1

Post-Harvest Management Policies, Programmes and

Strategies in Benin and Sub-Saharan Africa

30 March 2014

By

Dr. Barthélemy G. Honfoga, Dr. Noel H. Akissoe, Ange Guedenon and Carole N. Sossa-

Vihotogbé

Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network

(FANRPAN)

Supported by

1

Post-Harvest Management Policies, Programmes and Strategies in Benin and

Sub-Saharan Africa

Barthélemy G. Honfoga1, Noel H. Akissoe

2, Ange Guedenon

3 and Carole N. Sossa-

Vihotogbé4

SUMMARY

Agriculture is an important source of income and food security for rural households in Benin.

However, post-harvest losses compromise food and nutritional security. The current study

aims to cast light on policy options to tackle the key factors that limit dissemination and

adoption of technology among small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and

knowledge and information sharing on post-harvest management (PHM) among stakeholders.

Desk research, interviews and a national dialogue were conducted in Benin to collect data.

The six key lessons and recommendations for the way forward are:

1. The main lesson from this review is that post-harvest losses (PHLs) have driven a lot

of research and projects in the field over the last three decades in Benin, but the

adoption of technologies and innovations by smallholder farmers remains low due to

many institutional bottlenecks, financial constraints tied to dependency on donor

funds, too little consideration of the needs and economic conditions of farmers, and

low commitment of government to address PHLs as a national emergency issue.

2. A technology prioritization study should be undertaken to prepare a broad agenda for

addressing PHLs at all levels of agricultural value chains, with differential

interventions strategies towards smallholder farmers and women on the one hand, and

large-scale farmers and traders of grains and pulses on the other.

1 Agricultural economist, agri-marketing and food security expert, Deputy-head of Department DESAC/FSA, University of

Abomey-Calavi, Benin. Corresponding author at: honfoga@hotmail.com .

2 Biochemistry and food technology expert, Head of Department NSA/FSA, University of Abomey-Calavi, Benin.

3 Socio-economist, research assistant, DESAC/FSA.

4 Food technology specialist, research assistant, NSA/FSA.

2

3. The national agricultural policy framework, the PSRSA, must move from lip service

to focus on results. Its Post-Harvest Loss Management (PHLM) components should

be implemented effectively to enable greater results for beneficiaries.

4. Within the framework of the creation of the national fund for agricultural

development (FNDA), a clear budget line should be devoted to PHM-supporting

credit, to stimulate innovation and increase access to PHM equipment for smallholder

farmers and entrepreneurs.

5. A holistic approach to food and nutrition issues should be adopted to make good use

of domestic resources and foreign aid for relevant PHLM interventions which can

really affect the livelihoods of farmers. The National Council for Food and Nutrition

(CAN) should advocate for this while leading implementation of the PHLM

component of the PSRSA. The most promising PHLM technologies should be

identified and policy interventions should foster extended adoption among

smallholder farmers and small- and medium-scale food enterprises (SMEs).

6. Training on value-chain management and market development will be crucial to

efficiently address PHLM concerns. Farmers should be prepared to share the costs of

agricultural extension, as they are the primary beneficiaries of farm outputs. They

should express their needs to research and extension institutions and advocate for their

interests with policy-makers. PHLM innovation platforms would need to be set up in

each region of the country, with their national apex organization located at PTAA.

The study draws conclusions and recommendations on policy gaps, institutional

arrangements gaps, key implementation challenges and opportunities for PHLM in Benin and

SSA.

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of CTA. The views

expressed herein are those of Dr. Barthélemy G. Honfoga and can therefore in no way

be taken to reflect the official opinion of CTA.

3

Table of Contents

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. 5

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8

1.1 Overview of agriculture, food security and PHL issues in Benin ............................... 8

1.2 Climatic risks faced by smallholder farmers ............................................................... 9

1.3 Post-harvest handling activities and risks faced by smallholder farmers.................. 10

1.4 Research objective..................................................................................................... 10

2. Research Methodology ..................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Research design and philosophy ............................................................................... 11

2.2 Research Strategy ...................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Target population and sampling ................................................................................ 11

2.4 The research instruments ........................................................................................... 13

2.4.1 Document analysis and literature review ........................................................... 13

2.4.2 In-depth Interviews ............................................................................................ 13

2.4.3 National dialogue ............................................................................................... 13

2.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................................. 14

2.6 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 14

2.7 Ethical Clearance....................................................................................................... 14

3. Findings from the study ................................................................................................ 14

3.1 Gaps in Research Programs....................................................................................... 14

3.2 Gaps in national policy framework ........................................................................... 16

3.2.1 Research-policy gap ........................................................................................... 16

3.2.2 Efficiency gap .................................................................................................... 17

3.2.3 Institutional bottlenecks ..................................................................................... 17

3.2.4 Integration of research findings in policies ........................................................ 18

3.3 Key constraints for implementation of PHM policies ............................................... 19

3.3.1 Constraints to research results’ uptake for policy formulation and

implementation ................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.2 Bottlenecks to successful PHM policy implementation and tentative solutions 19

4

3.3.3 Requirements for improving PHM policy formulation and implementation .............. 20

3.4 PHM Policy Framework in Benin - effectiveness and equity ................................... 23

3.4.1 Policies ............................................................................................................... 23

3.4.2 Projects and programs ........................................................................................ 24

3.4.3 Effectiveness of policies, programs and projects ............................................... 25

3.5 Key Institutional Frameworks ................................................................................... 27

3.6 National PHM Research ............................................................................................ 28

4. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................. 29

4.1 PHLM policy gaps and key implementation challenges ........................................... 29

4.2 Gaps in institutional arrangements and key recommendations ................................. 30

4.3 Opportunities which remain untapped ...................................................................... 30

4.4 Recommendations for innovative institutional arrangements ................................... 31

Annexes.................................................................................................................................... 33

Annex 1: Some PHM Projects implemented in Africa during the last three decades .......... 33

Annex 2: Projects and programs on post-harvest management in Benin ............................. 37

References ................................................................................................................................ 44

5

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADI African Agribusiness and Agribusiness Development Initiative

AfDB African Development Bank

APHLIS African Post-harvest Losses Information System

APROMAH Association pour la Promotion des Matériels et Hydrauliques

BMELV German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer

Protection

BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economics

BOAD Banque ouest Africaine de développement

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program

CARDER Centre d’action Régionale pour le Développement Rural

CAN Conseil National de l'Alimentation et de la Nutrition

CERNA Centre Régional de Nutrition Appliquée

CFTS Centre de Formation Technique Mgr STEINMETZ

COBEMAG Coopérative Béninoise de Matériel Agricole

CORAF/WECARD West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and

Development

CTB Agence belge de développement

DAGRI Direction de l’Agriculture

DANA Direction de l’Alimentation et de la Nutrition Appliquee

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency

DEP Direction des Etudes et de la Planification

DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom

DPDR Déclaration de Politique de Développement Rural

DIFAOP Direction de l’Information et de la Formation Agricole des

Organisations de Producteurs

FAFA Facilité d’Appui aux Filières Agricoles

FAFA /AD Facilité d’Appui aux Filières Agricoles/ Atacora Donga

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FAOSTAT FAO Statistical Database

FSA Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques

6

GIZ/GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

ICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

INRAB Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

JICA Coopération Japonaise au Développement

LPDR Lettre de Déclaration de Politique de Développement Rural

MAEP Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Elevage et de la Pêche

MDG Millenium Development Goals

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

NRI Natural Resources Institute

NUFFIC

Deutch Organization for International Cooperation in Higher

Education

ONASA Office National d’Appui à la Sécurité Alimentaire

PACER Projet d’Appui à la Croissance Economique Rurale

PADSA Programme d’Appui au Développement du Secteur Agricole

PAGER Projet des Activités Génératrices de Revenus

PASDER

Programme d’Appui à l’amélioration de la productivité des

exploitations familiales des départements de l’Alibori et du

Borgou

PDSPR Projet Développement des Systèmes Post-récolte

PEDUNE Protection Ecologiquement Durable du Niébé

PH Post-harvest

PHL Post-harvest losses

PHM Postharvest management

PICS Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage

PRONAF Projet Niébé pour l’Afrique

PSAIA Projet de Sécurité Alimentaire par l’Intensification Agricole

7

PSRSA Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur Agricole

PTAA Programme Technologie Agricole et Alimentaire

PUASA Programme d’urgence d’appui à la sécurité alimentaire

SAM

SME

Projet de Sécurité Alimentaire des Ménages

Small and Medium Enterprises

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

SONOPRA La Société Nationale pour la Promotion Agricole

UAC Université d’Abomey-Calavi

UEMOA Union Economique Monétaire Ouest Africaine

WARDA Africa Rice Centre

WFP World Food Program

8

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of agriculture, food security and PHL issues in Benin

Agriculture is an important source of income and food security for rural households in Benin.

