I. Purpose of meeting
II. Improvements to the post-harvest analysis model
III. Action plan
IV. Other business
V. The way forward
Annex 1: List of participants
The meeting held on 16th February 1998 recommended the formation of two groups to (i) discuss the post-harvest systems analysis model by identifying gaps in the work carried out on potato and sweet potato, and recommending improvements; and (ii) deliberate on possible activities that could be undertaken to handle sonic of the constraints identified in the post-harvest analysis of potato and sweet potato and put the same in a suitable action plan. The meeting also recommended the holding of another meeting where these two issues would be discussed. The meeting of the 26th March deliberated on the results of the two activities.
The meeting started with a brief plenary session followed by group work and a final plenary discussion. Group I tackled the issue of identification of gaps in the post-harvest study while Group II considered the action plan. The following notes summarise the group input as well as the comments from the plenary.
2.1 Improvement of model
It was agreed that the meeting of February 16th had identified the key gaps in the first study on potato and sweet potato and that the comments for improvement would assist in improving the model. In the case of potato, the issue of seed was considered critical.
The Group and the meeting proposed the adoption of a generic model that could be used in all post harvest analysis work, and which would include the following key elements: (a) input level issues; (b) harvest and storage; (c) marketing; (d) enabling environment; (e) land; and (f) sustainability issues. The model should also adequately handle relevant gender issues within each sub-component.
(a) INPUT LEVEL ISSUES:
(1) Fertilisers and other chemicals: Use at farm level; availability; affordability linked to market of product.(2) Seed: Sources (including research), availability, quality, affordability and marketing; and if it is the case for a particular commodity, why local seed use is not widespread.
(3) Knowledge/Technology: Extension - information on value-added to farmers; on available markets; women groups/farmers organizations that can disseminate the same, etc. Key actors here include KARI, Universities, International Research Centres; KIRDI; Ministry of Agriculture (extension, policy issues).
(4) Credit: availability and cost; key actors in this area - farmers organizations, financial institutions (banks, etc), NGOs, traders/distributors.
(5) Infrastructure: In the case of roads - availability and type; if cess money is used to maintain; possibilities of cost-sharing between government and the people; constraints. Other communication links eg telecommunications - availability and type.
(6) Labour: division of labour and availability especially around harvest time, grading etc; technologies that increase employment (labour intensive; jua kali, etc) vs labour saving technologies; value addition.
(b) HARVEST AND STORAGE
(1) Extension services available.
(2) Storage facilities.
(3) On-farm processing - drying freezing, value addition, etc.
(4) Preservation technologies.
(c) MARKETING
(1) Degree of competition and liberalization of the market and marketing.
(2) Major players/actors.
(3) Major constraints (eg roads, market information etc).
(4) Market channels.
The typical chain is:
FARMER - BROKER - MIDDLEMEN - WHOLESALER/PROCESSOR - RETAILER CONSUMER
Key issues to capture:
(i) Farmer level:- Seasonality and margins;
- Sorting and packaging.(ii) Middlemen/Wholesalers:
- Sorting, packaging, repackaging and associated costs and losses incurred [Sorting done to target particular markets];- Storage;
- Seasonality and margins;
- Transportation.
(iii) Brokers:
- Involvement of brokers in identification of farms;
- Bagging of produce;
- Linking farmer to trader;
- Prepayment of part of the price awaiting trader; etc.(iv) Processors:
- Types of products;
- Value addition;
- Technology and types;
- Quality control eg Kenya Bureau of Standards (KBS), Kenya Consumers Organization (KCO)(v) Retailer:
- De-bulking of produce and repackaging;
- Seasonality and margins.(vi) Consumers:
- Types of consumers - rural and urban;
- Quality of products;
- Consumer preferences;
- Information available about products.
(d) ENABLING ENVIRONMENT:
(1) Policy;
(2) Infrastructure;
(3) External linkages;
(4) Goodwill (political, administration, etc).
(e) LAND:
(1) Land as a factor of production
(2) Impact land availability and quality have on production;
(3) Impact the production of a given commodity has on the land.
(4) Issues of fertility, economics of production, etc.
(f) SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES:
(1) Dimensions to sustainability - technological, market, environmental, economic, financial, socio-cultural.(2) Linkage of production to agro-industry.
Action plan proposed should answer questions like:
- What should be done?
