Lessons from mitigating Post harvest loss in Tanzania

Transcription

1 Lessons from mitigating Post harvest loss in Tanzania PRESENTATION BY JOHN MACHARIA, PROGRAM OFFICER MARKETS & HARVEST UNIT Tuesday, October 13, 2015

2 Brief Summary In , AGRA, in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation, embarked on comprehensive learning studies on Waste and Spoilage in Africa s Food Systems Objective of the studies: The main objective of the Waste and Spoilage (W&S) learning studies was to inform the understanding within Rockefeller, AGRA and other partners on key concepts, contested facts, and high potential options for action to reduce waste and spoilage in Africa s food systems Preliminary findings; six broad influencers of Waste and Spoilage in Africa identified, Disjointed smallholder farmers (SHF) Limited knowledge among farmers of post-harvest management and technology use; Lack of proper storage technologies and equipment; Lack of structured markets; Limited access to affordable finance; and Unfavorable policies

3 Waste & Spoilage on the ground study in Tanzania In the process of distilling some of the possible technologies to be used in the intervention of PHL challenge, a need arose in Tanzania which experienced a bumper grain harvest in the 2013/2014 season but lacked sufficient storage facilities. AGRA and Rockefeller took the opportunity to raise awareness on post harvest losses and post harvest technologies available to mitigate losses. AGRA has been creating awareness among farmers, traders and government of hermetic technologies such as PICS Bags, Metal Silos and Hermetic cocoons to mitigate post harvest losses. Beside popularizing the technologies and demonstrating the efficacy of the technologies, AGRA has also been exploring motivations and incentives for behavior change towards adoption of post harvest technologies in Tanzania. In particular, project seeks to provide answers to: Technology usage and behavior Change Application of technologies Context specific issues Policy gaps

4 Waste & Spoilage on the ground study in Tanzania Production 2014 MT 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, , Year Production Consumption Surplus Tanzania has over the years exhibited a consistent growth in cereal production. In 2014, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives reported food production of Million MT in the 2013 season. Consumption 2014 In the 2013/2014 season cereal consumption was estimated at million MT Surplus 2014 As a result the Ministry reported that Tanzania was 118% food secure, with an estimated food surplus of million MT Source:

5 POST HARVET LOSS ISSUES IN TANZANIA (2014) Storage Facilities in TZ Based on a 2011 stud, Tanzania has approximately 329 mapped storage facilities; Ownership Storage capacity Need for extra storage 2,235, <400MT >400MT Operational facilities 1,994, % Operational 241,000 NFRA Capacity Storage need Total Surplus 15 Unused 69% GOT Private COOPS

6 Maize Storage in Tanzania 2014

7 MAIZE STACK DAMAGED BY RAIN

8 WEEVIL INFESTATION AT STORAGE

9 Some baseline findings Type of PHL Farmers knowledgeable (%) Farmers affected (%) Technology Common ways to mitigate All villages losses Untrained villages Untrained 1. Occurrence Insects Awareness 1. Use (weevles) of of PHL pesticides (88.86 %) (excluding 85.60% Gendi 87.50% villages Rats 2. Measures against rats (75.27%), with and 75.25% three Getamock) important ways (excluding 70.38% of dealing When asked where Negligence PHL with occur, during rats farmers being harvest identified four (4) 32.34% main stages of the 41.30% production Gendi, process: Throwing (1) during storage at home 1. cobs Chase after harvest with 82.61% away rats of (general all respondents 29.35%; 27.17% and mentioning specifically there keeping Getamock, 17.12% are cats, severe problems at this stage; Dropping during dogs transport using buckets bringing the 12.50% total to 37.23%) 11.14% Madaba) Molds 12.50% 8.42% (2) in the field, during Metal 2. Birds (including harvest silo Use of rat poison chicken) was identified 21.47% (32.34%) drying stage by 68.75% 10.87% of 16.19% all respondents, 10.79% 3. Catch the rats (5.71%) 7.07% particularly when farmers describe the process of harvesting Thieves PICS-bag 3. Use and of tarpaulin throwing (either 22.28% cob in the and/or field the during 7,61% loose 16.91% harvesting maize or grains at home 4,35% 11.62% on during the ground; drying) (7.07%) Cocoon 20.11% 14.03% 8.30% (3) during the preparation process accounting for 50.54% of all respondents with 9,87% emphasizing the drying stage, 34.51% the threshing stage and 6.25% the winnowing stage; (4) during transport recognized by 16.58% of all respondents. Care should be taken to not overestimate this category of losses, as farmers might have included losses due to on-the-field infestations (rats, goats, ants) and delay in harvesting, which should be considered as pre-harvest losses.

