post-harvest management policies, programmes and ... · 1 post-harvest management policies,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Post-Harvest Management Policies, Programmes and
Strategies in Benin and Sub-Saharan Africa
30 March 2014
By
Dr. Barthélemy G. Honfoga, Dr. Noel H. Akissoe, Ange Guedenon and Carole N. Sossa-
Vihotogbé
Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network
(FANRPAN)
Supported by
1
Post-Harvest Management Policies, Programmes and Strategies in Benin and
Sub-Saharan Africa
Barthélemy G. Honfoga1, Noel H. Akissoe
2, Ange Guedenon
3 and Carole N. Sossa-
Vihotogbé4
SUMMARY
Agriculture is an important source of income and food security for rural households in Benin.
However, post-harvest losses compromise food and nutritional security. The current study
aims to cast light on policy options to tackle the key factors that limit dissemination and
adoption of technology among small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and
knowledge and information sharing on post-harvest management (PHM) among stakeholders.
Desk research, interviews and a national dialogue were conducted in Benin to collect data.
The six key lessons and recommendations for the way forward are:
1. The main lesson from this review is that post-harvest losses (PHLs) have driven a lot
of research and projects in the field over the last three decades in Benin, but the
adoption of technologies and innovations by smallholder farmers remains low due to
many institutional bottlenecks, financial constraints tied to dependency on donor
funds, too little consideration of the needs and economic conditions of farmers, and
low commitment of government to address PHLs as a national emergency issue.
2. A technology prioritization study should be undertaken to prepare a broad agenda for
addressing PHLs at all levels of agricultural value chains, with differential
interventions strategies towards smallholder farmers and women on the one hand, and
large-scale farmers and traders of grains and pulses on the other.
1 Agricultural economist, agri-marketing and food security expert, Deputy-head of Department DESAC/FSA, University of
Abomey-Calavi, Benin. Corresponding author at: [email protected] .
2 Biochemistry and food technology expert, Head of Department NSA/FSA, University of Abomey-Calavi, Benin.
3 Socio-economist, research assistant, DESAC/FSA.
4 Food technology specialist, research assistant, NSA/FSA.
2
3. The national agricultural policy framework, the PSRSA, must move from lip service
to focus on results. Its Post-Harvest Loss Management (PHLM) components should
be implemented effectively to enable greater results for beneficiaries.
4. Within the framework of the creation of the national fund for agricultural
development (FNDA), a clear budget line should be devoted to PHM-supporting
credit, to stimulate innovation and increase access to PHM equipment for smallholder
farmers and entrepreneurs.
5. A holistic approach to food and nutrition issues should be adopted to make good use
of domestic resources and foreign aid for relevant PHLM interventions which can
really affect the livelihoods of farmers. The National Council for Food and Nutrition
(CAN) should advocate for this while leading implementation of the PHLM
component of the PSRSA. The most promising PHLM technologies should be
identified and policy interventions should foster extended adoption among
smallholder farmers and small- and medium-scale food enterprises (SMEs).
6. Training on value-chain management and market development will be crucial to
efficiently address PHLM concerns. Farmers should be prepared to share the costs of
agricultural extension, as they are the primary beneficiaries of farm outputs. They
should express their needs to research and extension institutions and advocate for their
interests with policy-makers. PHLM innovation platforms would need to be set up in
each region of the country, with their national apex organization located at PTAA.
The study draws conclusions and recommendations on policy gaps, institutional
arrangements gaps, key implementation challenges and opportunities for PHLM in Benin and
SSA.
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of CTA. The views
expressed herein are those of Dr. Barthélemy G. Honfoga and can therefore in no way
be taken to reflect the official opinion of CTA.
3
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Overview of agriculture, food security and PHL issues in Benin ............................... 8
1.2 Climatic risks faced by smallholder farmers ............................................................... 9
1.3 Post-harvest handling activities and risks faced by smallholder farmers.................. 10
1.4 Research objective..................................................................................................... 10
2. Research Methodology ..................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Research design and philosophy ............................................................................... 11
2.2 Research Strategy ...................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Target population and sampling ................................................................................ 11
2.4 The research instruments ........................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Document analysis and literature review ........................................................... 13
2.4.2 In-depth Interviews ............................................................................................ 13
2.4.3 National dialogue ............................................................................................... 13
2.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 14
2.6 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 14
2.7 Ethical Clearance....................................................................................................... 14
3. Findings from the study ................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Gaps in Research Programs....................................................................................... 14
3.2 Gaps in national policy framework ........................................................................... 16
3.2.1 Research-policy gap ........................................................................................... 16
3.2.2 Efficiency gap .................................................................................................... 17
3.2.3 Institutional bottlenecks ..................................................................................... 17
3.2.4 Integration of research findings in policies ........................................................ 18
3.3 Key constraints for implementation of PHM policies ............................................... 19
3.3.1 Constraints to research results’ uptake for policy formulation and
implementation ................................................................................................................. 19
3.3.2 Bottlenecks to successful PHM policy implementation and tentative solutions 19
4
3.3.3 Requirements for improving PHM policy formulation and implementation .............. 20
3.4 PHM Policy Framework in Benin - effectiveness and equity ................................... 23
3.4.1 Policies ............................................................................................................... 23
3.4.2 Projects and programs ........................................................................................ 24
3.4.3 Effectiveness of policies, programs and projects ............................................... 25
3.5 Key Institutional Frameworks ................................................................................... 27
3.6 National PHM Research ............................................................................................ 28
4. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................. 29
4.1 PHLM policy gaps and key implementation challenges ........................................... 29
4.2 Gaps in institutional arrangements and key recommendations ................................. 30
4.3 Opportunities which remain untapped ...................................................................... 30
4.4 Recommendations for innovative institutional arrangements ................................... 31
Annexes.................................................................................................................................... 33
Annex 1: Some PHM Projects implemented in Africa during the last three decades .......... 33
Annex 2: Projects and programs on post-harvest management in Benin ............................. 37
References ................................................................................................................................ 44
5
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADI African Agribusiness and Agribusiness Development Initiative
AfDB African Development Bank
APHLIS African Post-harvest Losses Information System
APROMAH Association pour la Promotion des Matériels et Hydrauliques
BMELV German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer
Protection
BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economics
BOAD Banque ouest Africaine de développement
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program
CARDER Centre d’action Régionale pour le Développement Rural
CAN Conseil National de l'Alimentation et de la Nutrition
CERNA Centre Régional de Nutrition Appliquée
CFTS Centre de Formation Technique Mgr STEINMETZ
COBEMAG Coopérative Béninoise de Matériel Agricole
CORAF/WECARD West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and
Development
CTB Agence belge de développement
DAGRI Direction de l’Agriculture
DANA Direction de l’Alimentation et de la Nutrition Appliquee
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DEP Direction des Etudes et de la Planification
DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom
DPDR Déclaration de Politique de Développement Rural
DIFAOP Direction de l’Information et de la Formation Agricole des
Organisations de Producteurs
FAFA Facilité d’Appui aux Filières Agricoles
FAFA /AD Facilité d’Appui aux Filières Agricoles/ Atacora Donga
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FAOSTAT FAO Statistical Database
FSA Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques
6
GIZ/GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
ICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
INRAB Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin
IRRI International Rice Research Institute
JICA Coopération Japonaise au Développement
LPDR Lettre de Déclaration de Politique de Développement Rural
MAEP Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Elevage et de la Pêche
MDG Millenium Development Goals
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NRI Natural Resources Institute
NUFFIC
Deutch Organization for International Cooperation in Higher
Education
ONASA Office National d’Appui à la Sécurité Alimentaire
PACER Projet d’Appui à la Croissance Economique Rurale
PADSA Programme d’Appui au Développement du Secteur Agricole
PAGER Projet des Activités Génératrices de Revenus
PASDER
Programme d’Appui à l’amélioration de la productivité des
exploitations familiales des départements de l’Alibori et du
Borgou
PDSPR Projet Développement des Systèmes Post-récolte
PEDUNE Protection Ecologiquement Durable du Niébé
PH Post-harvest
PHL Post-harvest losses
PHM Postharvest management
PICS Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage
PRONAF Projet Niébé pour l’Afrique
PSAIA Projet de Sécurité Alimentaire par l’Intensification Agricole
7
PSRSA Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur Agricole
PTAA Programme Technologie Agricole et Alimentaire
PUASA Programme d’urgence d’appui à la sécurité alimentaire
SAM
SME
Projet de Sécurité Alimentaire des Ménages
Small and Medium Enterprises
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
SONOPRA La Société Nationale pour la Promotion Agricole
UAC Université d’Abomey-Calavi
UEMOA Union Economique Monétaire Ouest Africaine
WARDA Africa Rice Centre
WFP World Food Program
8
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview of agriculture, food security and PHL issues in Benin
Agriculture is an important source of income and food security for rural households in Benin.
