The Sunday Mail
Conrad Gweru
Southern Africa is expected to recover from two consecutive droughts induced by a long-lasting El Niño event which led to unprecedented levels of food insecurity in the whole region, says a report released by the Food and Nutrition Security Working Group recently.
The working group, which comprises organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, World Vision, Famine Early Warning Systems, Sadc and the World Food Programme, pointed out that an improved harvest is expected in Southern Africa due to good rains during summer cropping.
The exceptions are Tanzania, parts of Madagascar and northern Mozambique. With grain harvesting expected this May, governments are being warned to put in place post-harvest mechanisms to minimise losses.
According to the report, projected high yields and low prices will create post-harvest management challenges at household and national level, which could result in high levels of post-harvest losses. Over the years, Southern Africa has faced a number of shocks and hazards with potentially detrimental effects on food security.
While last season’s rainfall has made an enormous difference to the agriculture sector, post-harvest grain losses remain a major concern to many smallholder farmers in the region.
Harvesting, drying and storage are all stages which see substantial losses, both quantitative (physical losses caused by rodents, insects or infestations) and qualitative (loss of quality and value).
Post-harvest losses, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, are estimated at 20 to 30 percent in storage alone. But these could be as high as 40 percent when field, transportation, handling and processing losses are included.
Where to begin
Both quantitative and qualitative losses occur in crops between harvest and consumption. Therefore, a systematic analysis of each commodity production and handling system is the logical first step in identifying an appropriate strategy for reducing post-harvest losses.
The role of Government through the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development is to minimise these losses.
To achieve this, we must:
1) Understand the biological and environmental factors involved in post-harvest deterioration.
2) Use the appropriate post-harvest technology procedures that will slow down deterioration and maintain quality and safety of the commodities.
Government should also understand that minimising post-harvest losses of already produced food is more sustainable than increasing production to compensate for these losses.
This means more resources should be allocated towards ways of averting post-harvest losses. Government, as a key stakeholder and policy driver through the Agriculture Ministry, should ensure extension services staff has the required capacity to support farmers.
Extension services are central as they are mostly based in the community. The human element in post-harvest handling of crops is extremely important.
Most handlers involved directly in harvesting, packaging, transporting, and marketing in developing countries have limited or no appreciation of the need for maintaining quality.
An effective and far-reaching educational (extension) programme on these aspects is needed critically now and will continue to be essential in the future.
The efficacy of industrywide consultations
Post-harvest losses vary greatly among commodities and production areas and seasons.
Industrywide consultations on how loss can be minimised should be conducted. Solving post-harvest losses in a given country will require cooperation and effective communication among all research personnel, extension workers (private and public), industry personnel (marketing, distribution and processing) as well as non-governmental organisations.
In most cases, solutions to existing problems in the post-harvest handling system require use of available information and application of available technologies at the appropriate scale rather than conducting new research, or developing new technologies.
Tools and equipment producers
Even if growers and handlers were convinced of the advantages of using special tools and/or equipment in harvesting and post-harvest handling, they most likely will not be able to find them in the domestic market.
Most of the tools are neither manufactured locally nor imported in sufficient quantity to meet demand.
It is imperative that the tools that will enable farmers to use recommended technology for a given situation be available for them to use.
In many cases, such tools can be manufactured locally and at a much lower cost than those imported.
Companies, techno-prenuers and small scale manufacturers that can scale up manufacturing of tools and equipment for harvesting and post-harvest handling should be incentivised by Government as a way of encouraging mass production.
A number of non-governmental organisations in the region have piloted different tools and equipment as well as appropriate storage facilities.
These and many other developments give technology companies and Government a good starting point for partnerships.