10 Price preferences when the technology would cost more than US $ 2.35 /= Village - Region Durability (years) Storage volume Period of storage Accessibility of per bag, only 16.58% of the farmers would be able to (kg) (months) grains (months) afford Ipondait; 5 and 5/ The top-5 of factors influencing technology choice, as mentioned by farmers;: (1) Good quality products with 57,88%; Mpanga 3 and 6/ Madaba 4 and 3/ Senjele (2) Durability when the with technology 49,73%; would cost between US $ 0.94 and Mangalali 3 and 9/ US Gendi $ 2.35/=, upto 4 and 2/ % 620 of the farmers 16 would 7 be willing Gallapo to pay for it; (3) Storage volume with 45,11%; Getamock Mbulumbulu 2 and 3/ (4) Cost when Southern price the Highlands for technology purchasing 4 would with 35.60%; 586cost between and 12 US$ 50.47/= Northern Zone 2 and 10/ and US $ 0.94/=, nearly 90% (to be exact 87.50%) of the Average 3 and 6/ farmers indicate they have no problem to pay for it. (5) Security and/or safety of the crop stored with 33,15%.

11 INNOVATIVE STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES INTRODUCED Hermetic Cocoons PICS Bags Metal Silos The three storage technologies use hermetic technology that creates airtight conditions within a storage structure that prevent pest infestation. The technologies reduce the flow of both oxygen and water between the stored grain or seed and the outside atmosphere. When properly sealed, respiration of grain and insects inside the bag reduce oxygen levels from 21% to 5%. This reduction reduces live insects to less than 1 insect/kg of grain without using insecticides, often within 10 days of sealing. The stabilized moisture inside the cocoon prevents wetting and drying of grain

12 Control bags. PP+ Sumba Hands On Cocoon Setup Purdue Improved Crop Storage Bags (PICS Bags) Involving Government officials

13 Some results Women checking grain quality Maize stored with chemicals Remember this? Dead weevils

14 Grain quality from different storage methods Weight: Moistures contents Status of stored maize Before After Before After Propylene bags without treatment kg kg 13.5% 11.4% Significantly affected by insects (dumuzi) and not good for human consumption Propylene bags with Shumba powder 102 kg kg 13.5% 11.5% Not affected by insects but residues of chemical were observed (smell) PICS bags 98.5 kg 98.1 kg 13. 5% 10.1% insect free maize and clean 106 kg 105 kg 13.5% 11.9% insect free and clean Cocoon 121 kg (on 120 kg (on 13.5% 11.3% Dead Weevils average) average) Metal silos 500 kg Not measured 13.5% 11.6% Insect free and clean

15 The results.. Dead Weevils Technology Adoption/sales Hermetic Cocoons: The government has issued a tender with intention to procure 90 Hermetic cocoons with a capacity of 92,250 MT. Traders, millers and processors are also interested in procuring the cocoon. The PICS bag vendor has so far sold 40,000 pieces and is working on developing a distribution network. The metal silo fabricators have orders to make 900 Metal silos. Maintaining Quality Region Test Sample Number Method of testing Specifications Results Songea Total Aflatoxin (µg/kg) 088/F/E/1415 ISO 16050:2003 Max 10 ppb Not detected Water Soluble pesticide residues 088/F/E/1415 Neogen Screening Kit - Not Detected Dodoma Total Aflatoxin (µg/kg) 089/F/E/1415 ISO 16050:2003 Max 10 ppb 5.3 Water Soluble pesticide residues 089/F/E/1415 Neogen Screening Kit - Not Detected Kibaigwa Total Aflatoxin (µg/kg) 09/F/E/1415 ISO 16050:2003 Max 10 ppb 8.52 Water Soluble pesticide residues 09/F/E/1415 Neogen Screening Kit - Not Detected

