) and then to store this along with the during the hungry period, or only when the market price tiny amount they had harvested themselves for use during reaches a certain level?). times when the grain purchase price was higher (Stathers et The bank sells �rst to its members, and it may decide to sell al. (forthcoming)). only to particularly vulnerable members of the community; also, it may set limits on the maximum quantities an indi- Running at a pro�t vidual can purchase. The sale price should be slightly lower On average, cereal banks sell their grain at a 10 percent than the prevailing market price, but at least equal to or more discount (CRS 1998). However, by selling or lending grain than the cost price. The grain should be sold in both large at below-market rates, these cereal banks have tended to and small amounts, as not everyone can afford to buy large lose money, decapitalize themselves, and eventually go amounts at a time (Kisangani 2005). Revenues are used as a out of business. The CRS 1998 workshop estimated that revolving fund to re�nance the operation the following year. of the 4,000 cereal banks set up in the Sahel, only ~1,000 were continuing to buy and sell grain; the rest were out of business. Another study found that only 1 of the 100 cereal FREQUENT PROBLEMS WITH COMMUNITY banks that FAO had created in Niger had survived more than CEREAL BANKS AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS a few years, and that was because it was receiving support Competing with the commercial grain traders from another project in the area (CRS 1998). Grain market- Cereal banks are often set up to overcome grain shortfalls ing is a competitive business, and the margins are gener- in a particular village or area; they have to purchase grain ally thin; sales at below-market rates are likely to generate from other places and move it back to their village. This spa- losses. tial arbitrage (trading between geographical locations) is a highly competitive business, and pro�t margins are thin; only economic agents with good management skills are likely Lending grain to succeed or survive (CRS 1998). In addition, cereal banks Cereal banks have shown that lending grain is a dif�cult busi- often aim to reduce the intra-annual price variation of grains ness; defaults are common. Villagers who borrow grain from for villagers. This temporal arbitrage or speculative storage cereal banks frequently feel little moral obligation to pay back (buying and storing grain when the price is low and selling it their loans because they perceive the cereal banks as a social during high price times) is also risky, with much smaller pro�t institution. Defaults on grain loans are a major cause of bank- margins than frequently assumed after the costs of trans- ruptcy of cereal banks (CRS 1998). portation, handling, storage structure rental or depreciation, empty sacks, storage insecticides and treatment, pallets, Management problems guarding, licensing, and other aspects are deducted. Strong, skilled leaders and plenty of training are needed prior to starting any cereal bank operations. To run at a pro�t, Flaws in the forced-sales rationale behind creating cereal banks need to adopt businesslike approaches, which cereal banks are often at odds with the perceived “social� purpose of A major rationale for the creation of cereal banks is that the cereal banks and local pressures within the community. “farmers are often compelled by immediate and pressing There is often a high turnover of cereal banks management domestic �nancial needs to sell most of their meager har- committee; and often after training (particularly if the man- vest at very low prices during the harvesting period in order agement position was unpaid), an ongoing skills de�cit and to meet their needs. Invariably, they are then compelled training demand result. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 90 COMMUNITY GR A INS BA NKS : H ISTORY A ND LES S ONS Poor postharvest and storage loss reduction skills credit and how much grain it can afford to sell that way, as Cereal banks often claim to aim to reduce the high PHL well as how to deal with people who do not pay their debts. suffered by individual households due to poor postharvest However, some cereal banks operate as in-kind savings and grain management. However, unless the cereal banks man- lending facilities, such as lending grains to members during agement committees have strong postharvest management the hungry season, with members repaying their loans in- skills, large losses can occur during storage, handling, and kind after the harvest. A receipt system might be used when transportation in the cereal banks. One extreme example is making deposits, allowing members to cash in their receipts that in Niger, one cereal bank lost 49 percent of the millet for grain later in the season, but this requires strong record- stored in it, compared to farmers’ estimated storage losses keeping skills. of 3–5 percent (CRS 1998). CONCLUSIONS Community ownership and understanding If the cereal bank is perceived as a social welfare organiza- Although the concept of community cereal banks in terms of tion and the community feels little ownership or responsibil- improving food security of vulnerable communities is clearly ity toward repaying its debts to the cereal bank, it is likely to appealing to many agencies, in reality, sustainability is a huge cease operations as soon as external support ends. There problem, as the work by Lawrence Kent highlighted during is often little or no incentive for managing collective goods the CRS 1998 workshop clearly showed. Documentation in an effective way, and this quickly results in bankruptcy on cereal banks is not easily available, making it dif�cult to of the collective activity. In areas where