It employs almost 70% of the working population, and contributes 80% to the country’s
export earnings and 15% to the public revenuei. Agriculture in Benin rests on extensive
production with low productivity and undeveloped markets. It includes approximately
450 000 agricultural producers and is characterized by small-scale farming. The average area
cultivated per household ranges from 0.5 ha on average in the south and 2 ha in the north.
Cotton is the main export crop. It provides about 60% of the country’s export revenues and
drives most public investments in the sectorii. Main food crops include maize, cassava, yam,
millet, sorghum, groundnuts and beans.
During the 1990s, the Government of Benin implemented a structural adjustment program
intended to dramatically reorganise most economic sectors. Reforms in the agricultural sector
focused on improving cotton and food marketing, input distribution, rural finance, and
agricultural services. These reforms were defined in 1991 in the Lettre de Déclaration de
Politique de Développement Rural (LPDR), which was revised in 1999 and became
Déclaration de Politique de Développement Rural (DPDR) or the Declaration of Rural
Development Policy, adopted in June 2000. Agricultural services were restructured as spelt
out in the ‘Programme de Restructuration des Services Agricoles’ (PRSA). Then the
Programme National de Sécurité Alimentaire (PNSA) (2008-2015), a seven year
comprehensive food security program, was implemented, with three sub-programs to increase
food availability and accessibility: (i) food production intensification; (ii) agricultural
diversification; and (iii) value-chain development (storage, conservation, processing, quality
development, and commercialization and trade facilitation). PHL issues were to be addressed
by the last of these sub-programs. Concurrently, the Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur
Agricole (PSRSA) or Strategic Plan for Boosting the Agricultural Sector (2009-2015), was
launched. It is an integrative strategic plan for implementing several on-going agricultural
policies, including actions to achieve MDG1 with particular emphasis on improving poor
people’s nutritional statusiii
.
9
Food security in the country has not been reliable. Between 1980 and 2000, the annual
growth rate of cereal yields and per capita production was about 2% to 2.5%, below
population growth which was 3%iv
. PHLs on cereals, especially maize, and pulses are
estimated between 15% and 30%, owing to precarious and archaic storagev. As a result, food
deficits are high in most areas of the country, averaging 28.3% of food production (maize,
yams, cassava, beans, and groundnuts)vi
. The country is net importer of cereals. From 2008 to
2010, rice imports were 80% of total cereal imports. Malnutrition remains a concern. The
proportion of children under 5 years affected by delayed growth increased from 31% during
the period 1996-2001, to 45% during the period 2007-2011. The proportion affected by
severe malnutrition increased from 8% to 16% during the same period5. Therefore, both
malnutrition rates and the country’s dependency on food imports should be urgently reduced
by increasing crop production and combating PHLs.
The problem of PHM is closely linked to the fight against hunger. Proper management of
agricultural produce after harvest is an economical and environmentally friendly way to
increase food availability in the context of a growing world populationvii
. Unfortunately, not
all stakeholders perceive this relation between hunger issues and PHL issues well enough. In
Benin, processing of agricultural products (especially food crops) is characterized by
rudimentary techniques and equipment, and poor access to energy and waterviii
. There is an
overall lack of efficient post-harvest management systemsix
. Many gaps and constraints
impede adequate design and implementation of PHM policy. The most important ones are
those responsible for non-adoption of PHM technologies and innovations.
1.2 Climatic risks faced by smallholder farmers
Agro-climatic zones in Benin include the semi-arid zone in the north, the sub-humid zone in
the centre and the humid zone in the south. Farming systems include root and tuber crops,
cereal-root crops mixed, and agro-pastoralx which respectively dominate in the centre, south
and north of the country. Considering that the country is located in a climatically uncertain
region with great rainfall variations and high temperatures that limit the availability of quality
food all year round, PHL issues should be addressed swiftly but also with a long-term
5 Sources: EDSB-II 2001, EDSB-III 2006, EDS-MICS-IV 2011-2012.
10
perspective. The institutional frameworks within which several such programs and projects
are implemented are described later in Section 3.
1.3 Post-harvest handling activities and risks faced by smallholder farmers
National agricultural policy is currently framed by the PSRSA (2010-2015). PHM-relevant
components are clearly mentioned in it, and related actions are well detailed. Yet these
actions need to be more focused to be more effective. In general, novel equipment to store
grains is non-existent. Many local as well as regional and international institutions recognize
that post-harvest systems in Benin are threatened by lack of innovation, from grain harvesting
to storage, processing and consumption systems. Most public food processing industries are
underequipped, and are therefore likely to close doors in the coming two decades owing to
the lack of efficient post-harvest management systems, which will contribute to increasing
post-harvest losses. The value-chains development sub-program of the PNSA is designed to
address PHL issues to avert that trend. In the PSRSA, related measures should be more
tightly focused and developed further.
1.4 Research objective
The current study aims to cast light on policy options to tackle key factors that limit
dissemination and adoption of technology among small scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa,
and knowledge and information sharing on post-harvest management among stakeholders.
The specific objectives of the study were:
1. to comprehensively review the post-harvest management policy context existing
in Benin;
2. to analyse gaps in the existing policy frameworks and indicate how they can be
closed to meet the needs/challenges smallholder farmers face;
3. to provide relevant recommendations for policy improvement;
4. to analyse factors that would contribute to the effective implementation of these
policies once they are in place; and
5. to develop policy recommendations (briefs) at national and regional levels.
The research questions were as follows:
11
1. What are the major crop production and PHLM policy gaps and key challenges to
implementing policies in the country?
2. What are the major gaps in institutional arrangement and what key institutional
arrangement can be recommended?
3. What opportunities remain untapped, and why? How could they be explored?
2. Research Methodology
2.1 Research design and philosophy
The research used a qualitative paradigm to gather, analyse and explain data about PHLM.
The research aimed to develop in-depth understanding of existing policies, programmes,
strategies, projects, challenges and opportunities for PHLM that could be tapped for
improvement. Sensitive and flexible tools were used to gather data. The research first
established and described the facts and phenomena of PHLM issues, then sought to explain
the trends.
2.2 Research Strategy
The researchers interviewed knowledgeable and experienced individuals from amongst the
key stakeholders in the country, to develop an understanding of themes and patterns.
Respondents were asked semi-structured questions, but were allowed to add any information
that they thought relevant. This phenomenological approach allowed reflections based on the
experiences of the selected experts in the field, from which we were able to generate many
ideas about the problem and recommendations for some innovative and other generic
solutions to the problems of PHLM in the country and SSA.
2.3 Target population and sampling
The target population were stakeholders in the PHLM and smallholder agricultural
production. A non-probability sampling method – purposive sampling - was used, because it
was convenient, economical, and flexible. Individuals who would provide the most valuable
information were selected from organisations sampled from databases which were obtained
from the Ministry of Agriculture. Knowledgeable individual participants were subsequently
nominated by their superiors in each organisation. The participants consisted of researchers,
decision- and policy-makers such as high-level policy department officials, PHM program
and projects leaders in state specialized organizations and non-governmental organisations
12
(NGOs), and leaders of farmers’ organizations. The questions relating to PHLM were
administered to 18 respondents representing different organisations in Benin (Table 1).