It employs almost 70% of the working population, and contributes 80% to the country’s

export earnings and 15% to the public revenuei. Agriculture in Benin rests on extensive

production with low productivity and undeveloped markets. It includes approximately

450 000 agricultural producers and is characterized by small-scale farming. The average area

cultivated per household ranges from 0.5 ha on average in the south and 2 ha in the north.

Cotton is the main export crop. It provides about 60% of the country’s export revenues and

drives most public investments in the sectorii. Main food crops include maize, cassava, yam,

millet, sorghum, groundnuts and beans.

During the 1990s, the Government of Benin implemented a structural adjustment program

intended to dramatically reorganise most economic sectors. Reforms in the agricultural sector

focused on improving cotton and food marketing, input distribution, rural finance, and

agricultural services. These reforms were defined in 1991 in the Lettre de Déclaration de

Politique de Développement Rural (LPDR), which was revised in 1999 and became

Déclaration de Politique de Développement Rural (DPDR) or the Declaration of Rural

Development Policy, adopted in June 2000. Agricultural services were restructured as spelt

out in the ‘Programme de Restructuration des Services Agricoles’ (PRSA). Then the

Programme National de Sécurité Alimentaire (PNSA) (2008-2015), a seven year

comprehensive food security program, was implemented, with three sub-programs to increase

food availability and accessibility: (i) food production intensification; (ii) agricultural

diversification; and (iii) value-chain development (storage, conservation, processing, quality

development, and commercialization and trade facilitation). PHL issues were to be addressed

by the last of these sub-programs. Concurrently, the Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur

Agricole (PSRSA) or Strategic Plan for Boosting the Agricultural Sector (2009-2015), was

launched. It is an integrative strategic plan for implementing several on-going agricultural

policies, including actions to achieve MDG1 with particular emphasis on improving poor

people’s nutritional statusiii

.

9

Food security in the country has not been reliable. Between 1980 and 2000, the annual

growth rate of cereal yields and per capita production was about 2% to 2.5%, below

population growth which was 3%iv

. PHLs on cereals, especially maize, and pulses are

estimated between 15% and 30%, owing to precarious and archaic storagev. As a result, food

deficits are high in most areas of the country, averaging 28.3% of food production (maize,

yams, cassava, beans, and groundnuts)vi

. The country is net importer of cereals. From 2008 to

2010, rice imports were 80% of total cereal imports. Malnutrition remains a concern. The

proportion of children under 5 years affected by delayed growth increased from 31% during

the period 1996-2001, to 45% during the period 2007-2011. The proportion affected by

severe malnutrition increased from 8% to 16% during the same period5. Therefore, both

malnutrition rates and the country’s dependency on food imports should be urgently reduced

by increasing crop production and combating PHLs.

The problem of PHM is closely linked to the fight against hunger. Proper management of

agricultural produce after harvest is an economical and environmentally friendly way to

increase food availability in the context of a growing world populationvii

. Unfortunately, not

all stakeholders perceive this relation between hunger issues and PHL issues well enough. In

Benin, processing of agricultural products (especially food crops) is characterized by

rudimentary techniques and equipment, and poor access to energy and waterviii

. There is an

overall lack of efficient post-harvest management systemsix

. Many gaps and constraints

impede adequate design and implementation of PHM policy. The most important ones are

those responsible for non-adoption of PHM technologies and innovations.

1.2 Climatic risks faced by smallholder farmers

Agro-climatic zones in Benin include the semi-arid zone in the north, the sub-humid zone in

the centre and the humid zone in the south. Farming systems include root and tuber crops,

cereal-root crops mixed, and agro-pastoralx which respectively dominate in the centre, south

and north of the country. Considering that the country is located in a climatically uncertain

region with great rainfall variations and high temperatures that limit the availability of quality

food all year round, PHL issues should be addressed swiftly but also with a long-term

5 Sources: EDSB-II 2001, EDSB-III 2006, EDS-MICS-IV 2011-2012.

10

perspective. The institutional frameworks within which several such programs and projects

are implemented are described later in Section 3.

1.3 Post-harvest handling activities and risks faced by smallholder farmers

National agricultural policy is currently framed by the PSRSA (2010-2015). PHM-relevant

components are clearly mentioned in it, and related actions are well detailed. Yet these

actions need to be more focused to be more effective. In general, novel equipment to store

grains is non-existent. Many local as well as regional and international institutions recognize

that post-harvest systems in Benin are threatened by lack of innovation, from grain harvesting

to storage, processing and consumption systems. Most public food processing industries are

underequipped, and are therefore likely to close doors in the coming two decades owing to

the lack of efficient post-harvest management systems, which will contribute to increasing

post-harvest losses. The value-chains development sub-program of the PNSA is designed to

address PHL issues to avert that trend. In the PSRSA, related measures should be more

tightly focused and developed further.

1.4 Research objective

The current study aims to cast light on policy options to tackle key factors that limit

dissemination and adoption of technology among small scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa,

and knowledge and information sharing on post-harvest management among stakeholders.

The specific objectives of the study were:

1. to comprehensively review the post-harvest management policy context existing

in Benin;

2. to analyse gaps in the existing policy frameworks and indicate how they can be

closed to meet the needs/challenges smallholder farmers face;

3. to provide relevant recommendations for policy improvement;

4. to analyse factors that would contribute to the effective implementation of these

policies once they are in place; and

5. to develop policy recommendations (briefs) at national and regional levels.

The research questions were as follows:

11

1. What are the major crop production and PHLM policy gaps and key challenges to

implementing policies in the country?

2. What are the major gaps in institutional arrangement and what key institutional

arrangement can be recommended?

3. What opportunities remain untapped, and why? How could they be explored?

2. Research Methodology

2.1 Research design and philosophy

The research used a qualitative paradigm to gather, analyse and explain data about PHLM.

The research aimed to develop in-depth understanding of existing policies, programmes,

strategies, projects, challenges and opportunities for PHLM that could be tapped for

improvement. Sensitive and flexible tools were used to gather data. The research first

established and described the facts and phenomena of PHLM issues, then sought to explain

the trends.

2.2 Research Strategy

The researchers interviewed knowledgeable and experienced individuals from amongst the

key stakeholders in the country, to develop an understanding of themes and patterns.

Respondents were asked semi-structured questions, but were allowed to add any information

that they thought relevant. This phenomenological approach allowed reflections based on the

experiences of the selected experts in the field, from which we were able to generate many

ideas about the problem and recommendations for some innovative and other generic

solutions to the problems of PHLM in the country and SSA.

2.3 Target population and sampling

The target population were stakeholders in the PHLM and smallholder agricultural

production. A non-probability sampling method – purposive sampling - was used, because it

was convenient, economical, and flexible. Individuals who would provide the most valuable

information were selected from organisations sampled from databases which were obtained

from the Ministry of Agriculture. Knowledgeable individual participants were subsequently

nominated by their superiors in each organisation. The participants consisted of researchers,

decision- and policy-makers such as high-level policy department officials, PHM program

and projects leaders in state specialized organizations and non-governmental organisations

12

(NGOs), and leaders of farmers’ organizations. The questions relating to PHLM were

administered to 18 respondents representing different organisations in Benin (Table 1).