there are frequent get accurate �gures of the investment in cereal banks, but it donor injections of cash or food, there is little incentive by has certainly been signi�cant in the Sahel region. However, either the management or the community to operate the as soon as external support ceases, most seem to become cereal bank’s pro�tability when the expectation is that a do- bankrupt. nation will come and restock the cereal banks. In western The 1998 workshop did not decide on a formal policy conclu- Kenya, SACRED Africa has supported 25 cereal banks in sion with regard to cereal banks despite all the failings of order to improve market access for farmers; the members cereal banks discussed during the workshop, but it did rec- of these cereal banks have to pay a registration fee and buy ommend that resources be shifted out of cereal banks into shares equivalent to two bags of grain, and these conditions other community projects that might have more sustainable may help improve members commitment. However, it still impacts. After observing the unsustainability of cereal banks remains to be seen how these cereal banks will manage in Niger in the early 1990s, GTZ switched its funding from the when SACRED Africa has withdrawn its sizeable support creation of cereal banks to the development of credit unions arrangements. (CRS 1998). One former supervisor of CRS cereal banks in Ghana termed cereal banks as effective “slow release Reaching the target bene�ciaries mechanisms for food aid� but not sustainable institutions. Richer households can bene�t by buying up all the grain in Inventory credit schemes appear to be one form of succes- the bank and reselling it at a pro�t. This can be avoided by sor, but ensuring that they bene�t the poorer members of having �xed quotas on how much each member or house- the community is challenging. Inventory credit schemes are hold can buy, or speci�ed purchase-quantity-over-time rules. discussed elsewhere in this review. The poorest in the community still may not be able to bene�t The reasons for the failure of most cereal banks were sum- from the cereal banks if they don’t have funds to purchase marized as follows: grain. In response, the cereal banks could decide to set up 1. Insuf�cient understanding that net margins are a social welfare system. A contribution or percentage from thin—there’s little room for error in trading; each sack of grain that is bought is put into a fund to assist 2. Cereal banks frequently make management errors— the poorest in the community in accessing grain. But this inexperience, slow collective decision making, and amount would need to be factored into the sale price, if the social pressures lead to poor decisions in terms of cereal bank is to be able to run sustainably. timing and pricing of purchases and sales; If the cereal bank decides to allow people to buy on credit, it 3. The managers of cereal banks are managing collec- needs to predetermined how many people are likely to need tive goods and not their own private affairs; hence, MISS ING FOOD C O M MU N I T Y G R A I NS BANKS: HIST ORY AND L E SSONS 91 there is little incentive for cost minimization or ef- least; some of these banks actually drove private traders out �cient management; of business (Berg and Kent 1991; Aker 2008). It is obviously 4. Speculative storage is less pro�table and more risky not an ef�cient use of signi�cant development resources than most people assumed; to set up unsustainable cereal banks that do not help their 5. Grain that is loaned out by cereal banks is frequently members in the long term. Ef�cient grain trading does not not paid back; usually occur when done collectively and as a result of ex- 6. Cereal banks often suffer from corruption and other ternal initiatives.In an emergency relief context, grain cereal abuses of the cash box; banks can play a temporary role supplying food on favorable terms; however, this is on an unsustainable relief basis only 7. Support agents can become predators, stealing the and still requires signi�cant resource investment. Social pro- money of the cereal banks that they are supposed to tection programs such as cash or food for work and condi- be helping (CRS 1998). tional or unconditional targeted cash transfers are likely to be The cereal banks that do survive tend to be those that func- more effective instead. tion most like private traders and help their members the EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK V I E W I N G P O S T H A RVE ST INNOVAT ION SYST E MS 93 Annex 6. VIEWING POSTHARVEST INNOVATION SYSTEMS Building on the World Bank (2006) study, a general ana- A current study on climate change and postharvest agricul- lytical framework for the innovation systems concept would ture (Stathers et al.(forthcoming)), developed the following include the following four elements: (1) key public and diagram representing the postharvest agricultural innovation private actors and their roles, (2) the actors’ attitudes and system (�gure A6.1). From the farmer’s perspective, this in- practices, (3) the effects and characteristics of patterns of novation system might look more like the diagram shown in interaction, and (4) the enabling environment for innovation. �gure A6.2. FIGURE A6.1. A postharvest agricultural innovation FIGURE A6.2. A postharvest agricultural innovation system system from the farmer’s perspective Public research Mediating institutional (conventional) arrangements and Demand domain: Consumers of food and link to policies Training Marketing and food products in rural and urban extension areas; consumers of industrial raw Advice Transport materials; local, national, and international commodity markets; Input supply Infrastructure policy making process and Private research, Livelihoods Intermediary domain: of farming Technology