Table 1: Postharvest management stakeholders interviewed in Benin
Categories Respondent
number
Organization and position
Policy makers 1 MAEP/ DICAF/ Collaborateur du DICAF
2 MAEP/ DPP
3 DAGRI / Chef service protection des Végétaux
Implementation
agents
4 CARDER Atlantique/Chef Service Promotion des
filières Agricoles
5 CeRPA Parakou / Technicien en protection des
végétaux
6 CARDER Borgou/Chargé du conditionnement
7 ONASA / Chef service approvisionnement
8 GASPEL ONG/ Directeur exécutif
9 CARDER Zou/Technicien Spécialisé en
Production Végétale
10 HELVETAS / Coordonnatrice
11 ETD/ Responsable d’antenne
Project
beneficiaries
12 UCP Zogbodomey/ Coordonateur
13 SOCIA Bénin/ Directeur technique
14 Organisation des Producteurs à Parakou /
Président du bureau
Research 15 AFRICA RICE
16 INRAB : PAPA
17 PTAA
13
18 IITA/Chercheur en post récolte
2.4 The research instruments
2.4.1 Document analysis and literature review
Document analysis and review of the literature identified crucial information and policy gaps
and helped to align the research problems with existing empirical knowledge. This process
entailed a thorough review of relevant data and literature on policies, programs, strategies and
project documents related to PHLM and agricultural production, and thereby revealed various
opinions on the subject. The scope of document analysis and literature review covered the
whole of Sub-Saharan Africa.
2.4.2 In-depth Interviews
The interviews were conducted with key actors and informants who had adequate knowledge
in the field of PHM technology development, policy formulation or implementation in Benin
(Table 1). The interviews constituted the basic form of primary data collection. The questions
were aligned with the research problems as described above, and were designed to close
information gaps identified in the literature review. The last section of the interview guide
was left open-ended to allow respondents to make additional comments. Face-to-face
interviews provided a versatile way of collecting data where questions could be adapted to
the background, experience and expertise of the interviewee. Interviewers were able to clear
up vague answers and to request elaboration when responses were not complete. This yielded
quality responses to the research questions. The four interviewers - two professors and two
postgraduate students - were experienced and able to conduct the interviews in French, which
is understood by participants from all the organisations.
2.4.3 National dialogue
The findings from document reviews and output from the stakeholders’ interviews were
presented at the National Dialogue workshop, held in Cotonou on 19 and 20 February, 2014.
The workshop shared the results and validated the relevant information about past and current
policies and strategies related to PHM. It developed recommendations to deal with the
challenges and fill in the gaps which were identified. All the stakeholders from Benin
indicated in Table 1 were represented at the workshop. High ranking government officials
from the Ministry of Agriculture attended the workshop, such as the Permanent Secretary in
14
the Ministry of Agriculture. All participants were given the opportunity to air their views and
discuss the findings from the study.
2.5 Data analysis
Content analysis established themes, patterns and trends emerging from the data, using word
analysis, comparing and contrasting responses from different participants, intentional analysis
and physical manipulation of texts. The existing information from various project reports and
research papers was consulted and used to cross-check and validate field notes. The
secondary data was tabulated. Repeated questions to validate the information obtained
triangulated the data. The in-depth interviews with key informants also enabled content
validity. A literature study of documented information from reliable sources in the country
further validated the data. Data collection and analysis were done concurrently, for example
when changing the questions during the interviews of highly knowledgeable people, to enable
a mutual interaction between what was known and what the researcher needed to know, to
ensure that reliable data was collected. Ultimately, findings from the field studies in Benin
were validated during the national dialogue workshop as described above.
2.6 Limitations of the Study
For logistical reasons the interviews were not conducted in all regions of the country.
However, the national dialogue was conducted where most relevant stakeholders are based so
that they could be represented. The major challenge experienced during data collection was
the lack of statistics on PHLs and limited literature on PHM in the country.
2.7 Ethical Clearance
The researchers approached the stakeholder organisations with references from FANRPAN
and their home institutions in Benin. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study
and they participated voluntarily.
3. Findings from the study
3.1 Gaps in Research Programs
Many research programs have been implemented in Benin in response to post-harvest losses,
but most have been limited to storage. Studies related to other steps of the value chain are few
and neglected. Adegbola et al (2012)xi
reported post-harvest losses of maize and cowpea.
15
Most of the research focused on grain storage, using traditional structures such as granaries
made of different materials (wood or clay) or house roof, polyethylene bags, and barrels.
Improved storage structures (improved wooden granaries, cribs) were proposed in earlier
interventions. It was established that a common problem related to PHL in cereals in many
countries appeared to be the lack of adequate or suitable drying facilities. Adequate grain
drying was emphasized as a key PHL issue because wet grains allow growth of moulds and
production of aflatoxins. No clear research exists for evaluating PHL of cereals and pulses in
Benin and other West African countries. The new African Postharvest Losses Information
System (APHLIS) project should be extended to 17 countries in Western and Central Africa.
The literature indicates that there are existing technologies for reducing post-harvest loss at
the local farmers’ level. The gaps are at the level of financing, technical assistance and
economic incentives for adoption of such technologies. The problems concern the lack of
adequate warehouses to meet farmers’ needs for intensive production, the absence of
adequate insecticides, and lack of training on good practices and acceptable farmers’
behaviours for post-harvest systems.
Many technologies were identified to reduce pests and moulds, such as the use of natural or
chemical insecticides and the reduction of grain moisture before storage. For smallholders’
needs, traditional granaries were improved to include cribs, silos or warehouses, reducing
financial costs. Unfortunately, those innovations have not been widely disseminated
throughout the whole country. In some other situations where extension systems were
functioning well, technologies did not respond to local farmers’ core problems, or they did
not use them for economic reasons. In the case of chemical-based technologies, the main
problem is their non-availability. Even though those technologies such as sofa grain and
spintor have very high adoption, their adoption did not last. An example concerns improved
maize storage technologies (improved granaries + use of sofa grain). After their adoption,
they were abandoned because of the high financial cost involved in the construction and the
non-availability of sofa grainix
. In other cases abandonment was rooted in lack of knowledge
on how to build improved granaries as well as the unaffordable price of insecticides.ix
Our
survey revealed the unavailability of sofa grain in most of selling centres and the use of
inappropriate insecticides for storing crops, particularly dangerous cotton insecticides. This
results in recurrent intoxication problems in the north of Benin. The insecticide mostly used
by producers and wholesalers is phostocin, which they introduce in crop storage although it
16
should be used as fumigant. This method does not require long term storage of stocks and
only destroys pests present directly after harvest. Consumers pay the price for damage that
occurs subsequently during storage.
Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) bags, especially designed for cowpea storage, can
also be used for maize storage in some villages. These are very safe because they do not need
any insecticides. Unfortunately, this technology has not been disseminated well, and the
unavailability of the bag led producers to use plastic drums. The lack of proper storage
facilities is a serious constraint to PHLs’ reduction. Small producers could not afford storage
equipment due to their limited financial capacity and lack of access to credit.
Finally, the poor state of some rural roads limits access to markets and to large collection
centres, which is a disincentive to use improved technologies.
3.2 Gaps in national policy framework
3.2.1 Research-policy gap
There is a wealth of research findings on post-harvest management in Benin, but the most
promising technologies are not known to decision-makers. Researchers are not inclined to
write policy briefs or engage in advocacy to foster policy, although many seminars are
organized to inform policy-makers on the work being done. Unfortunately, monitoring is
poor owing to weak collaboration between high-level research and extension high-level
leaders, and top decision-makers. This stems from a phenomenon that one might call
territorialism about recognition. During interviews, participants raised concerns regarding
poor collaboration and their feelings on the subject may be summarized as follows: ‘Who will
patronize or bear the authorship of an initiative, and thereby receive the fruits in terms of
intellectual recognition or project leadership?’ The policy-makers do not want to listen to
national researchers, but prefer to import knowledge and technologies from abroad. This is
due either to the ‘white man’s knowledge’ syndrome or the myth that ‘foreign is always
better’, and sometimes to the hidden agenda of overestimating project costs.
The main research-policy gap, as revealed by interviews with PHM researchers and policy-
makers, is the non-integration of research findings into agricultural policy development. The
link between researchers, decision-makers and beneficiaries is very weak or non-existent.
There is a total disconnection between technology development and adoption. INRAB is the
state organization responsible for providing policy makers and extension services with
17
research findings, but it does not connect with them. Consequently technology adoption by
farmers is low. Integration of research findings into policy design is low owing to the lack of
appropriate information among decision-makers and decision-making institutional
bottlenecks.
3.2.2 Efficiency gap
The most recurrent causes of low performance are slow and cumbersome procedures for
procurement and the cost of technical study in the context of insufficient finances.
Performance data is available for the projects in Table 2.