Table 1: Postharvest management stakeholders interviewed in Benin

Categories Respondent

number

Organization and position

Policy makers 1 MAEP/ DICAF/ Collaborateur du DICAF

2 MAEP/ DPP

3 DAGRI / Chef service protection des Végétaux

Implementation

agents

4 CARDER Atlantique/Chef Service Promotion des

filières Agricoles

5 CeRPA Parakou / Technicien en protection des

végétaux

6 CARDER Borgou/Chargé du conditionnement

7 ONASA / Chef service approvisionnement

8 GASPEL ONG/ Directeur exécutif

9 CARDER Zou/Technicien Spécialisé en

Production Végétale

10 HELVETAS / Coordonnatrice

11 ETD/ Responsable d’antenne

Project

beneficiaries

12 UCP Zogbodomey/ Coordonateur

13 SOCIA Bénin/ Directeur technique

14 Organisation des Producteurs à Parakou /

Président du bureau

Research 15 AFRICA RICE

16 INRAB : PAPA

17 PTAA

13

18 IITA/Chercheur en post récolte

2.4 The research instruments

2.4.1 Document analysis and literature review

Document analysis and review of the literature identified crucial information and policy gaps

and helped to align the research problems with existing empirical knowledge. This process

entailed a thorough review of relevant data and literature on policies, programs, strategies and

project documents related to PHLM and agricultural production, and thereby revealed various

opinions on the subject. The scope of document analysis and literature review covered the

whole of Sub-Saharan Africa.

2.4.2 In-depth Interviews

The interviews were conducted with key actors and informants who had adequate knowledge

in the field of PHM technology development, policy formulation or implementation in Benin

(Table 1). The interviews constituted the basic form of primary data collection. The questions

were aligned with the research problems as described above, and were designed to close

information gaps identified in the literature review. The last section of the interview guide

was left open-ended to allow respondents to make additional comments. Face-to-face

interviews provided a versatile way of collecting data where questions could be adapted to

the background, experience and expertise of the interviewee. Interviewers were able to clear

up vague answers and to request elaboration when responses were not complete. This yielded

quality responses to the research questions. The four interviewers - two professors and two

postgraduate students - were experienced and able to conduct the interviews in French, which

is understood by participants from all the organisations.

2.4.3 National dialogue

The findings from document reviews and output from the stakeholders’ interviews were

presented at the National Dialogue workshop, held in Cotonou on 19 and 20 February, 2014.

The workshop shared the results and validated the relevant information about past and current

policies and strategies related to PHM. It developed recommendations to deal with the

challenges and fill in the gaps which were identified. All the stakeholders from Benin

indicated in Table 1 were represented at the workshop. High ranking government officials

from the Ministry of Agriculture attended the workshop, such as the Permanent Secretary in

14

the Ministry of Agriculture. All participants were given the opportunity to air their views and

discuss the findings from the study.

2.5 Data analysis

Content analysis established themes, patterns and trends emerging from the data, using word

analysis, comparing and contrasting responses from different participants, intentional analysis

and physical manipulation of texts. The existing information from various project reports and

research papers was consulted and used to cross-check and validate field notes. The

secondary data was tabulated. Repeated questions to validate the information obtained

triangulated the data. The in-depth interviews with key informants also enabled content

validity. A literature study of documented information from reliable sources in the country

further validated the data. Data collection and analysis were done concurrently, for example

when changing the questions during the interviews of highly knowledgeable people, to enable

a mutual interaction between what was known and what the researcher needed to know, to

ensure that reliable data was collected. Ultimately, findings from the field studies in Benin

were validated during the national dialogue workshop as described above.

2.6 Limitations of the Study

For logistical reasons the interviews were not conducted in all regions of the country.

However, the national dialogue was conducted where most relevant stakeholders are based so

that they could be represented. The major challenge experienced during data collection was

the lack of statistics on PHLs and limited literature on PHM in the country.

2.7 Ethical Clearance

The researchers approached the stakeholder organisations with references from FANRPAN

and their home institutions in Benin. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study

and they participated voluntarily.

3. Findings from the study

3.1 Gaps in Research Programs

Many research programs have been implemented in Benin in response to post-harvest losses,

but most have been limited to storage. Studies related to other steps of the value chain are few

and neglected. Adegbola et al (2012)xi

reported post-harvest losses of maize and cowpea.

15

Most of the research focused on grain storage, using traditional structures such as granaries

made of different materials (wood or clay) or house roof, polyethylene bags, and barrels.

Improved storage structures (improved wooden granaries, cribs) were proposed in earlier

interventions. It was established that a common problem related to PHL in cereals in many

countries appeared to be the lack of adequate or suitable drying facilities. Adequate grain

drying was emphasized as a key PHL issue because wet grains allow growth of moulds and

production of aflatoxins. No clear research exists for evaluating PHL of cereals and pulses in

Benin and other West African countries. The new African Postharvest Losses Information

System (APHLIS) project should be extended to 17 countries in Western and Central Africa.

The literature indicates that there are existing technologies for reducing post-harvest loss at

the local farmers’ level. The gaps are at the level of financing, technical assistance and

economic incentives for adoption of such technologies. The problems concern the lack of

adequate warehouses to meet farmers’ needs for intensive production, the absence of

adequate insecticides, and lack of training on good practices and acceptable farmers’

behaviours for post-harvest systems.

Many technologies were identified to reduce pests and moulds, such as the use of natural or

chemical insecticides and the reduction of grain moisture before storage. For smallholders’

needs, traditional granaries were improved to include cribs, silos or warehouses, reducing

financial costs. Unfortunately, those innovations have not been widely disseminated

throughout the whole country. In some other situations where extension systems were

functioning well, technologies did not respond to local farmers’ core problems, or they did

not use them for economic reasons. In the case of chemical-based technologies, the main

problem is their non-availability. Even though those technologies such as sofa grain and

spintor have very high adoption, their adoption did not last. An example concerns improved

maize storage technologies (improved granaries + use of sofa grain). After their adoption,

they were abandoned because of the high financial cost involved in the construction and the

non-availability of sofa grainix

. In other cases abandonment was rooted in lack of knowledge

on how to build improved granaries as well as the unaffordable price of insecticides.ix

Our

survey revealed the unavailability of sofa grain in most of selling centres and the use of

inappropriate insecticides for storing crops, particularly dangerous cotton insecticides. This

results in recurrent intoxication problems in the north of Benin. The insecticide mostly used

by producers and wholesalers is phostocin, which they introduce in crop storage although it

16

should be used as fumigant. This method does not require long term storage of stocks and

only destroys pests present directly after harvest. Consumers pay the price for damage that

occurs subsequently during storage.

Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) bags, especially designed for cowpea storage, can

also be used for maize storage in some villages. These are very safe because they do not need

any insecticides. Unfortunately, this technology has not been disseminated well, and the

unavailability of the bag led producers to use plastic drums. The lack of proper storage

facilities is a serious constraint to PHLs’ reduction. Small producers could not afford storage

equipment due to their limited financial capacity and lack of access to credit.

Finally, the poor state of some rural roads limits access to markets and to large collection

centres, which is a disincentive to use improved technologies.

3.2 Gaps in national policy framework

3.2.1 Research-policy gap

There is a wealth of research findings on post-harvest management in Benin, but the most

promising technologies are not known to decision-makers. Researchers are not inclined to

write policy briefs or engage in advocacy to foster policy, although many seminars are

organized to inform policy-makers on the work being done. Unfortunately, monitoring is

poor owing to weak collaboration between high-level research and extension high-level

leaders, and top decision-makers. This stems from a phenomenon that one might call

territorialism about recognition. During interviews, participants raised concerns regarding

poor collaboration and their feelings on the subject may be summarized as follows: ‘Who will

patronize or bear the authorship of an initiative, and thereby receive the fruits in terms of

intellectual recognition or project leadership?’ The policy-makers do not want to listen to

national researchers, but prefer to import knowledge and technologies from abroad. This is

due either to the ‘white man’s knowledge’ syndrome or the myth that ‘foreign is always

better’, and sometimes to the hidden agenda of overestimating project costs.

The main research-policy gap, as revealed by interviews with PHM researchers and policy-

makers, is the non-integration of research findings into agricultural policy development. The

link between researchers, decision-makers and beneficiaries is very weak or non-existent.

There is a total disconnection between technology development and adoption. INRAB is the

state organization responsible for providing policy makers and extension services with

17

research findings, but it does not connect with them. Consequently technology adoption by

farmers is low. Integration of research findings into policy design is low owing to the lack of

appropriate information among decision-makers and decision-making institutional

bottlenecks.

3.2.2 Efficiency gap

The most recurrent causes of low performance are slow and cumbersome procedures for

procurement and the cost of technical study in the context of insufficient finances.

Performance data is available for the projects in Table 2.