- Who should do it?
- When should it be done?
- How will it be done? etc.
3.1 Prioritisation of constraints
Group II and the meeting agreed that the case study of potato and sweet potato was a suitable basis to develop the post-harvest systems analysis model. The various constraints identified in the case study were reviewed and a number of intervention strategies were proposed. The key constraints considered were:
(a) Seasonal fluctuations in the supply of raw materials.(b) Poor infrastructure in areas of production.
(c) Lack of standardization in the quality of raw materials and measures (weight of bags).
(d) Lack of information especially market information - eg farmers, processors and other users do not have much information on potato issues. Farmers may not know where to sell; consumers may not know how to use a product, etc.
(e) Organizational problem - small scale farmers individually have no bargaining power eg when seeking credit.
(f) Limited networking/linkages between institutions/stakeholders involved in potato and sweet potato issues.
(g) Perishability of product eg potato is a bulky product and highly perishable without appropriate storage.
(h) Limited industrial use for potato and sweet potato and hence farmer cannot sell direct into the market. Since sweet potato is not liked by most people, marketing is particularly glaring for this crop. More consumption will create higher demand.
(i) Credit - micro-finance for small-scale processors eg for setting up a chips eating house.
Prioritizing the constraints (ranking)
In considering the urgency of (and feasibility of a PHS Task Force) alleviating the above constraints, they were ranked as follows:
RANK PROBLEM 1.2.3.4.5.6.- Lack of information from production, post harvest, marketing and utilization/Limited networking and linkages between institutions/stakeholders involved in potato and sweet potato issues- Organizational problem- Seasonal fluctuation in the supply of raw material
- Standardization
- Poor infrastructure
- Perishability of product; Limited industrial use for potato and sweet potato; Credit 3.2. Proposed actions 3.2.1 Inadequate information on Post Harvest System What kind of information: information needed by all actors from farmer to consumer including information on:
- storage;- demand and supply
- handling and storage, product development and
- utilization consumer needs (trader, user, processor)
- nutritional information awareness
- inadequate dissemination of technology from researcher, extension, user, i.e weak linkage causes inadequate information flow on technology
- centralization of seed system - action plan.
ACTION PLAN
- Write proposals to address specific issues:- Collaborators in writing proposals: CIP, KARI, MOA, Universities.
- Coordinator: J.N. Kabira (KARI, Tigoni)
- When: June 1998.
- Undertake study to capture demand and supply issues; consumer needs; curent handling and storage practices.
- Strengthening of country study.
- Form network to disseminate information; collaboration.
3.2.2 Poor Organizational Structure
- Sensitization of farmers on the importance of lobby groups and/or commodity specific farmers' associations for marketing purposes.- Distribution and marketing aspects of the seed system.
- Credit, building stores for market cutlet.
- Farm level processing and adding value before shipping.
- Lack of linkage between various players.
ACTION PLAN
WHAT:
- Sensitization through workshops, training, field days, demonstrations.- Organize peer groups. Use of NGO's, churches and extension programme, farmer exchange visits.
- Strengthen the linkage between farmers, NGOs, extension and research services, etc.
- Organize refresher courses on Post Harvest and processing issues.
WHO:
- Ministry of Agriculture extension service in collaboration with NGOs, churches for creation of awareness; Ministry of Culture and Social Services (mobilization of groups).- Research to provide clean planting material for bulking - need to aggressively involve MOA so that staff at the grassroots appreciate need to support PH work at that level.
- Improvement of organization of PH work personnel within the institutions including refresher courses: KARI, MOA, KIRDI.
WHEN:
- Start July 1998.3.2.3 Seasonality of raw material supply
WHAT:
- Encourage offseason production for farmers who have irrigation facilities.
- Develop the appropriate varieties.
- Develop/acquire short term storage technologies.
- Encourage contract farming.
- Encourage processing industry to link up with producers.WHO:
- Offseason production: Extension services - MOA, NGOs.
- Varieties - KARI, MOA.
- Storage - KARI, KIRDI.
- Processing - commercialization - Ministry of Industrial Development.WHEN:
- Start July 1998.3.2.4 Standardization
Problems arise from premature harvesting; lack of appropriate technology for dehaulming and curing; and lack of grading and sorting standards and regulatory framework.
WHAT:
- Promote an environment that favours all actors.
- Introduce appropriate control measures.