Table 2: Performance of PHM-related agricultural projects
Programs/Projects Performance level
Programme d’Appui au Développement
du Secteur Agricole PADSA phase II
Good performance: physical realization rate of
72% and100% against financial implementation
rate of 5% to 96%
Projet d’appuis au développement rural
PADER
Average performance: physical realization rate of
60% and 69% against financial implementation
rate of 5% to 65%
Projet de Sécurité Alimentaire par
l’Intensification Agricole PSAIA
Low performance: physical realization rate <60%
against financial implementation rate of 1-100%
Source: DPP, 2012. Performance des structures, programme/ projet du MAEP pour l’année
2011. 30p.)
3.2.3 Institutional bottlenecks
A critical and persistent aspect of the food security problem in Benin until recently was the
non-existence of a national platform to address food and nutrition issues in an integrated
manner. Addressing nutrition issues should be the starting point of designing food production
technologies. Here, one should distinguish crop and animal production technologies from
post-harvest technologies, though they address complementary needs. Such attention has
been missing so far, and several state organizations in charge of post-harvest issues have been
dispersed in non-relevant ministries. Food security projects have been designed with too
much focus on crop and animal production handled by the Ministry of Agriculture. The
18
national institute in charge of food and nutrition, DANA, was placed under its supervision,
pushing down the Ministry of Health’s claim. Points of professional inter-linkages were lost
on that occasion, and thus several essential questions relating to PHL were ignored.
Furthermore, attribution of projects to implementing organisations has been guided by a
strategy of siphoning donor funds rather than the sake for effectiveness and valuable impacts
on beneficiaries. Steering committees of projects are usually heavy, with a plethoric inter-
ministerial configuration but with little monitoring strategy, and therefore little efficacy.
3.2.4 Integration of research findings in policies
Many research programs have been implemented and have produced important results for
PHL reduction in Benin. The PHL reduction objectives were prioritized in any country’s
poverty reduction strategies and other relevant sub-sectors’ strategiesxii
, but the inclusion of
specific PHL reduction activities in these strategies was often missing. Post-harvest policy is
weak. The government does not prioritize post-harvest research and does not focus on
dissemination and financing activities related to this area. This is mainly owing to the fact
that statistics in national agricultural production and agronomic research are unclear, and
conflicting with the reality. No authority is judging the statistics based on the daily
experience of people or formulating recommendations to strengthen the post-harvest system
so that it responds better to the reality on the ground. Research findings did not get the
required attention, and the overall extension system is not disseminating post-harvest research
results as intensively as in the past. There is no effort to reverse the trend.
Policies must address these gaps and weaknesses to increase the adoption rate of PHL-
reducing technologies. Improvements can be achieved by striving to reduce dependency on
foreign aid and sensitising policy-makers to the most promising technologies for smallholder
farmers, with development of local industries and dedicated government support. Extension
programs should properly address the financing of these technologies. Subsidizing some
technologies or promoting local entrepreneurs should be explored. More improvements can
be achieved by increasing the importance of PHL on the agendas of agricultural research and
extension services, supporting demonstration of technologies through lead farmers, farmer
field schools, and in other venues, and supporting producer groups with matching grants to
procure technologiesxiii
.
19
3.3 Key constraints for implementation of PHM policies
3.3.1 Constraints to research results’ uptake for policy formulation and implementation
Policy formulation is increasingly excluding direct users (local farmers) and those who are in
direct contact with them (researchers), due to the lack of funding in developing countries.
Research programs are disconnected from the realities because they are rooted in a top-down
stimulation system controlled by international financial systems. The complex and fruitful
system integrating local farmers, researchers and development policy makers that had
existed, and which boosted agricultural production in Benin, has disappeared due to
inefficient management and corruption. The incorrect use of intellectual and technical
competencies in policies, and most importantly in agricultural development, has significantly
weakened the post-harvest sub-system in Benin and West Africa as a whole.
3.3.2 Bottlenecks to successful PHM policy implementation and tentative solutions
Constraints to effective PHM policy formulation and implementation in Benin may be
grouped into three main categories: technical, policy and institutional, and socioeconomic
constraints.
3.3.2.1 Technical constraints
The processing of agricultural products is characterized by rudimentary techniques,
equipment, and poor access to energy and water (PSRSA, p.24). There is an overall lack of
efficient PHM systems.ix
The poor state of equipment in existing food industries is owing to
factors such as low research uptake, caused by lack of innovations (from grain harvesting to
storage, processing and consumption systems); lack of adaptation of post-harvest equipment
to the specific climate conditions of each agro-ecological zone, and especially to the
differential effects of climate change in each zone; the drawbacks of chemical treatment of
grains in stores and warehouses, and low adoption of biological methods for addressing post-
harvest losses; and resource waste in existing grain value chains, that is the presence of
unnecessary intermediaries because of the lack of integrated transport and handling systems.
Further constraints include lack of training about innovations and lack of hermetic
infrastructure for using fumigants to store grains.
20
3.3.2.2 Policy/institutional bottlenecks
Although agriculture is the basis of Benin’s economy, its share of public investment has
decreased sharply from 35% in 1990 to 21% in 1998 and from 11% in 2000 to 8% in 2006
iii,
ii. Unfortunately much of the public expenditure in the agriculture sector is in salaries and to
irrelevant infrastructure. Investment in agro-industries has been weak or quite absent. The
breakdown of public investment in the agricultural sector means that little attention has been
paid specifically to value-chain development, which includes PHM infrastructure.
The weaknesses of ONASA, in properly addressing PHM issues, are due to lack of quality
monitoring, especially for rice; the absence of its own logistical system (for transportation for
example) and lack of warehouses. The grains which were collected by ONASA were wrongly
transferred to surplus zones, with little attention to storage technical norms.
Difficulties faced by specialized R&D organizations dealing with PHM issues (INRAB and
PTAA) can be attributed to lack of cooperation between researchers, decision makers and
beneficiaries; poor linkage between research and extension; and the length of the process for
concluding feasibility studies on technologies to be promoted. Additionally, policy-makers do
not get reliable information on the most promising technologies, as a result of the poor
cooperation from researchers.
3.3.2.3 Socio-economic constraints
Smallholder farmers are constrained by the high cost of some technologies and lack of access
to credit. Additionally, they do not get adequate information on technologies and their cost.
They get limited opportunities to see and assess the technology. This is compounded by
cultural complexes such as the fear that they would face their neighbours’ jealousy if they
expose their harvests of grains to the public by storing them in improved or modern stores or
warehouses outside their house. Many farmers would like to avoid such wealth exposure.
Such hidden cultural constraints compromise efficacy of PHM policy and impacts.
3.3.3 Requirements for improving PHM policy formulation and implementation
The solutions for orienting policy actions may be grouped into technical and
policy/institutional innovations.
21
3.3.3.1 Technical solutions
The following technologies promise high impact for smallholder farmers: Purdue Improved
Cowpea Storage (PICS) bag with economic value e 96.6 %xiv
; improved storage-hut
(SPVCP/DAGRI, 1989/90), which has been successfully implemented in many countries and
is efficient for maize storage and conservation; the bamboo improved storage hut for maize
storagexv
which is a circular storage-hut, shorter than 3m and lasting about eight years, and
very efficient in maize storage; and chemical pesticides such as Actellic CE, Sofa grain, and
K-Othrine CE for large-scale maize storage. Technologies promising high impacts for large-
scale farmers include the use of locally-made maize threshers and improved storage huts. The
local thresher has a capacity of more than 2 tons an hour and a broken grain rate of 0.9%. The
Banco-wall improved storage-hut for maize storage is strong, long-lasting and comes with a
user-guide for construction and use.
Sustainable technical solutions identified by the study include measures to: promote
construction of in-house granaries or warehouses for smallholders; control weevils;
strengthen the technical assistance of state extension agents to producers; enhance PHM
research funding with NGOs contribution; provide farmers with financial and technical
support; and provide farmers with production credit and grain price support mechanisms
during harvest periods. The following technical solutions seemed to have been beneficial in
the past: the Biological Control Program of 2012; testing storage structures to measure the
levels of aflatoxin infestations of food stuffs; conservation of cowpea in jute bags; research
on hermetic storage structures, especially triple bagging; management of the larger maize
borer; and innovation of new technologies for dry areas. Improvement of grain drying
management, for example by installing slightly improved drying equipment – cribs - was
emphasized. The potential solutions for large-scale farmers were implemented with limited
success, due to lack of know-how and poor organization. These included construction of
metal grain silos by the National Committee (NCC) in 1979 and construction of a corn mill in
1981.