Table 2: Performance of PHM-related agricultural projects

Programs/Projects Performance level

Programme d’Appui au Développement

du Secteur Agricole PADSA phase II

Good performance: physical realization rate of

72% and100% against financial implementation

rate of 5% to 96%

Projet d’appuis au développement rural

PADER

Average performance: physical realization rate of

60% and 69% against financial implementation

rate of 5% to 65%

Projet de Sécurité Alimentaire par

l’Intensification Agricole PSAIA

Low performance: physical realization rate <60%

against financial implementation rate of 1-100%

Source: DPP, 2012. Performance des structures, programme/ projet du MAEP pour l’année

2011. 30p.)

3.2.3 Institutional bottlenecks

A critical and persistent aspect of the food security problem in Benin until recently was the

non-existence of a national platform to address food and nutrition issues in an integrated

manner. Addressing nutrition issues should be the starting point of designing food production

technologies. Here, one should distinguish crop and animal production technologies from

post-harvest technologies, though they address complementary needs. Such attention has

been missing so far, and several state organizations in charge of post-harvest issues have been

dispersed in non-relevant ministries. Food security projects have been designed with too

much focus on crop and animal production handled by the Ministry of Agriculture. The

18

national institute in charge of food and nutrition, DANA, was placed under its supervision,

pushing down the Ministry of Health’s claim. Points of professional inter-linkages were lost

on that occasion, and thus several essential questions relating to PHL were ignored.

Furthermore, attribution of projects to implementing organisations has been guided by a

strategy of siphoning donor funds rather than the sake for effectiveness and valuable impacts

on beneficiaries. Steering committees of projects are usually heavy, with a plethoric inter-

ministerial configuration but with little monitoring strategy, and therefore little efficacy.

3.2.4 Integration of research findings in policies

Many research programs have been implemented and have produced important results for

PHL reduction in Benin. The PHL reduction objectives were prioritized in any country’s

poverty reduction strategies and other relevant sub-sectors’ strategiesxii

, but the inclusion of

specific PHL reduction activities in these strategies was often missing. Post-harvest policy is

weak. The government does not prioritize post-harvest research and does not focus on

dissemination and financing activities related to this area. This is mainly owing to the fact

that statistics in national agricultural production and agronomic research are unclear, and

conflicting with the reality. No authority is judging the statistics based on the daily

experience of people or formulating recommendations to strengthen the post-harvest system

so that it responds better to the reality on the ground. Research findings did not get the

required attention, and the overall extension system is not disseminating post-harvest research

results as intensively as in the past. There is no effort to reverse the trend.

Policies must address these gaps and weaknesses to increase the adoption rate of PHL-

reducing technologies. Improvements can be achieved by striving to reduce dependency on

foreign aid and sensitising policy-makers to the most promising technologies for smallholder

farmers, with development of local industries and dedicated government support. Extension

programs should properly address the financing of these technologies. Subsidizing some

technologies or promoting local entrepreneurs should be explored. More improvements can

be achieved by increasing the importance of PHL on the agendas of agricultural research and

extension services, supporting demonstration of technologies through lead farmers, farmer

field schools, and in other venues, and supporting producer groups with matching grants to

procure technologiesxiii

.

19

3.3 Key constraints for implementation of PHM policies

3.3.1 Constraints to research results’ uptake for policy formulation and implementation

Policy formulation is increasingly excluding direct users (local farmers) and those who are in

direct contact with them (researchers), due to the lack of funding in developing countries.

Research programs are disconnected from the realities because they are rooted in a top-down

stimulation system controlled by international financial systems. The complex and fruitful

system integrating local farmers, researchers and development policy makers that had

existed, and which boosted agricultural production in Benin, has disappeared due to

inefficient management and corruption. The incorrect use of intellectual and technical

competencies in policies, and most importantly in agricultural development, has significantly

weakened the post-harvest sub-system in Benin and West Africa as a whole.

3.3.2 Bottlenecks to successful PHM policy implementation and tentative solutions

Constraints to effective PHM policy formulation and implementation in Benin may be

grouped into three main categories: technical, policy and institutional, and socioeconomic

constraints.

3.3.2.1 Technical constraints

The processing of agricultural products is characterized by rudimentary techniques,

equipment, and poor access to energy and water (PSRSA, p.24). There is an overall lack of

efficient PHM systems.ix

The poor state of equipment in existing food industries is owing to

factors such as low research uptake, caused by lack of innovations (from grain harvesting to

storage, processing and consumption systems); lack of adaptation of post-harvest equipment

to the specific climate conditions of each agro-ecological zone, and especially to the

differential effects of climate change in each zone; the drawbacks of chemical treatment of

grains in stores and warehouses, and low adoption of biological methods for addressing post-

harvest losses; and resource waste in existing grain value chains, that is the presence of

unnecessary intermediaries because of the lack of integrated transport and handling systems.

Further constraints include lack of training about innovations and lack of hermetic

infrastructure for using fumigants to store grains.

20

3.3.2.2 Policy/institutional bottlenecks

Although agriculture is the basis of Benin’s economy, its share of public investment has

decreased sharply from 35% in 1990 to 21% in 1998 and from 11% in 2000 to 8% in 2006

iii,

ii. Unfortunately much of the public expenditure in the agriculture sector is in salaries and to

irrelevant infrastructure. Investment in agro-industries has been weak or quite absent. The

breakdown of public investment in the agricultural sector means that little attention has been

paid specifically to value-chain development, which includes PHM infrastructure.

The weaknesses of ONASA, in properly addressing PHM issues, are due to lack of quality

monitoring, especially for rice; the absence of its own logistical system (for transportation for

example) and lack of warehouses. The grains which were collected by ONASA were wrongly

transferred to surplus zones, with little attention to storage technical norms.

Difficulties faced by specialized R&D organizations dealing with PHM issues (INRAB and

PTAA) can be attributed to lack of cooperation between researchers, decision makers and

beneficiaries; poor linkage between research and extension; and the length of the process for

concluding feasibility studies on technologies to be promoted. Additionally, policy-makers do

not get reliable information on the most promising technologies, as a result of the poor

cooperation from researchers.

3.3.2.3 Socio-economic constraints

Smallholder farmers are constrained by the high cost of some technologies and lack of access

to credit. Additionally, they do not get adequate information on technologies and their cost.

They get limited opportunities to see and assess the technology. This is compounded by

cultural complexes such as the fear that they would face their neighbours’ jealousy if they

expose their harvests of grains to the public by storing them in improved or modern stores or

warehouses outside their house. Many farmers would like to avoid such wealth exposure.

Such hidden cultural constraints compromise efficacy of PHM policy and impacts.

3.3.3 Requirements for improving PHM policy formulation and implementation

The solutions for orienting policy actions may be grouped into technical and

policy/institutional innovations.

21

3.3.3.1 Technical solutions

The following technologies promise high impact for smallholder farmers: Purdue Improved

Cowpea Storage (PICS) bag with economic value e 96.6 %xiv

; improved storage-hut

(SPVCP/DAGRI, 1989/90), which has been successfully implemented in many countries and

is efficient for maize storage and conservation; the bamboo improved storage hut for maize

storagexv

which is a circular storage-hut, shorter than 3m and lasting about eight years, and

very efficient in maize storage; and chemical pesticides such as Actellic CE, Sofa grain, and

K-Othrine CE for large-scale maize storage. Technologies promising high impacts for large-

scale farmers include the use of locally-made maize threshers and improved storage huts. The

local thresher has a capacity of more than 2 tons an hour and a broken grain rate of 0.9%. The

Banco-wall improved storage-hut for maize storage is strong, long-lasting and comes with a

user-guide for construction and use.

Sustainable technical solutions identified by the study include measures to: promote

construction of in-house granaries or warehouses for smallholders; control weevils;

strengthen the technical assistance of state extension agents to producers; enhance PHM

research funding with NGOs contribution; provide farmers with financial and technical

support; and provide farmers with production credit and grain price support mechanisms

during harvest periods. The following technical solutions seemed to have been beneficial in

the past: the Biological Control Program of 2012; testing storage structures to measure the

levels of aflatoxin infestations of food stuffs; conservation of cowpea in jute bags; research

on hermetic storage structures, especially triple bagging; management of the larger maize

borer; and innovation of new technologies for dry areas. Improvement of grain drying

management, for example by installing slightly improved drying equipment – cribs - was

emphasized. The potential solutions for large-scale farmers were implemented with limited

success, due to lack of know-how and poor organization. These included construction of

metal grain silos by the National Committee (NCC) in 1979 and construction of a corn mill in

1981.