Enterprise domain: (users of NGOs/CBOs; extension e.g., codified knowledge, producers services; consultants; seeds Access to productive of mainly tacit knowledge) e.g., Interaction private companies, and resources Processing/ farmers; small, medium, and other entrepreneurs; farmer postharvest large agro-processors; and trade associations; Media Business Local commodity traders; input supply media; services governance Facilitation by agents; companies and industries related to agriculture, Research domain: (often producing e.g., credit local organizations Private research, e.g., Registration and (NGOs, farmers particularly agro-processing codified knowledge) e.g., national cell-phone banking regulation of storage groups, such as equipment fabrication, and international agricultural sales and repair, product research organizations; universities packaging and labeling and technical colleges; private research foundations; private companies; NGOs Source: Adapted from Goldman (2005) and Mvumi et al. (2008). Enabling structures: Banking and financial system; transport and marketing infrastructure; consumer protection agencies; food standards agencies; phytosanitary regulations and authorities; professional networks, including trade and farmer associations; education system; IPR and information system; government regulatory system (e.g., local govt., local policy makers, policy enforcement, e.g., regulations, laws, etc.) Source: Stathers et al. (forthcoming). EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK PR A C T I C A L E X P E R IE NCE S OF USING RISK MANAGEMENT INS TR UMENTS 95 Annex 7. PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES OF USING RISK MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS GHANA EXPERIENCE (ANNEX 2, PROJECT 1) when prices are generally high. The system proved popular The inventory credit approach supported by TechnoServe in but fell into decline in 2003–04 due to problems with mutual Ghana involved maize farmers putting their grain up as collat- MFIs who had a poor understanding of inventory credit. This eral to secure loans through their local cooperatives shortly was corrected by the appointment of direct-credit MFIs that after harvest. The amount of the loan was approximately were supported by international investment funds and com- 75–80 percent of the value of the collateral they deposited. mercial loans from trade banks. Later in the year, the farmers had the choice of repaying their Overall, inventory credit in Niger is regarded as a success. In loans with interest and recovering their collateral or having the southern parts of the country, inventory credit seems to their cooperative sell their collateral, deduct the outstanding be a more powerful tool than cereal banks in promoting food amount of the loans, and refund any remainder to the farm- security during the lean season. In addition, it appears that ers. TechnoServe did not provide the cooperatives with a inventory credit is a good tool to encourage cooperation be- revolving fund, but instead facilitated a relationship between tween smallholders—although, paradoxically, an important the cooperative and commercial banks. High intra-annual attraction of the approach rests on the fact that the food is price variation in Ghana enabled farmers to increase their stored in the name of the individual, allowing more direct revenues. While the farmers’ groups participating bene�ted appropriation of any gains. from the inventory credit system, the scheme has been problematic because the scale of operation was too small. Farmers typically accumulate about 50 tons. The existing �nancial institutions have little incentive to operate at this MADAGASCAR EXPERIENCE scale, with the result that TechnoServe was responsible for The “Village Community Granaries� started in the early the operations of the system, thus limiting its sustainablil- 1990s and involve smallholders producing rice and other ity without subsidy. It was therefore discontinued in 2005. agricultural commodities for home and local consumption. Although the system is worthwhile, it can only really be The scheme has taken off well, and in 2008, around 19,800 tons implemented if it is accepted that some form of subsidy is of paddy were stored (Coulter 2009). By enabling farm- necessary. It is considered that a pilot scheme of 5–7 years, ers to store longer, it has provided them with a �nancial where gains made using inventory credit are forced into a surplus equivalent to a 50 percent increase in paddy yield credit-saving scheme, would stand a much greater chance and has contributed to the stabilization of prices regionally of success. (Fraslin 2005). There was �nancial support from village- based credit unions backed by several donors, but key to this achievement was the members’ subscription of sub- NIGER EXPERIENCE (ANNEX 2, PROJECT 2) stantial equity capital, which commits them to the enter- In Niger there has been an inventory credit system since prise and helped in obtaining soft-loan funding from the 1999 in which the smallholders, through their POs, have public treasury (Fraslin 2004). The network was expected stored their products until the lean season and secured loans to break even by 2006. Members are provided with inven- from MFIs that enable them to undertake income-generating tory credit along with seasonal production credit, leasing, activities, especially to invest in technologies to increase pro- and other credit products, and there is also a more modest duction, such as the administration of fertilizer by a system savings facility. There is a complete supervisory structure of microdosing. Subsequently, they can sell the stock depos- for ensuring correct storage protocols and the integrity of ited or retain it for family consumption during the lean period the