The technical areas of grain protection, individual farm storage, grain-drying and market
information should be prioritized when considering interventions. The interventions should
be along the value chain. It is critical to develop and strengthen producer groups. The value
chain actors (producers, traders and processors) should be trained. Service providers are
associate members, who should prepare, disseminate, and promote exchange of information
22
on matters affecting the regional grain management system. In this regard, the marketing
chain would reward quality improvements by offering price incentives to farmers and others
on the value chain.
3.3.3.2 Policy/institutional innovations
Food security has received a growing share of public expenditure in the agricultural sector,
from 1.9% between 1992 and 1995, to 12.2% from 1992 to 1998xvi
. Although the PSRSA
gives less attention to PHM, there are plans to increase public expenditure in crop production
to CFA747 billion in the period 2013 to 2015, from CFA422 billion during the period 2009-
2012 - about 25% more in each year.
The interviews with stakeholders revealed some institutional innovations which occurred
about 10 years ago, but impacts on beneficiaries were not obvious for some of these
interventions, and they are yet to be demonstrated for the new ones. The general policy
decisions include: the declaration of rural development policy for agricultural liberalization
(1998), the Agricultural Sector Recovery Plan, the Strategy for Growth and Poverty
Reduction (2007-2009), and the strategic plan to boost agricultural policy, finalized in 2011
and being implemented currently. Specific PHM actions include: production and collection
by SONAPRA, the state company to develop agriculture, and ONASA, to better face the
2007/08 oil and food crisis; production and processing of rice and soybeans and other
agricultural products in key villages; warranting crop credit system for maize, rice and soya
which enables the sale of quality grains through secured and integrated value chains; a mutual
fund; a Strategy for Promoting Value Chains; and bundling or group-selling, to meet the
same need of grain quality conservation.
Gender and diversity-sensitive approaches should be used in all planning, selection,
implementation, communication, and up-scaling of PHL reduction interventions. Women are
already major users of credit schemes in Niger and Madagascar and there is evidence of a
positive effect from the POSTCOSECHA, a program disseminating silo technology in
Honduras and Central America, in engaging women in PHL reduction (FAO/World Bank,
2010).
23
3.4 PHM Policy Framework in Benin - effectiveness and equity
3.4.1 Policies
After the LPDR (1991) and the DPDR (2000), the national agricultural policy framework
(PSRSA, 2010-2015) has set quite a clear PHM agenda to address post-harvest losses in
Benin. However, it needs to move from lip service to a more result-oriented implementation.
The following are relevant PHM components6 and suggestions for more focused
interventions with greater results for beneficiaries:
a) Quality seeds must be available and accessible to farmers: it should be noted that pre-
harvest influences post-harvest management. Therefore, attention should be paid to the
selection of climate-smart crop varieties that are appropriate for local conditions and that
take into account harvest storage needs – it must be time saving, money saving, quality
preservation. The production and trade of non-authorized, fragile varieties which are not
resistant to storage insects should be limited or not allowed at all. Seed quality control
should pay due attention to this and other PHM requirements.
b) Improved chemical inputs must be available: here again, pre-harvest influences post-
harvest management. The present regulation of chemicals in Benin is biased toward a
shadow private monopoly. This should be corrected to ensure that specific grain storage
chemicals become available, thereby avoiding massive deaths caused by the use of
inappropriate products by illiterate and untrained farmers and other rural users. Fair and
health-sensitive trade of agro-chemicals should be promoted, especially regarding the
particular need to control weevils.
c) Adapted mechanization must become accessible: there is a need to list the most promising
PHM technologies that are available, to improve research on their adaptation to local
conditions, and to increase government spending on their dissemination among
smallholder farmers. The fiscal provisions inciting the procurement of agricultural
equipment should give a greater attention to PHM technologies for smallholder farmers,
especially food processors. Tax exemption for such equipment would contribute to their
greater adoption.
d) Funding must be accessible to farmers and agricultural entrepreneurs: a clear budget line
should be devoted to PHM-supporting credit in the framework for the creation of the
6 The detailed actions envisaged in the PSRSA document are not listed here.
24
national fund for agricultural development (FNDA), aiming to stimulate innovation and
increase smallholders’ and entrepreneurs’ access to PHM-equipment.
e) Access to professional knowledge and innovation must be increased: All the actions
already envisaged are relevant. Nonetheless, there is need to emphasize the selection and
diffusion of appropriate food storage and conservation techniques with regard to the risks
of climate change.
f) Markets must be accessible: Here again, all the actions envisaged are relevant. However,
food security monitoring requires a permanent post-harvest evaluation system in order to
update information on PHLs and to guide region-specific PHM interventions, especially
in addressing traders’ needs.
g) Professionalization must be promoted among smallholder farmers and agricultural
entrepreneurs: The training envisaged should emphasise the link between PHM and food
quality along food value chains.
3.4.2 Projects and programs
The postharvest projects which were implemented during the last 30 years in Sub-Saharan
Africa are listed and described in Annex 1. The projects were conducted in West, East and
Southern African countries. The countries where projects were implemented include, from
west Africa, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Mali and Sierra Leone; from east Africa, Kenya,
Sudan and Uganda; and from southern Africa, Angola, Malawi and Zimbabwe. The scope of
projects ranges from storage technologies such as warehouse receipts, to improved design of
indigenous stores, mud and metal silos, plastic stores, Purdue Cowpea bags, and harvest
handling. The control strategies covered included control of the larger grain borer,
conservation treatment and biological control. The aflatoxin strategies were also pursued.
Finally, projects which focused on institutional arrangements such as market services,
procurement methods and inventory credit for smallholder farmers, were implemented in
SSA.
The programmes and projects which were implemented in Benin are indicated in Annex 2.
The PHM research and development initiatives aimed to improve the storage conditions for
cereal grains, essentially maize. The development of equipment for harvesting and storage
was emphasised to reduce post-harvest losses. Old programs covered various periods between
1960 and 2012. Many of them have already ended, especially for maize and cowpea. In the
cases of rice, fonio (Digitaria exilis) and sorghum, very little has been done. On-going
25
projects will end in 2016 (See Annex 2). Overall, the PHM projects implemented so far in
Benin dealt with:
a) Identification and dissemination of different storage technologies (silo, warehouse and
bag) and conservation (biological control, traditional and chemical insecticides);
b) Time-saving equipment in post-harvest activities (thresher and sheller);
c) Enhancement of grain processing; and
d) Grain quality control and promotion of the warranting system.
Most of these projects addressed storage techniques and grain storage. Very few dealt with
food processing, which is, however, an integral and important part of post-harvest grain
management. Quality control is being handled by the Beninese Agency for Food Health
Security (ABSSA), while the program for agricultural and food technology (PTAA) ensures
that food technology design considers food biosecurity as a key concern for food processing,
together with the tastes and preferences of consumers. Marketing is a step in PMH which has
been investigated extensively in academic research in Beninxvii
, but recommendations have
not been implemented widely enough in the field. Only two projects (WSM/FBS, PUASA)
were identified on this important aspect. However, some initiatives were developed by
famers’ organizations (FOs) supported by VECO-WA (an international NGO from Belgium)
in the villages of Chetti and Kpataba. FOs were able to comply with foreign market
requirements and they exported rice to Europe. Likewise, FOs in Zogbodomey developed the
warranting system for maize and soya beansxviii
.
Therefore, both processing and marketing need to be included in post-harvest studies and
integrated into best practices in order to significantly reduce grain losses in Benin and West
Africa. Actors involved in the post-harvest systems, from marketing up to consumption,
should be purposefully trained on best practices of food conservation and processing. In this
perspective, proper implementation of the PHM-related sub-program of PNSA and of the
PSRSA, as indicated above, should be given the dedicated attention.
