As indicated in the title, this publication contains guidelines for the analysis and promotion of post-production systems in accordance with the methodological framework that has been jointly developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the German development agency Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.
This methodological framework is a response to the economic and political changes of recent years and the challenges of the future. It reflects the lessons learnt from earlier post-production interventions (especially with regard to the acceptance of innovations by target groups and to sustainability). The framework has been described in several draft papers but not officially published. It has been tested and improved during three country studies in Ghana, Kenya and Zambia. After this experience, FAO and GTZ decided to publish the methodological framework in order to make it accessible to everyone involved in post-production interventions. Parts of this publication, especially section 2.1 and annex I, are based on the draft written by Flach (1995) who reviewed the previous reports on the framework methodology commissioned by FAO.
This publication has the following objectives:
|
Although written as a guideline, this book cannot be taken as a step-by-step guide to post-production systems analysis. The systems approach is in itself complex, involving all the steps in the post-production chain from harvest to consumption. Furthermore, it includes all the actors and different levels from the micro-level of the farm household to the macro-level of the national economy, politics and even world trade. Another complication is the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and even between regions and ethnic groups within one country.
This means that the methods presented in chapter 2 and the checklists contained in annex I can only serve as an orientation. The final choice of methods and sets of questions must be made by every user according to the subject of the study, its objective, the existing problems and framework conditions. Therefore, the framework should be considered more a self-help guide than a complete reference handbook.
Many donors and development institutions have been involved in the support of post-production programmes and projects in the past. Examples include the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), the French Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), FAO, GTZ and the British Natural Resources Institute (NRI). Research carried out by CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) institutes like Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) etc., national agricultural research institutes and universities provided the scientific framework.
These programmes have the following characteristics in both research and implementation:
The focus was on staple food and in particular on cereals. Subsistence farmers were considered to be the main target group. Storage was given high priority because losses were perceived to be substantial.
In addition, many projects were implemented dealing with state-run central storage for food security or with cereal banking in the villages, especially on the African continent. Most of these projects faced major difficulties at the economic, political and institutional level. These difficulties were related to widespread phenomena such as:
Another sphere that was much supported by donors and non-governmental organisations was processing. Traditional methods are generally labour-intensive and it was felt that reducing the workload would have a positive impact especially on women in Africa. However, a lack of coordination and collaboration between stakeholders, such as different ministries, or between public and private actors caused the failure of many well-intentioned initiatives.
Examples of the technical achievements of the post-production initiatives mentioned above include:
These example show that viable technical solutions were found for many of the existing problems. By the end of the eighties it seemed that the post-production bottlenecks of losses and workload would soon be solved by transmitting the technical information to the target groups with the help of the existing extension services.
In order to achieve the development goals for post-production operations, major training efforts were undertaken, notably by member organisations of the Group for Assistance on Systems relating to Grain After-harvest (GASGA). GASGA is an association of development institutions from industrialised countries dedicated to the improvement of grain post-production systems in the developing world. GASGA members ACIAR, CIRAD, FAO, GTZ, NRI and and other institutions in member countries continue to offer a long list of training opportunities in developing and industrialised countries. These activities include on-the-job training at project level, professional training courses, workshops, traineeships and postgraduate studies (MSc, diploma). Thousands of specialists from developing countries have attended these courses.
Some of the programmes listed above, for example biological control of the Larger grain borer, were completely successful. (In this case the success is essentially due to the fact that classical bio-control works without much input by extension services and without farmers' active participation.) However, other experience with the transfer of post-production innovations to farmers was rather disappointing, especially in Africa. The flow of post-production information was often rather poor because of a lack of efficient extension networks including poorly developed market price systems and rural radio programmes and a lack of qualified, well equipped and regularly paid extensionists.
Agricultural extension to post-production activities proved difficult and time-consuming because farmers were often reluctant to introduce the innovations proposed by the extension services. Some of the indicators for this reluctance are:
In many cases, economic reasons are responsible for the reluctance of farmers to invest in post-production operations. In many countries, farmers have been discouraged from producing more than necessary for subsistence because of low cereal prices fixed by governments or because of erratic price fluctuations. The purpose of the low-price policy was to keep food cheap for urban populations. Unfavourable framework conditions such as those resulting from monetary devaluation also contributed to the poor cost-benefit ratio of post-production investments made by farmers.
Many surveys were carried out before or during the introduction of innovations to assess farmers' needs. Their results and predictions were often at odds with the farmers' behaviour after project implementation. The Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal (RRA and PRA) methods that became available in the eighties made it possible to obtain a better picture of the socio-cultural and economic environment of the target groups and their real and felt needs. Surveys that adopted these approaches showed that many factors have to be considered carefully before development goals can be set. Failures in the past can thus at least partially be attributed to a targeting of activities that did not take into account all the parameters involved (e.g. poor political and economic framework conditions).