16 Key Lessons from the project Study Questions Technologyusage and behavior change: which technology is preferred? What factors encourage or discourage use among farmers, SMEs and Government? Findings Gender: Women prefer PICS bags as they fit well with their daily chores and don t take up much space in the home stead. Men on the other hand prefer Metal silos as they are long lasting. FO s, Traders and NFRA Economics: Traders and farmer consider the cost of dusting and bagging grain and compare that with the cost of PICS bags and Cocoons. Government considered the cost of brick and motor facilities Vis-a-vie Hermetic cocoons. Application: In what contexts are these technologies appropriate or not appropriate Context: Are there specific village characteristics (distance to market, size, demographics, etc.) that cause the interventions to work more successfully in some locations than in others? Policy gaps for use of improved storage technologies during bumper harvest years and generally: What needs to be done at policy level for these and similar technologies to be widely available and in use among agriculture market actors in Tanzania during bumper harvest years or otherwise? Cause of Losses; in situations where rats were the major source of loss, farmers preferred metal silos, where weevils were the main loss causing agent, PICS bags were preferred. Length of storage period For longer term storage Hermetic cocoons were preferred by NFRA Bumper Harvest: There have been numerous attempts to introduce post-harvest technologies in Tanzania without much traction. However when technologies are introduced in response to a looming post-harvest loss situation and in light of limited government budgets for storage facilities the reception and uptake seems much better. Levies: Importing cocoons into Tanzania attracts a 25% import duty and 18% VAT. This two levies are making the cost of procuring cocoons inaccessible to farmer organizations and traders. Finance: None of the existing banks are financing the innovative post-harvest technologies. What is being financed are stores and warehouses. There is need to work with financial institutions to accommodate these technologies as part of the products they can finance.

17 Other Emerging points Focus of New project Market Linkage: Access to reliable markets that offer good prices will often incentivize farmers to invest in production and post harvest technologies. This is especially so where the market is offering a premium price for quality produce. In the project in Tanzania, farmers were willing to store maize when prices were low and opted to sell maize when NFRA ( reserve agency) announced much higher prices. Access to finance: farmers do not always have ready cash to engage in productive activities, as such they are often in search for credit facilities to help procure seeds, fertilizers and pay for labor. Interviews from farmer group discussions show that farmers may not be able to afford post harvest technologies up front and may require credit to pay for PICS bags or Metal Silos. Traders and farmer organizations on the other hand would like financing for hermetic cocoons. Technology Distribution: During the unveiling of the technologies, farmers & traders indicated their willingness to buy the storage technologies. However they were not readily available close to farmers. As such there is need to develop a supply system to ensure equitable access of such technologies. Produce aggregation: Most farmers do not have appropriate storage facilities at the household level and have to rely on communal aggregation and storage points or sell produce to traders or Agrodealers. Trader sand agrodealers are emerging market access options for farmers. They are also leverage points where farmers can access financial and input credit.

18 An integrated value chain approach to post harvest management Market linkages: Under the WFP-PPP project, 7 miller have agreed to participate in the project and to offer farmer organization, traders and bulking agrodealers forward delivery contracts that can be collateralized for access to finance and inputs through the last mile alliance network and other AGRA supported Agrodealers Produce aggregation, financing and technology distribution: farmer produce aggregation centers will be used to distribute post harvest technologies on credit. Banks will provide financing to technology providers and aggregation centers to ensure that technologies are made available to farmers and also produce is purchase from farmers in good time Financial institutions PASS Near farm Aggregation centers FO s, Traders, Agro dealers Post harvest Technology provider Improved post Harvest management at farm level: improved access to post harvest storage technologies will help reduce post harvest losses in maize and other sectors

19 Thanks You