- Teach farmers on appropriate harvesting stage.
- Develop appropriate technologies for dehaulming and curing.
- Sensitize all actors on need for the development of appropriate grading and standards.WHO:
- MOA, KARI, KBS, KIRDIWHEN:
- Start July 1998.3.2.5 Poor infrastructure
This is a policy issue for government intervention. Self-help groups can also contribute to maintenance of rural access roads and other infrastructure like markets. Regular sensitization of policy makers and other stakeholders on need to maintain roads and other infrastructure is required.
3.2.6 Other issues
These include limited networking/linkages between institutions/stakeholders involved in potato and sweet potato issues; perishability of product; limited industrial use for potato and sweet potato; credit; etc.
4.1 Information exchange
Copies of the INPhO newsletter No. 2 were made available. It was also mentioned that a copy of a report by R.A. Boxall entitled "Constraints analysis of the post-production sector in Zambia" draft and a report entitled "Analysis of post harvest systems of tomatoes and yams in Ghana" by C. Henckes and F. Afful (editors) were available and efforts would be made to get copies for those who may want to read them. The meeting appreciated the efforts of Prof. Werner von der Ohe in making these documents available. An article entitled "Effect of pulp processing variables on cassava and sweet potato cakes quality" by E.L. Keya and E.W. Wanjekeche (The Journal of Food Technology in Africa Vol. 2 No. 2 April-June 1996 pp. 44-49) was also distributed.
4.2 Display of Samples
Samples of processed products made from cassava and sweet potato were displayed. These included flour, cakes, biscuits, crisps, etc. The meeting appreciated the efforts of Ms Waweru (MOA) in making the samples available. She explained that the samples were obtained from practitioners in the jua kali sector.
4.3 PHS Analysis stakeholders
A preliminary identification of stakeholders for the PHS analysis was given as follows:
(i) Farmers
(ii) Farmers' Organizations
(iii) Traders
(iv) Transporters
(v) Processors
(vi) Government ministries
(vii) Extension workers
(viii) Researchers
(ix) Non-governmental organizations
(x) Universities
(xi) Consumers
(xii) Financial institutions
(xiii) Policy makers
(xiv) Donors
5.1 Revision of PHS document
The meeting decided that the comments made on the "Post-harvest systems analysis study on potato and sweet potato in Kenya" should be incorporated in the study report.
5.2 Institutionalization of PHS Analysis
In order to advance the initiative of the Post Harvest System analysis, it is important to institutionalize the process by finding a "home" for it. A committee with representation from MOA (Alumira), KARI (Mungai) and the Ministry of Industrial Development (Magwaro), Universities (Kigutha) and International Research Centre (Hagenimana, CIP) was formed with KARI as Secretariat. The Committee was to prepare a briefing document to the managements of particularly KARI and MOA and to make a case for institutionalising PH work at KARI.
5.3 Next meeting
It was decided that:
(i) the next meeting should be held after May 16th 1998;(ii) staff from documentation centres in KARI, MOA (AIC) and MOID should be invited to that meeting to present briefs on their activities especially focused on PHS work as an information exchange activity;
(iii) Mr Magwaro would also present a brief on linkages between MOID, agro-industry (processing), marketing and PHS work.
(iv) the Committee would present draft document for briefing the management of KARI and MOA.
|
1. Mr. J.K. Mungai |
KARI |
|
2. Dr. Jane Alumira |
MOA |
|
3. Mr Joshua Ariga |
Tegemeo Institute, Egerton University |
|
4. Ms M.A. Oyunga |
KARI |
|
5. Gladys Maingi |
MOA |
|
6. Ms Alice Walingo |
KARI, Tigoni |
|
7. Dr J.N. Kabira |
KARI, Tigoni |
|
8. Mr Peter Kinyae |
KARI, Tigoni |
|
9. Dr H. Kigutha |
Egerton University |
|
10. Mr David Magwaro |
Ministry of Industrial Development. |
|
11. Ms Wauye |
MOA - Planning Division |
|
12. Ms Waweru |
MOA - Home Economics |
|
13. Mrs I.G. Nkonge |
MOA |
|
14. Dr Vitalis Hagenimana |
CIP |
|
15. Prof. W. von der Ohe |
GTZ |
|
16. Mr J. Mutua |
MOA |
|
17. Dr J. Kariuki |
MOA |