The introduction of participatory methods in rural development led to a new understanding of development processes. It became obvious from PRA surveys and participatory farming systems research that technical improvements are often not enough to solve the problems of the target groups. The actors in the post-production system decide according to economic or socio-cultural criteria that have often been neglected in earlier interventions. What's more, in many countries unfavourable political and economic framework conditions have frustrated well-intentioned initiatives as, for example, cereal banking or establishing marketing co-operatives. At the same time, the ever increasing globalisation of trade in agricultural products has made it necessary to review the objectives of agricultural development.
This is why, in 1995, GASGA members decided to modify their approach to post-production interventions and commissioned a paper defining future priorities in post-harvest systems development (Fleischer, Waibel & Dirksmeyer 1995). In this study the authors make the following observations:
- food security
- income generation
- economic development through exportation
- strengthening of rural areas
- alleviation of poverty
- change of gender relations
- end of state interference as a consequence of structural adjustment
- difficulties of the private sector to fill the gap
- change of production and trade patterns towards export crops
- further marginalisation of areas with a poor infrastructure
- increasing political instability and inadequate framework conditions
From this analysis the authors derived the following conclusions:
- development of large- and medium-scale agro-industry for export
- village-centred development (income generation in rural areas)
This view was strongly influenced by the framework methodology for the analysis of post-production systems that was worked out at the same time by FAO with the support of GTZ. It is based on the proposals made by La Gra (1990) for a commodity systems assessment methodology.
The decision of GASGA members to adopt this approach entailed a change of focus from technical specialisation towards a holistic view of post-production issues that places more emphasis on actors and framework conditions. In contrast to the concept described under 1.2.1.1, the following characteristics apply to development work based on the systems approach:
Within this participatory approach, non-governmental organisations play a major role as development partners. In recent decades, many of them have acquired long and sound experience of promoting self-help initiatives. They have contributed substantially to developing participatory extension approaches in which farmers of both sexes share their knowledge as grassroot extensionists with other farmers.
The systems approach reflects current principles of development policy as implemented by most development partners, especially major development institutions. The orientation of international and national development policies has been strongly influenced by Agenda 21, which was published during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (UNCED 1992). The following topics of Agenda 21 are closely related to post-production issues and should be taken into account in the design of interventions:
The Montreal Protocol deals with the protection of the ozone layer of the earth's stratosphere that filters the harmful ultraviolet radiation. Amongst the chemical substances that deplete ozone, gases used for cooling and called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the most important ones. Methyl bromide has also been identified as a major ozone-depleting agent.
Many treatments for quarantine and exportation purposes, protection of stored products or disinfestation of stores and processing facilities are carried out using methyl bromide fumigations. Methyl bromide will be phased out according to a scheme set by the parties to the Montreal Protocol (by 2015 in developing countries). Demonstrations, training activities and applied research focusing on implementation are required world wide in order to promote existing alternatives and to develop them further.
The complex cross-sectional issues covered by Agenda 21 and the Montreal Protocol can only be managed in a holistic systems approach to post-production operations.
Target-group-oriented and problem-oriented post-production work requires a broad knowledge of relevant facts and framework conditions. Collecting the information necessary to conduct a sector analysis or define the baseline required for the implementation of a project used to be very tedious. This problem occurred too during the country studies dealt with in section 2.3.
In order to make the existing post-production knowledge accessible, especially to workers in developing countries, FAO started the Information Network on Post-harvest Operations (INPhO). It is supported by CIRAD and GTZ. The main component of INPhO is a comprehensive database accessible through the Internet. A short description of the INPhO web site can be found in annex V. In the long term, this project is intended to provide all the basic information needed to make informed decisions on post-production matters (e.g. project implementation).
Developing the methodological framework was a time-consuming process in which several consultants, FAO staff members and external reviewers were involved. Their work is documented in a series of unpublished reports (Calverley 1995, Marchie du Sarvaas 1995, Flach 1995). This was followed closely by GTZ where the framework was the subject of several workshops and meetings of an inter-department working group on post-harvest systems.
In-depth country studies were included in the design of the prototype framework as practical tests. These country studies had the twin objective of developing the methodology further and of demonstrating its practicability by collecting sets of information on post-production systems. FAO conducted a study with partners in Zambia (Boxall 1997) and GTZ conducted one in Ghana (Henckes & Afful 1998) and one in Kenya (MoA-GTZ 1998).
In every study a different overall approach was used:
An overview of these studies is given in section 2.3. The approaches and the set of PRA tools used in each study give a good idea of the flexibility of the framework methodology. The results are described in annexes II to IV.
During a workshop organised by GTZ in March 1998, the results of the three country studies were assessed, further methodological improvements were proposed and the future strategy and follow-up activities were discussed. In order to analyse these and future country studies in a more systematic way, a matrix has been developed by the consultant R. Kaske (cf. annex VI). With the help of this matrix, recommendations were made for improving the framework and they have been included in these guidelines.