The technical areas of grain protection, individual farm storage, grain-drying and market

information should be prioritized when considering interventions. The interventions should

be along the value chain. It is critical to develop and strengthen producer groups. The value

chain actors (producers, traders and processors) should be trained. Service providers are

associate members, who should prepare, disseminate, and promote exchange of information

22

on matters affecting the regional grain management system. In this regard, the marketing

chain would reward quality improvements by offering price incentives to farmers and others

on the value chain.

3.3.3.2 Policy/institutional innovations

Food security has received a growing share of public expenditure in the agricultural sector,

from 1.9% between 1992 and 1995, to 12.2% from 1992 to 1998xvi

. Although the PSRSA

gives less attention to PHM, there are plans to increase public expenditure in crop production

to CFA747 billion in the period 2013 to 2015, from CFA422 billion during the period 2009-

2012 - about 25% more in each year.

The interviews with stakeholders revealed some institutional innovations which occurred

about 10 years ago, but impacts on beneficiaries were not obvious for some of these

interventions, and they are yet to be demonstrated for the new ones. The general policy

decisions include: the declaration of rural development policy for agricultural liberalization

(1998), the Agricultural Sector Recovery Plan, the Strategy for Growth and Poverty

Reduction (2007-2009), and the strategic plan to boost agricultural policy, finalized in 2011

and being implemented currently. Specific PHM actions include: production and collection

by SONAPRA, the state company to develop agriculture, and ONASA, to better face the

2007/08 oil and food crisis; production and processing of rice and soybeans and other

agricultural products in key villages; warranting crop credit system for maize, rice and soya

which enables the sale of quality grains through secured and integrated value chains; a mutual

fund; a Strategy for Promoting Value Chains; and bundling or group-selling, to meet the

same need of grain quality conservation.

Gender and diversity-sensitive approaches should be used in all planning, selection,

implementation, communication, and up-scaling of PHL reduction interventions. Women are

already major users of credit schemes in Niger and Madagascar and there is evidence of a

positive effect from the POSTCOSECHA, a program disseminating silo technology in

Honduras and Central America, in engaging women in PHL reduction (FAO/World Bank,

2010).

23

3.4 PHM Policy Framework in Benin - effectiveness and equity

3.4.1 Policies

After the LPDR (1991) and the DPDR (2000), the national agricultural policy framework

(PSRSA, 2010-2015) has set quite a clear PHM agenda to address post-harvest losses in

Benin. However, it needs to move from lip service to a more result-oriented implementation.

The following are relevant PHM components6 and suggestions for more focused

interventions with greater results for beneficiaries:

a) Quality seeds must be available and accessible to farmers: it should be noted that pre-

harvest influences post-harvest management. Therefore, attention should be paid to the

selection of climate-smart crop varieties that are appropriate for local conditions and that

take into account harvest storage needs – it must be time saving, money saving, quality

preservation. The production and trade of non-authorized, fragile varieties which are not

resistant to storage insects should be limited or not allowed at all. Seed quality control

should pay due attention to this and other PHM requirements.

b) Improved chemical inputs must be available: here again, pre-harvest influences post-

harvest management. The present regulation of chemicals in Benin is biased toward a

shadow private monopoly. This should be corrected to ensure that specific grain storage

chemicals become available, thereby avoiding massive deaths caused by the use of

inappropriate products by illiterate and untrained farmers and other rural users. Fair and

health-sensitive trade of agro-chemicals should be promoted, especially regarding the

particular need to control weevils.

c) Adapted mechanization must become accessible: there is a need to list the most promising

PHM technologies that are available, to improve research on their adaptation to local

conditions, and to increase government spending on their dissemination among

smallholder farmers. The fiscal provisions inciting the procurement of agricultural

equipment should give a greater attention to PHM technologies for smallholder farmers,

especially food processors. Tax exemption for such equipment would contribute to their

greater adoption.

d) Funding must be accessible to farmers and agricultural entrepreneurs: a clear budget line

should be devoted to PHM-supporting credit in the framework for the creation of the

6 The detailed actions envisaged in the PSRSA document are not listed here.

24

national fund for agricultural development (FNDA), aiming to stimulate innovation and

increase smallholders’ and entrepreneurs’ access to PHM-equipment.

e) Access to professional knowledge and innovation must be increased: All the actions

already envisaged are relevant. Nonetheless, there is need to emphasize the selection and

diffusion of appropriate food storage and conservation techniques with regard to the risks

of climate change.

f) Markets must be accessible: Here again, all the actions envisaged are relevant. However,

food security monitoring requires a permanent post-harvest evaluation system in order to

update information on PHLs and to guide region-specific PHM interventions, especially

in addressing traders’ needs.

g) Professionalization must be promoted among smallholder farmers and agricultural

entrepreneurs: The training envisaged should emphasise the link between PHM and food

quality along food value chains.

3.4.2 Projects and programs

The postharvest projects which were implemented during the last 30 years in Sub-Saharan

Africa are listed and described in Annex 1. The projects were conducted in West, East and

Southern African countries. The countries where projects were implemented include, from

west Africa, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Mali and Sierra Leone; from east Africa, Kenya,

Sudan and Uganda; and from southern Africa, Angola, Malawi and Zimbabwe. The scope of

projects ranges from storage technologies such as warehouse receipts, to improved design of

indigenous stores, mud and metal silos, plastic stores, Purdue Cowpea bags, and harvest

handling. The control strategies covered included control of the larger grain borer,

conservation treatment and biological control. The aflatoxin strategies were also pursued.

Finally, projects which focused on institutional arrangements such as market services,

procurement methods and inventory credit for smallholder farmers, were implemented in

SSA.

The programmes and projects which were implemented in Benin are indicated in Annex 2.

The PHM research and development initiatives aimed to improve the storage conditions for

cereal grains, essentially maize. The development of equipment for harvesting and storage

was emphasised to reduce post-harvest losses. Old programs covered various periods between

1960 and 2012. Many of them have already ended, especially for maize and cowpea. In the

cases of rice, fonio (Digitaria exilis) and sorghum, very little has been done. On-going

25

projects will end in 2016 (See Annex 2). Overall, the PHM projects implemented so far in

Benin dealt with:

a) Identification and dissemination of different storage technologies (silo, warehouse and

bag) and conservation (biological control, traditional and chemical insecticides);

b) Time-saving equipment in post-harvest activities (thresher and sheller);

c) Enhancement of grain processing; and

d) Grain quality control and promotion of the warranting system.

Most of these projects addressed storage techniques and grain storage. Very few dealt with

food processing, which is, however, an integral and important part of post-harvest grain

management. Quality control is being handled by the Beninese Agency for Food Health

Security (ABSSA), while the program for agricultural and food technology (PTAA) ensures

that food technology design considers food biosecurity as a key concern for food processing,

together with the tastes and preferences of consumers. Marketing is a step in PMH which has

been investigated extensively in academic research in Beninxvii

, but recommendations have

not been implemented widely enough in the field. Only two projects (WSM/FBS, PUASA)

were identified on this important aspect. However, some initiatives were developed by

famers’ organizations (FOs) supported by VECO-WA (an international NGO from Belgium)

in the villages of Chetti and Kpataba. FOs were able to comply with foreign market

requirements and they exported rice to Europe. Likewise, FOs in Zogbodomey developed the

warranting system for maize and soya beansxviii

.

Therefore, both processing and marketing need to be included in post-harvest studies and

integrated into best practices in order to significantly reduce grain losses in Benin and West

Africa. Actors involved in the post-harvest systems, from marketing up to consumption,

should be purposefully trained on best practices of food conservation and processing. In this

perspective, proper implementation of the PHM-related sub-program of PNSA and of the

PSRSA, as indicated above, should be given the dedicated attention.

3.4.3 Effectiveness of policies, programs and projects

The main lesson from this review is that a substantial knowledge capitalisation has been done

during the last three decades on ways to address PHLs of grains, but low adoption of PHM

technologies stems largely from the lack of long-term replication of donor-funded initiatives

by African governments themselves. The reason is not only the lack of funds or non-

26

adaptation of some technologies to local conditions, but mostly the lack of political will to

alleviate donor dependancy. Other reasons for low adoption rates of PHM technologies and

innovations are two-fold:

First, proposed technologies do not respond well to smallholders’ needs, with high cost, low

relevance and non-availability of those technologies. Indeed, quite few technologies

adequately address food processing where food losses mostly occur. Village milling accounts

for 20% to 30% of weight losses during traditional post-harvest operations, while commercial

milling accounts for 5% to 30% of weight losses in mechanized post-harvest operationsxix

. In

Benin, women’s constraints in this respect are often overlooked, and consumers’ tastes and

preferences, rooted in cultures and food habits, are largely ignored by the said ‘improved

technologies’. Most of the latter are not within the reach of the majority of farmers, due to

high costs of procurement and low adaptability to household grain storage and processing

traditions. The lack of purposeful farmers’ training is an overarching limitation to bridging

the gap between these traditions and the requirements for profitability of use which might

trigger adoption and long-term use of technologies by smallholder farmers.