3.4.3 Effectiveness of policies, programs and projects
The main lesson from this review is that a substantial knowledge capitalisation has been done
during the last three decades on ways to address PHLs of grains, but low adoption of PHM
technologies stems largely from the lack of long-term replication of donor-funded initiatives
by African governments themselves. The reason is not only the lack of funds or non-
26
adaptation of some technologies to local conditions, but mostly the lack of political will to
alleviate donor dependancy. Other reasons for low adoption rates of PHM technologies and
innovations are two-fold:
First, proposed technologies do not respond well to smallholders’ needs, with high cost, low
relevance and non-availability of those technologies. Indeed, quite few technologies
adequately address food processing where food losses mostly occur. Village milling accounts
for 20% to 30% of weight losses during traditional post-harvest operations, while commercial
milling accounts for 5% to 30% of weight losses in mechanized post-harvest operationsxix
. In
Benin, women’s constraints in this respect are often overlooked, and consumers’ tastes and
preferences, rooted in cultures and food habits, are largely ignored by the said ‘improved
technologies’. Most of the latter are not within the reach of the majority of farmers, due to
high costs of procurement and low adaptability to household grain storage and processing
traditions. The lack of purposeful farmers’ training is an overarching limitation to bridging
the gap between these traditions and the requirements for profitability of use which might
trigger adoption and long-term use of technologies by smallholder farmers.
Second, low PHM-research uptake in agricultural policies due to low dissemination of
available technologies among farmers, low demand from decision-makers of PHM
knowledge and products, and a long absence of an exchange platform on food and nutrition
issues in Benin.
Technology dissemination is often absent from the annual budgets of research institutions,
reflecting a lack of a user-oriented, practical perspective in research policies. Interaction
between researchers, senior extension agents and media is quite poor and renowned scientists
and innovators are rarely recognized and celebrated. The frustration of many high-standing
researchers over decades has killed the motivation for designing a research agenda that is
really responsive to the country’s needs for useful technologies and innovations. Regarding
the low PHM knowledge demand at policy-making level, it appears that rushed design and
implementation of projects by the MAEP, in their haste to capture spot donor funds, may be
the cause. Competencies available in other ministries dealing with food issues are rarely
invited into these processes. Although some feasibility studies have been ordered for large-
scale interventions, findings are sometimes overlooked for the sake of getting hold of donor
funds on time.
27
The lack of a holistic approach on food and nutrition issues has led to scattered, poorly
coordinated and foreign aid-dependent PHM interventions and low impact policies, until the
National Council for Food and Nutrition (CAN) was created in 2012 to address this problem.
Today, a useful contribution to this effort would be to identify the PHM technologies that are
worth policy interventions for widespread adoption among smallholders and small and
medium scale food enterprises.
During the national forum of dialogue on PHM, the General Secretary of the Ministry of
Agriculture drew participants’ attention to three prerequisites for the success of PHM policy
and interventions in Benin:
a) To increase adoption of technologies, high cost should be understood as a relative
concept. Technologies will not be seen as expensive if they are profitable for farmers.
Agricultural extension should promote only the promising technologies - inputs and
equipment - and in this respect, Government should develop cost-effective
partnerships with private sector and NGOs.
b) Farmers should be prepared to share the costs of agricultural extension, as they are the
primary beneficiaries of farm outputs. They should express their needs to research and
extension institutions and advocate for their interests with policy-makers. For
example, agricultural subsidies will have to be negotiated by farmers’ organizations
on a case-by-case basis, only one crop at a time, bearing in mind that farming is a
commercial/business activity from which government expects tax revenues.
c) Training on value-chain management and market development will be key to
efficiently address PHM concerns in Benin. These aspects are developed in some
depth in the PSRSA. However, farmers’ organizations should take the lead in
expressing training demands, if the government is to move from lip service to
implementation.
3.5 Key Institutional Frameworks
The National Institute for Agricultural Research in Benin (INRAB) is the state organization,
which is responsible for providing policy makers and extension services with research
findings. Its farmers’ field experimentation branch is the Directorate for Agriculture
(DAGRI). INRAB and DAGRI are part of the National Agricultural Research System
(NARS), which also includes agricultural education centres, universities and research-
28
oriented NGOs. The NARS is supported by many donors and international and regional
research and development organizations, such as IITA and AfricaRice. The Ministry of
Agriculture (MAEP) has a directorate in charge of agricultural training and extension
(DICAF), which is linked to relevant divisions (DIFAOP) in regional centres for rural
development (CARDERs), which are mandated by MAEP to implement extension programs
in the field and to monitor agricultural production for appropriate policy planning. Recently,
MAEP launched the national program for agricultural diversification (ProCAD) to move the
country from cotton mono-cropping and to tap the full potentials of its agricultural zones. It
implements the PPAAO (West African Agricultural Productivity Project) and the PADA
(Project for Support to Agricultural Diversification). Regarding PHM specifically, INRAB
has launched the agricultural and food processing program (PTAA), which is designed to
manage PHL-related research and extension programs. It works in collaboration with the
Program for Agricultural Policy Planning and Analysis (PAPA), to learn from policy
assessments and tap prospective policy agendas.
What is needed to increase uptake of research findings into policies includes: (i) turning
PTAA into a permanent directorate which would handle PHLM issues by building up the
relevant database and ensuring the required information and advisory services; (ii) the design
and downward structuration of national innovation platforms, which would handle
technology appropriateness, endogenous knowledge stock-taking and feeding farmers’ needs
to policy-makers.
3.6 National PHM Research
Adegbola et al.xx
reported that post-harvest losses of maize and cowpea occur along the value
chain. However, most studies assessed post-harvest losses during storage. Studies related to
other steps of the value chain are few or neglected. No clear research exists for evaluating
PHL of cereal and pulses. This situation is similar for other West African countries. Thus, it
is desirable that APHLIS’ experience is extended to West Africa. The new APHLIS project
intends to extend the system to 17 countries in Western and Central Africa. In Benin,
although stakeholders claim that technologies exist, their categorisation and adaption to
climatic conditions, farmers’ income level and consumers’ food preferences remain a
problem. The most relevant problems raised by farmers include the lack of adequate
warehouses to meet their needs for intensive production, the absence of adequate insecticides,
the lack of training on good practices and of overall incentives (support for crop
29
diversification, credit and price/tax waiving or reduction) to encourage the adoption and
maintenance of profitable post-harvest systems.
Definitely, post-harvest policy in Benin is weak in integrating research findings. The overall
extension system in Benin is not disseminating post-harvest research results today as
intensively as in the past. Inclusion of research findings in policies is low due to the lack of
appropriate information among decision-makers, decision-making institutional bottlenecks
and lack of appropriate financing. Amidst low public investment in the agricultural sector
over the last 20 years, little attention has been paid specifically to value-chain development
(which includes PHM weaknesses). Specialized R&D organizations dealing with PHM issues
face various difficulties. Financing of PHLM research activities and findings dissemination
remains a great challenge. Technical assistance and economic incentives for smallholder
farmers are also missing. Incorporation of research findings in policies is also constrained by
the lack of reliable statistics on PHL at the local level which can convince policy-makers of
the need for change. The national agricultural policy framework (PSRSA) has obvious PHM-
components today, and this is an opportunity researchers should tap. The creation of the
national council for food and nutrition (CAN) in 2012 also offers an appropriate space for
improved uptake of research findings.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 PHLM policy gaps and key implementation challenges
Awareness-raising on post-harvest management (PHM) in Benin has gained the support of
several donors over the last three decades, but there have been no tangible, large-scale and
cost-effective actions, on account of many policy and institutional gaps. Indeed, public
support for reducing PHL has been so far concentrated on research and the early stages of
PHM; food processing, marketing and related gender issues have not been properly
addressed.
Implementation of PHLM in Benin is challenged by the lack of:
a) a mutually shared policy framework that addresses low-response of technologies
to farmers’ demand,
b) internal resource mobilization to effect sustainable PHM interventions, and
30
c) an effective commitment by Government to address PHM from the smallholder
farmer’s perspective.
4.2 Gaps in institutional arrangements and key recommendations
1) The main institutional gaps are two-fold. First, PHLM has been so far understood only as
a research activity, only weakly linked to agricultural extension, and most interventions
have been state-led and donor-funded with little effect on smallholders’ well-being.
Second, none of the interventions has relied on endogenous or rural innovation groups
(including women’s groups) and the private sector, and therefore fail to take into account
consumers’ demand for quality foods in designing effective PHLM. Research should
provide solutions for important unanswered questions, rather than concentrating on
donor-selected and foreign value-chains’ issues, which will not improve smallholder
farmers’ income and food security.