inventory credit system. EC O N O M I C A N D S E CT OR WORK 96 PR A C TICA L EX PERIENC ES OF US ING R ISK MA NA GEMENT INSTR UM ENTS This experience shows that it is possible to organize sound, Warehouse Receipts Uganda (annex 2, project 4) village-based inventory credit systems within a strong move- Uganda has had a functioning WRS since 2009, regulated by the ment of rural credit unions or rural banks. However, it has Uganda Commodity Exchange (UCE). The minimum deposit to be recognized that most African countries do not have of 10 tons of maize, coffee, cotton, or beans may be placed such large or robust member-owned rural savings and credit with one of three licensed warehouse operators—provided it organizations, and this makes it more dif�cult to achieve the meets stated quality grades—in return for transferable ware- same result. house receipts issued through an electronic system based in South Africa. Housing Finance Bank �nances the ware- house receipts to 60 percent of the value of the commodity WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS ZAMBIA (ANNEX 2, deposited. The WRS is nascent and needs more warehouse PROJECT 3) operators to be certi�ed before the planned improvements A successful outcome for WRS in Zambia is favored by in the grain market can be delivered. There are two barriers signi�cant production by large-scale commercial farmers; to increasing the number of operators: the relatively small it established inventory credit facilities under collateral number of warehouse operators in Uganda and liquidity re- management agreements run by international inspection quirements for licensing. A further issue is the incentive for companies. Compared with its neighbors (Zimbabwe and depositors to market their grain through the WRS. This has Malawi), Zambia enjoys relative freedom of trade and been boosted because the UN WFP has adopted more flex- movement of currency, and the level of seasonal price ible procurement modalities through its P4P project (annex 2, variability in the leading crop (maize) is very high. But the project 7). WFP will now purchase warehouse receipts, and challenges faced in introducing WRS in Zambia include this has the advantage of enabling them to buy from stock at disabling elements in the policy environment, legal issues, a predetermined quality. However, WFP’s role is to facilitate engendering con�dence among bankers, scale economies, transactions with the ultimate goal of encouraging regional and ensuring smallholder participation. Governments often grain traders to purchase the Uganda maize surplus. resort to ad-hoc interventions, which can potentially under- Warehouse Receipts Kenya (annex 2, project 5) mine inventory credit programs on food-security grounds. This phenomenon hampered two schemes in Ghana dur- In April 2008, a WRS was launched, regulated by the EAGC ing the 1990s. Building stakeholder consensus and policy with credit based on grain as collateral, from the Equity Bank. coherence has emerged as critical to reducing, though not Only maize is accepted, and deposits must be 100 tons or eliminating, ad-hoc interventions. In the case of Zambia, this more. The NCPB leases out storage facilities, EAGC certi�es approach enabled local stakeholders to effectively counter them, and Lesiolo Grain Handlers provides postharvest grain pre-electoral policy reversals and prevent the project from services. At the time of launch, one warehouse complex re- being derailed. ceived 1,000 tons of maize from 10 individual farmers and was encouraging smallholders to form groups and submit In 2003, a national network of privately managed warehous- their harvest in bulk. Six of the 10 farmers applied and re- es was authorized to issue transferable warehouse receipts, ceived loans from Equity Bank (totaling about US$130,000), backed up by a thorough certi�cation and inspection system. using the warehouse receipts as collateral. In the follow- The WRS was regulated by a nongovernmental certi�cation ing two seasons, the combination of low yields and favor- and inspection agency—ZACA Ltd. The initial indications able weather encouraged sun drying of maize and storage from ZACA were positive, and by the 2004–05 season, avail- in houses so that farmers could bargain for higher producer able certi�ed storage space rose from 8,000 to 105,000 tons, prices from the government. To appease farmers, the govern- and about 66,000 tons of maize were deposited in the certi- ment instituted price controls, increasing the price of 90 kg of �ed warehouses. Commercial farmers had predominated maize from KSh1,300 to a high of KSh2,300, which made the among the “early adopters� of this system, but smallholders WRS offer unattractive. As a result, WRS operation has been were getting involved, depositing around 5,800 tons of grain. hampered by government price intervention. The govern- However, the performance of the system declined thereaf- ment’s intention to restructure both the NCPB and the grain ter. It was replaced by ZAMACE in October 2007, which, to trading system may give an opportunity to expand the WRS, increase the economies of scale, focused on the commercial especially to Eldoret, Kitale, and the South Rift regions. Lack grain sector. This commercial orientation resulted in lower of warehousing facilities may present dif�culties, although service costs, which increased the opportunities for the par- since launch, Lesiolo Grain Handlers has been joined by ticipation of smallholders. Export Trading, which has warehouses in Eldoret and Kitale. MIS S ING FOOD A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D R U R A L D E V E L O P M E N T This is a joint publication with: Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Telephone: 202-477-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org/ard