Second, low PHM-research uptake in agricultural policies due to low dissemination of

available technologies among farmers, low demand from decision-makers of PHM

knowledge and products, and a long absence of an exchange platform on food and nutrition

issues in Benin.

Technology dissemination is often absent from the annual budgets of research institutions,

reflecting a lack of a user-oriented, practical perspective in research policies. Interaction

between researchers, senior extension agents and media is quite poor and renowned scientists

and innovators are rarely recognized and celebrated. The frustration of many high-standing

researchers over decades has killed the motivation for designing a research agenda that is

really responsive to the country’s needs for useful technologies and innovations. Regarding

the low PHM knowledge demand at policy-making level, it appears that rushed design and

implementation of projects by the MAEP, in their haste to capture spot donor funds, may be

the cause. Competencies available in other ministries dealing with food issues are rarely

invited into these processes. Although some feasibility studies have been ordered for large-

scale interventions, findings are sometimes overlooked for the sake of getting hold of donor

funds on time.

27

The lack of a holistic approach on food and nutrition issues has led to scattered, poorly

coordinated and foreign aid-dependent PHM interventions and low impact policies, until the

National Council for Food and Nutrition (CAN) was created in 2012 to address this problem.

Today, a useful contribution to this effort would be to identify the PHM technologies that are

worth policy interventions for widespread adoption among smallholders and small and

medium scale food enterprises.

During the national forum of dialogue on PHM, the General Secretary of the Ministry of

Agriculture drew participants’ attention to three prerequisites for the success of PHM policy

and interventions in Benin:

a) To increase adoption of technologies, high cost should be understood as a relative

concept. Technologies will not be seen as expensive if they are profitable for farmers.

Agricultural extension should promote only the promising technologies - inputs and

equipment - and in this respect, Government should develop cost-effective

partnerships with private sector and NGOs.

b) Farmers should be prepared to share the costs of agricultural extension, as they are the

primary beneficiaries of farm outputs. They should express their needs to research and

extension institutions and advocate for their interests with policy-makers. For

example, agricultural subsidies will have to be negotiated by farmers’ organizations

on a case-by-case basis, only one crop at a time, bearing in mind that farming is a

commercial/business activity from which government expects tax revenues.

c) Training on value-chain management and market development will be key to

efficiently address PHM concerns in Benin. These aspects are developed in some

depth in the PSRSA. However, farmers’ organizations should take the lead in

expressing training demands, if the government is to move from lip service to

implementation.

3.5 Key Institutional Frameworks

The National Institute for Agricultural Research in Benin (INRAB) is the state organization,

which is responsible for providing policy makers and extension services with research

findings. Its farmers’ field experimentation branch is the Directorate for Agriculture

(DAGRI). INRAB and DAGRI are part of the National Agricultural Research System

(NARS), which also includes agricultural education centres, universities and research-

28

oriented NGOs. The NARS is supported by many donors and international and regional

research and development organizations, such as IITA and AfricaRice. The Ministry of

Agriculture (MAEP) has a directorate in charge of agricultural training and extension

(DICAF), which is linked to relevant divisions (DIFAOP) in regional centres for rural

development (CARDERs), which are mandated by MAEP to implement extension programs

in the field and to monitor agricultural production for appropriate policy planning. Recently,

MAEP launched the national program for agricultural diversification (ProCAD) to move the

country from cotton mono-cropping and to tap the full potentials of its agricultural zones. It

implements the PPAAO (West African Agricultural Productivity Project) and the PADA

(Project for Support to Agricultural Diversification). Regarding PHM specifically, INRAB

has launched the agricultural and food processing program (PTAA), which is designed to

manage PHL-related research and extension programs. It works in collaboration with the

Program for Agricultural Policy Planning and Analysis (PAPA), to learn from policy

assessments and tap prospective policy agendas.

What is needed to increase uptake of research findings into policies includes: (i) turning

PTAA into a permanent directorate which would handle PHLM issues by building up the

relevant database and ensuring the required information and advisory services; (ii) the design

and downward structuration of national innovation platforms, which would handle

technology appropriateness, endogenous knowledge stock-taking and feeding farmers’ needs

to policy-makers.

3.6 National PHM Research

Adegbola et al.xx

reported that post-harvest losses of maize and cowpea occur along the value

chain. However, most studies assessed post-harvest losses during storage. Studies related to

other steps of the value chain are few or neglected. No clear research exists for evaluating

PHL of cereal and pulses. This situation is similar for other West African countries. Thus, it

is desirable that APHLIS’ experience is extended to West Africa. The new APHLIS project

intends to extend the system to 17 countries in Western and Central Africa. In Benin,

although stakeholders claim that technologies exist, their categorisation and adaption to

climatic conditions, farmers’ income level and consumers’ food preferences remain a

problem. The most relevant problems raised by farmers include the lack of adequate

warehouses to meet their needs for intensive production, the absence of adequate insecticides,

the lack of training on good practices and of overall incentives (support for crop

29

diversification, credit and price/tax waiving or reduction) to encourage the adoption and

maintenance of profitable post-harvest systems.

Definitely, post-harvest policy in Benin is weak in integrating research findings. The overall

extension system in Benin is not disseminating post-harvest research results today as

intensively as in the past. Inclusion of research findings in policies is low due to the lack of

appropriate information among decision-makers, decision-making institutional bottlenecks

and lack of appropriate financing. Amidst low public investment in the agricultural sector

over the last 20 years, little attention has been paid specifically to value-chain development

(which includes PHM weaknesses). Specialized R&D organizations dealing with PHM issues

face various difficulties. Financing of PHLM research activities and findings dissemination

remains a great challenge. Technical assistance and economic incentives for smallholder

farmers are also missing. Incorporation of research findings in policies is also constrained by

the lack of reliable statistics on PHL at the local level which can convince policy-makers of

the need for change. The national agricultural policy framework (PSRSA) has obvious PHM-

components today, and this is an opportunity researchers should tap. The creation of the

national council for food and nutrition (CAN) in 2012 also offers an appropriate space for

improved uptake of research findings.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 PHLM policy gaps and key implementation challenges

Awareness-raising on post-harvest management (PHM) in Benin has gained the support of

several donors over the last three decades, but there have been no tangible, large-scale and

cost-effective actions, on account of many policy and institutional gaps. Indeed, public

support for reducing PHL has been so far concentrated on research and the early stages of

PHM; food processing, marketing and related gender issues have not been properly

addressed.

Implementation of PHLM in Benin is challenged by the lack of:

a) a mutually shared policy framework that addresses low-response of technologies

to farmers’ demand,

b) internal resource mobilization to effect sustainable PHM interventions, and

30

c) an effective commitment by Government to address PHM from the smallholder

farmer’s perspective.

4.2 Gaps in institutional arrangements and key recommendations

1) The main institutional gaps are two-fold. First, PHLM has been so far understood only as

a research activity, only weakly linked to agricultural extension, and most interventions

have been state-led and donor-funded with little effect on smallholders’ well-being.

Second, none of the interventions has relied on endogenous or rural innovation groups

(including women’s groups) and the private sector, and therefore fail to take into account

consumers’ demand for quality foods in designing effective PHLM. Research should

provide solutions for important unanswered questions, rather than concentrating on

donor-selected and foreign value-chains’ issues, which will not improve smallholder

farmers’ income and food security.

2) The institutional design of PHM interventions should be ‘liberalized’ and demand-driven,

by relying on core rural innovations groups and platforms where farmers’ groups, NGOs

and private sector jointly lead the design, funding, implementation, monitoring, and

evaluation of PHM interventions. Research institutions should come in only to fine-tune

what is likely to work according to users’ perceptions, and extension should move from

the unidirectional teaching approach to capitalize on and improve the local knowledge

resource base.