2) The institutional design of PHM interventions should be ‘liberalized’ and demand-driven,
by relying on core rural innovations groups and platforms where farmers’ groups, NGOs
and private sector jointly lead the design, funding, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation of PHM interventions. Research institutions should come in only to fine-tune
what is likely to work according to users’ perceptions, and extension should move from
the unidirectional teaching approach to capitalize on and improve the local knowledge
resource base.
3) The national agricultural policy framework (PSRSA) highlights relevant PHM
components and the National Council for Food and Nutrition (CAN) was created in 2012
implement a more holistic approach to sustainable food security. One of the main
challenges facing the CAN regarding PHL issues is setting up rural innovation groups and
platforms by region – thus taking into account the site-specificity of PHL - and linking
them with government extension and research services/institutions to establish a
sustainable institutional framework for PHM interventions which are effective for
smallholders.
4.3 Opportunities which remain untapped
Untapped opportunities include:
31
1) The current upgraded knowledge base of farmers’ groups, NGOs and private sector
after more than 40 years of technical and financial support of international research
organizations and donors. An analytical inventory must be made of the technologies
which many stakeholders claim already exist, and of whom they benefit.
2) The on-going promotion of decentralization by Government, whereby rural
innovation groups should take the lead in conducting agricultural development under
the framework of the communities’ development plans (plans de développement
communaux, PDCs). Relevant PHM approaches may have been already indicated in
some PDCs. The support of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development should
be explored.
3) The new impetus for strengthening the country’s food security base, as emphasized by
the establishment of the National Council for Food and Nutrition (CAN). A national
forum on PHLM and a national fair of PHLM technologies and knowledge should be
organized as soon as possible, under the leadership of CAN. These would be the first
steps in exploring how these opportunities could be tapped.
4.4 Recommendations for innovative institutional arrangements
1) A permanent post-harvest evaluation system is urgently needed to update information on
PHLs and guide region-specific PHM interventions, especially in addressing traders’
needs and perspectives of farmers’ on export value-chains.
2) An inventory of promising technologies evaluated by category of farmer is needed, as
well as a dedicated extension system to accelerate adoption. This may be an opportunity
to celebrate the work done so far by PHM champions, especially through rural
innovations platforms.
3) Beneficiaries of PHM technologies must be differentially targeted, making a distinction
between the needs of smallholder households, and those of medium-scale and large-scale
farmers and traders. Accessibility constraints, income constraints and food quality
requirements (especially for women) are not the same for all these groups of users of
PHM technologies.
4) PHM concerns in farming and agri-business plans have to be mainstreamed, taking into
account consumers’ demand for quality of grains and pulses.
32
5) Dependency on donors must be reduced in the implementation of agricultural programs,
with effective funding of the value-chain sub-program of the PSRSA through internal
resource mobilization, following similar campaigns that have been successful for
equipping hospitals and universities.
6) Policy making must be focused on implementation and results. Particular attention must
be paid to adequate training of farmers to instil business behaviour and entrepreneurship;
to strengthen government commitment to applied PHM research and specialized PHM
extension services through adequate budget allocation; and to creation of a credit line in
the national fund for agricultural development (FNDA) to support PHM enterprises and
food value-chain development.
33
Annexes
Annex 1: Some PHM Projects implemented in Africa during the last three decades
Project, implementation period
and countries
Project Description
Infrastructure and hard facilities projects
1 Warehouse receipts in Zambia,
Uganda (April 2006 - March 2009)
and Kenya (launched April 2008)
Supporting the development of a national
network of warehouses. The objective was to
create effective warehouse receipts based on a
network of licensed commercial warehouses.
This was promoted by the Financial Sector
Deepening Trust, the USAID, Kenya Maize
Development Program (KMDP) and the
Regional Agricultural Trade Expansion Support
(RATES).
2 Post-harvest handling and storage
project (PHHS), Uganda
(1996 – 2001)
The objective was to disseminate improved
drying, threshing, cleaning and storage
technologies in the major grain-producing areas
of Uganda. This was conducted by the Food and
Feed Grain Institute (FFGI) of Kansas State
University (KSU), USA.
3 Improved design of indigenous
stores, including minimizing the use
of hardwood resources, Zimbabwe
(1996 – 1999)
Supporting the design of farm shops. This
project aimed to lead to a total elimination of
rodents and termites.
34
Project, implementation period
and countries
Project Description
4 Mud silos in northern Ghana and
PostCosecha-type metal silo in
selected African countries (Kenya,
Malawi) (launched 2008)7
Promoting the use of mud silos in Ghana. The
FAO led a program for the promotion of metal
silos designed for Africa (SDC). This was also
promoted and pursued by an initiative involving
CIMMYT and the NGOs World Vision and the
Catholic Relief Services (CRS).
5 Commodity storage and loss
reduction project (Grainpro cocoons)
in Angola, Mozambique, Sierra
Leone, Sudan (around 2008).
Supporting use of plastic stores. The project
promoted the use of plastic water tanks as grain
warehouses. The objective was to reduce the
stress related to convenience food aid, seeds and
PHLs.
6 Improvement of post-harvest
technologies for fonio (1999-2004),
Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali,
implemented by CIRAD in response
to producers’ requests and supervised
by the FAO and funded by the CFC.
Supporting improvement of post-harvest
technologies. The objectives were to develop
appropriate processing techniques to meet the
needs of end-users; improve understanding of
consumer needs and development of marketing
chains; and create awareness of fonio post-
harvest operations. It also included support of
local manufacturing processing machines for
fonio.
7 Larger grain borer control in East and
West Africa (1982 - 2000)
Supporting the fight against the larger grain
borer in maize.
8 Diatomaceous earth (1998-2005) The project was undertaken under the program
post-harvest crop (DFID, UK). It promoted use
of diatomaceous earth for grain treatment.
7 Streit (2013)
35
Project, implementation period
and countries
Project Description
9 Improved cowpea storage (triple
bagging) (around 2008)
Supported biologic pest control. This was
funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
10 Food security project in West Africa
- Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage
(PICS) (around 2008)
Implemented by World Vision and Purdue
University with the assistance of national
agricultural research institutes.
11 Optimizing the indigenous use of
pesticide-action plants in Ghana
(January 1996– March 2002)
The project was undertaken within the Crop
Post-harvest Program (DFID, UK)
Control of natural/biologic deterioration of grains or quality loss
12 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, in Kenya and Mali 2008-
present
Estimate the economic consequences of
aflatoxin contamination. The objectives were to
create a database on the prevalence of aflatoxin
contamination; Analyse the risks to determine
cost effective control strategies for risk
reduction; Drawing the value chain of maize and
groundnuts and to investigate the knowledge and
attitudes of actors.
Value chain and information services projects
13 Inventory credit in Ghana (1989 –
2005), Niger (from 1999 to present)
Supported value-chain and information services
projects. The project entailed working with
groups of farmers. The objectives included
facilitation of the storage of raw materials
(maize, groundnuts, cowpeas), storage of
products from small producers to the lean
period; getting loans from microfinance
institutions (MFIS) in the ‘dual key’ system; and
encouragement to increase production.
36
Project, implementation period
and countries
Project Description
14 Market Information Service
(FOODNET), Uganda (1998–2004)
Supported value-chain and information services
projects. It supported the Network of market
research for East and Central Africa. The project
was implemented by the IITA. This was the first
regional research network with a steering
committee comprised of researchers, extension
workers, NGOs, Universities and the private
sector.
15 Food Security Project Title II, funded
by USAID (Washington) and
implemented by ACDI/VOCA,
Uganda (2002 -2006)
Supported value-chain and information services
projects. The aim was to reduce food insecurity
in rural areas of Uganda by improving
agricultural production, marketing, rural
financial institutions and strengthening
knowledge about nutrition and PHM.
16 Purchase for Progress (P4P) in many
underdeveloped countries, from 2008
to present.
Supported value-chain and information services
projects. The project focused on local food
supply by smallholder farmers for WFP, as a
means to develop procurement methods. This
was funded primarily by the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation Initiative.
