|
|
|
THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN CO-ORDINATING POST HARVEST SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
C. HENCKES
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH,
German Technical Co-operation, Accra, Ghana
Post Harvest Systems Development - What is it?
Many governments in Africa and other continents prioritise projects and programmes to solve problems of agricultural commodities after harvest. The major objectives of these programmes are to reduce post harvest losses, to generate income, to upgrade the value of raw materials, to stabilise prices and to secure food supply. Many of these programmes focus on the improvement of storage, processing and transport technologies. Beside the positive impact of improved technologies, the success of these programmes was sometimes weakened by their technically narrow and isolated approach. The various technical, economic and social disciplines involved concentrated on their professional domain, tried to emphasise their suitable position to "solve the problem" and hindered communication flow and the planning of more complex approaches.
On this background a new approach has been designed in the last few years by national and international agencies such as FAO, IITA, GTZ, CIRAD, NRI, GASGA. It is summarised as Post Harvest Systems Development (GTZ, 1994; Marchie Sarvas, 1994; Reusse, 1995; Fleischer et al., 1995; Post Harvest Systems, 1997). This approach emphasises the interactions and relationships between various activities after harvest, i.e. handling, transportation, storage, pest control, processing and marketing.
The projects for the control of the Larger Grain Borer are typical examples of this development. In the 80s, right after the introduction of this exotic insect pest from Central America to Africa, the work focused on the entomological aspects of potential control measures, which was very necessary at that stage. In the 90s the whole range of insect pests in farmers' maize stores and also other problems of maize storage and marketing were looked at and more complex and integrated approaches were recommended.
The changing role of the government
When following this approach as a governmental institution two key questions arise:
1. |
What is the role of the State’s administration and sectorial ministries, and |
2. |
How should its organisational set-up be for the State to be able to play its role? |
The role of the State as an actor in the post harvest chain is becoming less important. Marketing boards are closed down and processing corporations privatised. However, the State must strengthen its role in optimising the conditions for development by designing development strategies and co-ordinating projects and programmes (see table 1).
| Tab.1. |
Tasks of the Government, NGOs and
private companies in the development of Post-Harvest Systems. |
 |
It should as much as possible avoid being directly involved in programme implementation. This should be done by NGOs and the private sector. NGOs in this context are local organisations such as producer, marketing and transport associations, self-help groups, churches and political organisations. Universities and research centres conduct trials and research at the request of the programme co-ordination body. To be able to plan and design strategies and policy, the Government must obtain detailed information on M&E results and progress reports of the implementing agencies (NGOs) and maintain a direct dialogue with the private actors. Since Post Harvest Systems cut across issues of several sectorial ministries, communications between the ministries must be properly managed. Representatives of the implementing NGOs and private sector should be involved in the relevant co-ordination activities of the government.
Co-ordinating Post Harvest Systems Development
In order to fulfil their mission and ensure a holistic approach, governmental institutions should establish a multidisciplinary working group or task force for the Development of Post-Harvest Systems. Some aspects should be considered when forming such a working group:
* |
The objectives of the working group must be as detailed as possible and transparent to all the institutions and organisations involved. The working group discusses planned and on-going projects and ensures that these projects are in-line with the overall strategic plan and co-ordinated. All members of this group should have equal powers. However, different projects or activities can be assigned to professionals appointed as "activity leaders". The activity leaders report to the group. |
* |
The objectives of the group and the supported projects must be fully integrated into national development programmes such as the Agricultural Sector Investments Programmes (ASIP). |
* |
In countries where decentralised political structures exist, the group should work at the lowest level of decision making, i.e. Districts, Regions, Zones, rather than at national level. This is to make the work of the group more realistic and easier and to optimise interactions between planning/co-ordination level and implementation level. |
* |
The working group should operate with its own budget to make sure that its decisions do not rely on the budgets of the departments concerned. |
* |
The working group must have a clear mandate in co-ordinating post-harvest activities in the district, region and country. The organisational integration of the group will depend on the main objectives defined. Here, three models are presented: the "policy model", the "commodity model" and the "farmer model". |
In the policy model (see Fig. 1), the working group is directly attached to and mandated by the general planning authority. The sectorial ministries and NGOs second staff to the group and the general administration provides funds. The main task of the group in this model would be to design strategies for Post-Harvest Systems that would be fed into the overall regional/national development planning.
| Fig.1. |
The Policy Model. |
 |
In the commodity model (see fig. 2), the working group is a relatively independent support unit. The mandate is shared among relevant ministries and organisations. The ministries second staff and provide other resources for the working group. The focus of the work is to optimise the whole chain of post-harvest operations for a given commodity (commodity oriented) in a country or a region. No priorities per se are set for specific actors or areas (producer/consumer or urban/rural). An important activity is the analysis of commodity-specific post-harvest systems. The subsequent interventions or measures could then be implemented by one relevant ministry or organisation.
In the farmer model (see fig. 3), the working group is attached to and mandated by the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). Officers from different departments and other institutions are represented. Funds are provided by the MoA. The focus of the work is on-farm household and village level (actor-oriented). The working group co-operates with other ministries and organisations with specific experiences as the need arises.
| Fig.2. |
The Commodity Model. |
 |
The farmer model has the great advantage of being relatively easy to establish since the discussion about the mandate, the objectives and the organisation of the working group is taking place in only one sectorial ministry. In many cases the necessary knowledge is available (see tab. 2). The ministry can establish different working groups for prioritised topics. In the example given in figure 3, the MoA has established working groups on the development of agricultural strategies, on soil fertility, on post-harvest systems and on input & credit supply. These working groups are established for a certain period (months or years) until the objectives are achieved and/or other priority topics are identified.
| Fig.3. |
The Farmer Model. |
 |
Such a structure offers a very flexible response to upcoming problems and demands. In the case of the Post-Harvest Working Group, experts in subject matters like crops, livestock, engineering, statistics and extension would be "activity leaders" for different interventions. The disadvantage of the farmer model lies in the fact that consultation with other ministries as well as the involvement of other non-village-based actors and stakeholders in the system remain limited and spontaneous.
| Tab.2. |
Establishment of working groups in
the Ministry of Agriculture (farmer model). |
 |
References
Fleischer G., Waibel, H. & Dirksmeyer, W., 1995. |
|
Future Priorities in Post Harvest Systems Development - The Role of Donor and Development Agency Support with Special Reference to GASGA. Presentation at the annual meeting of GASAGA, 12-14 June 1995 in Eschborn on behalf of GTZ. |
|
GTZ 1994. |
|
Documentation of the Workshop "Analysis of Post Harvest Systems", July 5 and 6, 1994, Eschborn, Germany. |
|
du Marchie Sarvas, C., 1994. |
|
Improving the Quantity and Quality of Food on the Way to the consumer - A Conceptual Framework for Planning the Steps from Production to Consumption with Special Reference to Operations in the Post Harvest Chain, Draft, FAO, Rome. |
|
Post Harvest Systems, 1997. |
|
Post Harvest Systems - The Newsletter for Post Harvest Systems Development in Africa, Editor’s Note, Ibadan, March 1997. |
|
Reusse, E., 1995. |
|
Post Harvest Systems (PHS) Analysis and Development - A Strategy for Assistance. Report to GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. |
|
|
|
|
 |