3) The national agricultural policy framework (PSRSA) highlights relevant PHM

components and the National Council for Food and Nutrition (CAN) was created in 2012

implement a more holistic approach to sustainable food security. One of the main

challenges facing the CAN regarding PHL issues is setting up rural innovation groups and

platforms by region – thus taking into account the site-specificity of PHL - and linking

them with government extension and research services/institutions to establish a

sustainable institutional framework for PHM interventions which are effective for

smallholders.

4.3 Opportunities which remain untapped

Untapped opportunities include:

31

1) The current upgraded knowledge base of farmers’ groups, NGOs and private sector

after more than 40 years of technical and financial support of international research

organizations and donors. An analytical inventory must be made of the technologies

which many stakeholders claim already exist, and of whom they benefit.

2) The on-going promotion of decentralization by Government, whereby rural

innovation groups should take the lead in conducting agricultural development under

the framework of the communities’ development plans (plans de développement

communaux, PDCs). Relevant PHM approaches may have been already indicated in

some PDCs. The support of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development should

be explored.

3) The new impetus for strengthening the country’s food security base, as emphasized by

the establishment of the National Council for Food and Nutrition (CAN). A national

forum on PHLM and a national fair of PHLM technologies and knowledge should be

organized as soon as possible, under the leadership of CAN. These would be the first

steps in exploring how these opportunities could be tapped.

4.4 Recommendations for innovative institutional arrangements

1) A permanent post-harvest evaluation system is urgently needed to update information on

PHLs and guide region-specific PHM interventions, especially in addressing traders’

needs and perspectives of farmers’ on export value-chains.

2) An inventory of promising technologies evaluated by category of farmer is needed, as

well as a dedicated extension system to accelerate adoption. This may be an opportunity

to celebrate the work done so far by PHM champions, especially through rural

innovations platforms.

3) Beneficiaries of PHM technologies must be differentially targeted, making a distinction

between the needs of smallholder households, and those of medium-scale and large-scale

farmers and traders. Accessibility constraints, income constraints and food quality

requirements (especially for women) are not the same for all these groups of users of

PHM technologies.

4) PHM concerns in farming and agri-business plans have to be mainstreamed, taking into

account consumers’ demand for quality of grains and pulses.

32

5) Dependency on donors must be reduced in the implementation of agricultural programs,

with effective funding of the value-chain sub-program of the PSRSA through internal

resource mobilization, following similar campaigns that have been successful for

equipping hospitals and universities.

6) Policy making must be focused on implementation and results. Particular attention must

be paid to adequate training of farmers to instil business behaviour and entrepreneurship;

to strengthen government commitment to applied PHM research and specialized PHM

extension services through adequate budget allocation; and to creation of a credit line in

the national fund for agricultural development (FNDA) to support PHM enterprises and

food value-chain development.

33

Annexes

Annex 1: Some PHM Projects implemented in Africa during the last three decades

Project, implementation period

and countries

Project Description

Infrastructure and hard facilities projects

1 Warehouse receipts in Zambia,

Uganda (April 2006 - March 2009)

and Kenya (launched April 2008)

Supporting the development of a national

network of warehouses. The objective was to

create effective warehouse receipts based on a

network of licensed commercial warehouses.

This was promoted by the Financial Sector

Deepening Trust, the USAID, Kenya Maize

Development Program (KMDP) and the

Regional Agricultural Trade Expansion Support

(RATES).

2 Post-harvest handling and storage

project (PHHS), Uganda

(1996 – 2001)

The objective was to disseminate improved

drying, threshing, cleaning and storage

technologies in the major grain-producing areas

of Uganda. This was conducted by the Food and

Feed Grain Institute (FFGI) of Kansas State

University (KSU), USA.

3 Improved design of indigenous

stores, including minimizing the use

of hardwood resources, Zimbabwe

(1996 – 1999)

Supporting the design of farm shops. This

project aimed to lead to a total elimination of

rodents and termites.

34

Project, implementation period

and countries

Project Description

4 Mud silos in northern Ghana and

PostCosecha-type metal silo in

selected African countries (Kenya,

Malawi) (launched 2008)7

Promoting the use of mud silos in Ghana. The

FAO led a program for the promotion of metal

silos designed for Africa (SDC). This was also

promoted and pursued by an initiative involving

CIMMYT and the NGOs World Vision and the

Catholic Relief Services (CRS).

5 Commodity storage and loss

reduction project (Grainpro cocoons)

in Angola, Mozambique, Sierra

Leone, Sudan (around 2008).

Supporting use of plastic stores. The project

promoted the use of plastic water tanks as grain

warehouses. The objective was to reduce the

stress related to convenience food aid, seeds and

PHLs.

6 Improvement of post-harvest

technologies for fonio (1999-2004),

Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali,

implemented by CIRAD in response

to producers’ requests and supervised

by the FAO and funded by the CFC.

Supporting improvement of post-harvest

technologies. The objectives were to develop

appropriate processing techniques to meet the

needs of end-users; improve understanding of

consumer needs and development of marketing

chains; and create awareness of fonio post-

harvest operations. It also included support of

local manufacturing processing machines for

fonio.

7 Larger grain borer control in East and

West Africa (1982 - 2000)

Supporting the fight against the larger grain

borer in maize.

8 Diatomaceous earth (1998-2005) The project was undertaken under the program

post-harvest crop (DFID, UK). It promoted use

of diatomaceous earth for grain treatment.

7 Streit (2013)

35

Project, implementation period

and countries

Project Description

9 Improved cowpea storage (triple

bagging) (around 2008)

Supported biologic pest control. This was

funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

10 Food security project in West Africa

- Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage

(PICS) (around 2008)

Implemented by World Vision and Purdue

University with the assistance of national

agricultural research institutes.

11 Optimizing the indigenous use of

pesticide-action plants in Ghana

(January 1996– March 2002)

The project was undertaken within the Crop

Post-harvest Program (DFID, UK)

Control of natural/biologic deterioration of grains or quality loss

12 Exploring the scope of cost-effective

aflatoxin risk reduction strategies in

maize and groundnut value chains to

improve market access of the poor in

Africa, in Kenya and Mali 2008-

present

Estimate the economic consequences of

aflatoxin contamination. The objectives were to

create a database on the prevalence of aflatoxin

contamination; Analyse the risks to determine

cost effective control strategies for risk

reduction; Drawing the value chain of maize and

groundnuts and to investigate the knowledge and

attitudes of actors.

Value chain and information services projects

13 Inventory credit in Ghana (1989 –

2005), Niger (from 1999 to present)

Supported value-chain and information services

projects. The project entailed working with

groups of farmers. The objectives included

facilitation of the storage of raw materials

(maize, groundnuts, cowpeas), storage of

products from small producers to the lean

period; getting loans from microfinance

institutions (MFIS) in the ‘dual key’ system; and

encouragement to increase production.

36

Project, implementation period

and countries

Project Description

14 Market Information Service

(FOODNET), Uganda (1998–2004)

Supported value-chain and information services

projects. It supported the Network of market

research for East and Central Africa. The project

was implemented by the IITA. This was the first

regional research network with a steering

committee comprised of researchers, extension

workers, NGOs, Universities and the private

sector.

15 Food Security Project Title II, funded

by USAID (Washington) and

implemented by ACDI/VOCA,

Uganda (2002 -2006)

Supported value-chain and information services

projects. The aim was to reduce food insecurity

in rural areas of Uganda by improving

agricultural production, marketing, rural

financial institutions and strengthening

knowledge about nutrition and PHM.

16 Purchase for Progress (P4P) in many

underdeveloped countries, from 2008

to present.

Supported value-chain and information services

projects. The project focused on local food

supply by smallholder farmers for WFP, as a

means to develop procurement methods. This

was funded primarily by the Bill & Melinda

Gates Foundation Initiative.