37
Annex 2: Projects and programs on post-harvest management in Benin
Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period
IRAT
Maize
Experimental use of containers for storage
(jars, bags, casks, silos made of
galvanized iron) combined with
insecticides
- 1960
Peace Corps
volunteers
USAID Promotion of silo made of cement, dryers
and cribs
Less adopted 1970
FAO project FAO Development and dissemination of
improved granary and sofa grain
Effective against insect
pests
1992
CERNA/UAC - Reduction of processing difficulty of
maize and increase of shelf life of its
derived foods: mawe and aklui
Creation of dried aklui -
UAC/FSA - Containerization and conservation of
akpan in plastic bottle
Grand capucin du
maïs (Large Grain
Borer)
BMZ Biological control Reduction of post-
harvest losses
1995-
1998
38
Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period
PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA Improve visibility of threshing and
storage containers in bamboo or mallotus
Provide credit to farmers to construct
improve granary with used of sofa grain
Evaluation of grain quality (reduction of
mycotoxin) through diverse methods
including processing
Adoption of new
innovations which
improved life condition
of household
1997-
2003
FUPRO-
Bénin/ESFIM
- Adoption of new storage and conservation
technologies
2011
HELVETAS SDC Promotion of storage innovation 2013-
2015
39
Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period
PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA
Rice
Improvement to traditional process of
parboiling rice
Evaluation of shelling equipment
Evaluation of threshing equipment
Impact of improvement
was not evaluated
Sheller was appreciated
‘TAMSA’ thresher was
identified as the best
one
1997-
2003
PSAIA JICA Training for processing method of rice Impact was not
measured
2007-
2012
FAFA-AD CTB Improvement of processing technologies 2010-
2016
PACER FIDA, BOAD,
PNUD
Improvement of processing technologies 2010-
2016
PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA
Fonio
Evaluation of threshing equipment
‘Sanoussi’
Equipment must be
improve to remove
small stones
‘Amuda’ sheller was
appreciated
1997-
2003
40
Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period
UAC/FSA -
Cowpea
Evaluation of neem seed and tobacco leaf
powdering to control Callosobruchus
maculatus during storage
Weight loss dropped to
0% - 0.04% for neem
seed and tobacco leaf
1988
PEDUNE I and II SDC Improved drying Improved solar drying 1994-
1996
1997-
1999
PRONAF I SDC, IFAD Development of techniques
storage, processing
Diffusion of
technologies
2000-
2002
PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA Extension of solarisation technique 1997-
2003
PRONAF II (IITA) IFAD, (NARES) /
INRAB-Benin,
USAID
Integrated pest management (IPM) using
aqueous extracts of neem and papaya
Developing small scale extraction
equipment (INRAB)
Processing
48% of farms adopted
use of aqueous extracts
1% of farmers adopted
solar drying
2003-
2006
41
Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period
CRAS INRAB Integrated leaf of Hyptis suavolens in
cowpea storage systems
Reduction of Bruchidae
reproduction
UAC/FSA NUFFIC Investigated method of preparation and
consumption of cowpea in Benin in
‘Keeping local food on the menu: A study
on the small-scale processing of cowpea’
Knowledge of different
processing systems and
different types of
recipes
2011
UAC/FSA ENRECA-
DANIDA-FSA-
UAC
Susceptibility of steeped and heat dried
cowpea flour to fungal growth and
aflatoxins production
2011
PICS USAID Extension of the use of tripled bagging
system to avoid the use of chemical
products
Really appreciated by
local farmers
2010-
2011
PILSA Danida, World
Bank, PAM
Development of cowpea storage in bag
Build crib dryer
1995-
2000
PACER FIDA, BOAD,
PNUD Soya beans
Improvement of processing technologies 2010-
2016
42
Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period
PNSA
Subsistence
crops
Improvement of storage and conservation
technologies
2011-
2016
PAGER FIDA Development of storage and processing
technologies
1997-
2004
SAM Plan-Benin Improvement of equipment and storage
technologies
1999-
2003
WSM/FBS WSM-Bénin Improvement of processing and marketing
systems
2003-
2007/
2008-
2012
PADA8 World Bank Extension of warranting crop system
giving farmers post-harvest credit in
exchange for storing their grain
2011-
2016
8 PADA is a project within the framework of the program for agricultural diversification in Benin (ProCAD).
43
Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period
ONASA Benin, BOAD, GTZ,
UEMOA
Crop collection , storage, equipment for
storage
On-
going
PUASA World Bank,
European Union,
FAO
Marketing, building equipment for drying
and storage products
2007-
2010
PASDER Swiss
Intercooperation
Promotion of warranting crop system,
training in storage and drying method
(CARDER)
2012-
2026
DPP, 2012. Performance des structures, programme/ projet du MAEP pour l’année 2011. 30p.)
44
References
i MAEP. (2004) Les Etats Généraux d’urgence de la filière coton au Bénin. Cotonou.
ii Honfoga, B.G. (2013) ‘Cotton institutions and perverse incentives for fertilizer traders in
Benin.’ Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 5(1), 19-34, January 2013.
iii Honfoga, B.G. and B.A. Ekpodile (2012) Policy analysis of traditional food production and
marketing in Benin. A report produced for Bioversity International, Benin.
iv Honfoga, B.G. (2007) Vers des systèmes privés efficaces d’approvisionnement et de
distribution d’engrais pour une intensification agricole durable au Bénin. Thèse de PhD, CDS,
Université de Groningen (RuG), Pays-Bas.
v LARES (2000) Atlas de sécurité alimentaire du Bénin ONSAS/MAEP. LARES (Laboratoire
d’Analyse Régionale et d’Expertise Sociale) Concours financier de Projet d’Intervention
Locale pour la Sécurité Alimentaire (PILSA), République du Bénin, p148.
vi ONASA (2011) ‘Evaluation de la production vivrière en 2010 et perspectives alimentaires
pour 2011, situation par département, volume II.’
vii Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden (2008) Saving water from field to fork:
curbing losses and wastage in the food chain. Stockholm International Water Institute,
Stockholm;
Nellemann, C., M. MacDevette, T. Manders, B. Eikhout, B. Svihus, A. GerdienPrins, and B.
Kaltenborn (2009). The Environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting
future food crisis. United Nations Environmental Programme, p104;
Gustavsson, J., J. Cederberg-Sonesson, J. van Otterdijk, A. Meybek, A. (2011) Global food
losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO, p29.
viii MAEP (2009) ‘Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur Rural (PSRSA),’ décembre 2009,
version verdie relue provisoire, p24.
ix Adegbola, P.I., Dannon, E.A., Mutungi, C., Affognon, H. (2012) ‘Postharvest losses in
Africa- Analytical review and synthesis: the case of Benin.’ African Insect Science for food
and health, p124.
45
x Lott, R. (2013) ‘Farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa 2.’ Policy Brief No. 17, 2013,
ICRAF, Nairobi.
xi Adegbola, Op cit.
xii Seevinck, J. and D. Njie (2010) FAO/AfDB Cooperation on Post-harvest losses reduction
in Sub-saharan Africa. Findings and recommendations.
xiii FAO/World Bank, 2011. Missing food: the case of postharvest grain losses in Sub-saharan
Africa. Washington, DC: WB, NRS, FAO, 96p.
xiv Moussa, B., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Fulton, J., Boys. K., 2011. The economic impact of
cowpea research in West and Central Africa: A regional impact assessment of improved
cowpea storage technologies. Journal of Stored Product Research 47: 147-156.
xv Fandohan. 1999. Note from INRAB research project reports.
xvi SDDR, Vol II, p. 21 cited by Honfoga, 2013 Op Cit
xvii See for example Honfoga, B.G., (1986) Econometric and economic analyses of foodstuffs’
prices and marketing in the Atlantique Province of Benin. Thesis of ‘Ingenieur agronome’/
agricultural economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (FSA), National University of
Benin;
Fanou, K.L., (1994) Analyse des performances du système de commercialisation des
produits vivriers au Bénin: le cas de la commercialisation primaire du maïs et du gari sur le
plateau Adja au Mono (Sud-Ouest du Bénin). Thèse de doctorat de 3ème
cycle, CIRES,
Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire);
Lutz, C.H.M. (1994). The functioning of the maize market in Benin: spatial and temporal
arbitrage on the market of a staple food crop. PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, pp. 155-174;
Adegbidi, A., H. Dedehouanou, S. Kpenavoun, and C. Lutz (2003) Dix ans de libéralisation
du marché de maïs au Bénin. CDS Research Report. No. 20, University of Groningen.
xviii PNOPPA (2012). Annual report 2012.
xix Gummert, (2011) Improving Food security by reducing postharvest losses, IRRI’s
experience.