37

Annex 2: Projects and programs on post-harvest management in Benin

Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period

IRAT

Maize

Experimental use of containers for storage

(jars, bags, casks, silos made of

galvanized iron) combined with

insecticides

- 1960

Peace Corps

volunteers

USAID Promotion of silo made of cement, dryers

and cribs

Less adopted 1970

FAO project FAO Development and dissemination of

improved granary and sofa grain

Effective against insect

pests

1992

CERNA/UAC - Reduction of processing difficulty of

maize and increase of shelf life of its

derived foods: mawe and aklui

Creation of dried aklui -

UAC/FSA - Containerization and conservation of

akpan in plastic bottle

Grand capucin du

maïs (Large Grain

Borer)

BMZ Biological control Reduction of post-

harvest losses

1995-

1998

38

Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period

PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA Improve visibility of threshing and

storage containers in bamboo or mallotus

Provide credit to farmers to construct

improve granary with used of sofa grain

Evaluation of grain quality (reduction of

mycotoxin) through diverse methods

including processing

Adoption of new

innovations which

improved life condition

of household

1997-

2003

FUPRO-

Bénin/ESFIM

- Adoption of new storage and conservation

technologies

2011

HELVETAS SDC Promotion of storage innovation 2013-

2015

39

Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period

PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA

Rice

Improvement to traditional process of

parboiling rice

Evaluation of shelling equipment

Evaluation of threshing equipment

Impact of improvement

was not evaluated

Sheller was appreciated

‘TAMSA’ thresher was

identified as the best

one

1997-

2003

PSAIA JICA Training for processing method of rice Impact was not

measured

2007-

2012

FAFA-AD CTB Improvement of processing technologies 2010-

2016

PACER FIDA, BOAD,

PNUD

Improvement of processing technologies 2010-

2016

PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA

Fonio

Evaluation of threshing equipment

‘Sanoussi’

Equipment must be

improve to remove

small stones

‘Amuda’ sheller was

appreciated

1997-

2003

40

Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period

UAC/FSA -

Cowpea

Evaluation of neem seed and tobacco leaf

powdering to control Callosobruchus

maculatus during storage

Weight loss dropped to

0% - 0.04% for neem

seed and tobacco leaf

1988

PEDUNE I and II SDC Improved drying Improved solar drying 1994-

1996

1997-

1999

PRONAF I SDC, IFAD Development of techniques

storage, processing

Diffusion of

technologies

2000-

2002

PADSA (PDSPR) DANIDA Extension of solarisation technique 1997-

2003

PRONAF II (IITA) IFAD, (NARES) /

INRAB-Benin,

USAID

Integrated pest management (IPM) using

aqueous extracts of neem and papaya

Developing small scale extraction

equipment (INRAB)

Processing

48% of farms adopted

use of aqueous extracts

1% of farmers adopted

solar drying

2003-

2006

41

Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period

CRAS INRAB Integrated leaf of Hyptis suavolens in

cowpea storage systems

Reduction of Bruchidae

reproduction

UAC/FSA NUFFIC Investigated method of preparation and

consumption of cowpea in Benin in

‘Keeping local food on the menu: A study

on the small-scale processing of cowpea’

Knowledge of different

processing systems and

different types of

recipes

2011

UAC/FSA ENRECA-

DANIDA-FSA-

UAC

Susceptibility of steeped and heat dried

cowpea flour to fungal growth and

aflatoxins production

2011

PICS USAID Extension of the use of tripled bagging

system to avoid the use of chemical

products

Really appreciated by

local farmers

2010-

2011

PILSA Danida, World

Bank, PAM

Development of cowpea storage in bag

Build crib dryer

1995-

2000

PACER FIDA, BOAD,

PNUD Soya beans

Improvement of processing technologies 2010-

2016

42

Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period

PNSA

Subsistence

crops

Improvement of storage and conservation

technologies

2011-

2016

PAGER FIDA Development of storage and processing

technologies

1997-

2004

SAM Plan-Benin Improvement of equipment and storage

technologies

1999-

2003

WSM/FBS WSM-Bénin Improvement of processing and marketing

systems

2003-

2007/

2008-

2012

PADA8 World Bank Extension of warranting crop system

giving farmers post-harvest credit in

exchange for storing their grain

2011-

2016

8 PADA is a project within the framework of the program for agricultural diversification in Benin (ProCAD).

43

Project/Program Financed by Commodity Operational goals Results Period

ONASA Benin, BOAD, GTZ,

UEMOA

Crop collection , storage, equipment for

storage

On-

going

PUASA World Bank,

European Union,

FAO

Marketing, building equipment for drying

and storage products

2007-

2010

PASDER Swiss

Intercooperation

Promotion of warranting crop system,

training in storage and drying method

(CARDER)

2012-

2026

DPP, 2012. Performance des structures, programme/ projet du MAEP pour l’année 2011. 30p.)

44

References

i MAEP. (2004) Les Etats Généraux d’urgence de la filière coton au Bénin. Cotonou.

ii Honfoga, B.G. (2013) ‘Cotton institutions and perverse incentives for fertilizer traders in

Benin.’ Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 5(1), 19-34, January 2013.

iii Honfoga, B.G. and B.A. Ekpodile (2012) Policy analysis of traditional food production and

marketing in Benin. A report produced for Bioversity International, Benin.

iv Honfoga, B.G. (2007) Vers des systèmes privés efficaces d’approvisionnement et de

distribution d’engrais pour une intensification agricole durable au Bénin. Thèse de PhD, CDS,

Université de Groningen (RuG), Pays-Bas.

v LARES (2000) Atlas de sécurité alimentaire du Bénin ONSAS/MAEP. LARES (Laboratoire

d’Analyse Régionale et d’Expertise Sociale) Concours financier de Projet d’Intervention

Locale pour la Sécurité Alimentaire (PILSA), République du Bénin, p148.

vi ONASA (2011) ‘Evaluation de la production vivrière en 2010 et perspectives alimentaires

pour 2011, situation par département, volume II.’

vii Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture and D. Molden (2008) Saving water from field to fork:

curbing losses and wastage in the food chain. Stockholm International Water Institute,

Stockholm;

Nellemann, C., M. MacDevette, T. Manders, B. Eikhout, B. Svihus, A. GerdienPrins, and B.

Kaltenborn (2009). The Environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting

future food crisis. United Nations Environmental Programme, p104;

Gustavsson, J., J. Cederberg-Sonesson, J. van Otterdijk, A. Meybek, A. (2011) Global food

losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO, p29.

viii MAEP (2009) ‘Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur Rural (PSRSA),’ décembre 2009,

version verdie relue provisoire, p24.

ix Adegbola, P.I., Dannon, E.A., Mutungi, C., Affognon, H. (2012) ‘Postharvest losses in

Africa- Analytical review and synthesis: the case of Benin.’ African Insect Science for food

and health, p124.

45

x Lott, R. (2013) ‘Farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa 2.’ Policy Brief No. 17, 2013,

ICRAF, Nairobi.

xi Adegbola, Op cit.

xii Seevinck, J. and D. Njie (2010) FAO/AfDB Cooperation on Post-harvest losses reduction

in Sub-saharan Africa. Findings and recommendations.

xiii FAO/World Bank, 2011. Missing food: the case of postharvest grain losses in Sub-saharan

Africa. Washington, DC: WB, NRS, FAO, 96p.

xiv Moussa, B., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Fulton, J., Boys. K., 2011. The economic impact of

cowpea research in West and Central Africa: A regional impact assessment of improved

cowpea storage technologies. Journal of Stored Product Research 47: 147-156.

xv Fandohan. 1999. Note from INRAB research project reports.

xvi SDDR, Vol II, p. 21 cited by Honfoga, 2013 Op Cit

xvii See for example Honfoga, B.G., (1986) Econometric and economic analyses of foodstuffs’

prices and marketing in the Atlantique Province of Benin. Thesis of ‘Ingenieur agronome’/

agricultural economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (FSA), National University of

Benin;

Fanou, K.L., (1994) Analyse des performances du système de commercialisation des

produits vivriers au Bénin: le cas de la commercialisation primaire du maïs et du gari sur le

plateau Adja au Mono (Sud-Ouest du Bénin). Thèse de doctorat de 3ème

cycle, CIRES,

Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire);

Lutz, C.H.M. (1994). The functioning of the maize market in Benin: spatial and temporal

arbitrage on the market of a staple food crop. PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, The

Netherlands, pp. 155-174;

Adegbidi, A., H. Dedehouanou, S. Kpenavoun, and C. Lutz (2003) Dix ans de libéralisation

du marché de maïs au Bénin. CDS Research Report. No. 20, University of Groningen.

xviii PNOPPA (2012). Annual report 2012.

xix Gummert, (2011) Improving Food security by reducing postharvest losses, IRRI’s

experience.

46

xv Seevinck, J. and D. Njie (2010) Op cit.

xx Op cit.