improvement of storage facilities, post- harvest … .pdfimprovement of storage facilities, post-...
TRANSCRIPT
Final
August 2011 Final
Final Evaluation Report
Improvement of storage facilities, post- harvest handling, and storage practice in Bay Region, Southern Somalia - OSRO/ SOM/ 811/ EC
Office of Evaluation
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Office of Evaluation (OED) This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is
hereby granted without fee and without a formal request provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page.
Copyright for components of this work owned by others than FAO must be honoured. To copy otherwise, to
republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission from OED.
For further information, please contact: Director, OED Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome, Italy Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________________________________ The views expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or of its Member States and partners.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO concerning the legal or development status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.
The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented,
does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar
nature that are not mentioned.
3
Independent Evaluation Report
Ian Robinson (AA International) August 2011
Commissioned by the Office of Evaluation, FAO
4
Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.1 The Project ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.0 Description and Background of Project ............................................................................ 10
2.1 Somali Governance .............................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Resources Pertinent to the Project ....................................................................................... 11
2.3 Improved Storage ................................................................................................................ 11
2.4 The Project Action ............................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Inception .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.6 Implementation .................................................................................................................... 14
3.0 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Relevance and quality of project design .............................................................................. 16
3.2 Efficiency and adequacy of project implementation ........................................................... 19
3.3 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.4 Impact .................................................................................................................................. 24
3.5 Sustainability ....................................................................................................................... 26
3.6 Gender Mainstreaming ........................................................................................................ 26
4.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 27
4.1 Concluding Summary .......................................................................................................... 27
5.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 29
5.1 Recommendations for further actions .................................................................................. 29
5.2 Recommendations from lessons learnt ................................................................................ 30
Annex 1 - Evaluation Format and Methodology ........................................................................... 31
Annex 2 – Map of Project Intervention Area ................................................................................ 33
Annex 3 – Logical Framework ...................................................................................................... 34
Annex 4 - List of Documents Consulted ...................................................................................... 38
Annex 5 – List of Persons and Institutions met during the Mission .............................................. 39
Annex 6 – Baseline and Endline Survey Questionnaires .............................................................. 40
Annex 7 – SATG and COOPI Training of Trainer Modules ......................................................... 60
Annex 8 – Telephone Question and Answer Survey ..................................................................... 71
Annex 9 – Demonstration Underground Pit ................................................................................ 731
Annex 10- Evaluation Terms of Reference...................................................................................72
5
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASEP Advancement of Small Enterprises
CEFA European Committee for Agriculture and Training
COOPI Cooperazioni Internationale
EC European Commission
EU European Union
FAO United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation
FSNAU Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit
GNU Government of National Unity
GTZ (now GIZ) Deutsche Gesellechaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit
hh household
ICIPE African Insect Science for Food and Health
IMC International Medical Corps
IO International Organisation
IPM Integrated Pest Management
JNA Joint Needs Assessment
LF Log-frame
LOA Letter of Agreement
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OEDD Office of Evaluation, FAO
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
PA Partnership Agreement
RDP Reconstruction and Development Plan
SATG Somali Agricultural Training Group
SISAS EC Strategy for Somalia
TFG Transitional Federal Government
ToT Training of Trainer
UNA United Nations Association
UNTP United Nations Transitional Plan
WOCCA Women and Child Care Association
6
Executive Summary
1. “Improvement of storage facilities and post- harvest handling and storage practice in Bay
Region, Southern Somalia”, is a FAO Project (OSRO/SOM/811/EC) jointly funded by European
Commission (EC) and FAO at € 800,000 and € 88,900, respectively. The project began on
16.12.2009 and, following a no cost extension of 6 months, closed on 10.07.2011. A final
evaluation of the Project was undertaken by Ian Robinson, AA International Ltd in Nairobi from
June 15th to July 9
th 2011.
2. The methodology used, approved by the Office of Evaluation, FAO (OEDD), recognises that
insecurity of International Organisations in South-Central Somalia confines the work to Kenya.
In the process of evaluation, the Consultant a) reviewed all project documents and b) interviewed
all OSRO 811 staff, FAO support staff and staff of other FAO agricultural projects connected to
grain and food security in Somalia. The Consultant also visited the headquarters of the two Non-
Governmental Organisations (NGOs), SATG (Somalia Agricultural Training Group) and
Cooperazioni Internationale (COOPI) implementing the project to interview senior staff.
Similarly, staff of the European Committee for Agriculture and Training (CEFA); the Women
and Child Care Association (WOCCA); and the International Medical Corps (IMC) promoting
the new silo technology elsewhere in Somalia, were interviewed by the Consultant. Analysing
returns from baseline and final household surveys and conducting telephone interviews with 16
beneficiaries of the training courses and silos delivered under the project provided the Consultant
with opinions drawn from the target group before and after events. Discussions with the master-
craftsman, recruited by FAO to make demonstration silos and to train local artisans, were
followed by joint visits to similar silos in use in Kenya. Finally, following discussions with the
EC acting project officer, a debriefing with stakeholders based in Nairobi took place at the FAO-
Somalia country office, where the Consultant explained his actions, clarified assumptions and
summarised findings.
The Project Actions
3. The Project actions were designed to provide:- Result 1: Storage losses halved in the target
population of about 7,000 households through interventions aimed at improving storage
techniques and facilities in 6 districts in Bay region (sorghum growing area) Result 2: Awareness
of appropriate improved post-harvest and handling practices among local farmers, in the project
area, enhanced. Result 3: Existing underground pits in the project area improved. The elected
approach was to introduce a locally produced, metal silo, and to improve existing pit storage. The
latter action involved SATG deriving and testing, in situ, a lining for the existing underground
pits that would prevent deterioration and contamination of grain-in-store.
4. A build-up of tension and an eruption of heavy fighting between insurgents (Al Shabaab) and
the Government of National Unity (GNU) troops in Mogadishu hampered initial progress. Such
conditions and uncertain direction restricted the first 18 months implementation to recruiting
SATG under a series of three discontinuous Letters of Agreement (LOAs) to conduct surveys,
train farmers in post-harvest handling and storage, train artisans in making metal sheet silos and
to prepare a demonstration improved household grain storage pit. Following the surveys, an
unexplained gap of 70 days occurred, causing the original SATG team to be disbanded and local
momentum to be lost.
6. In June 2010, to speed up implementation, a second NGO, COOPI, was hired and, back-to-
back Partnership Agreements (PAs) were introduced and continued until the end of the project. A
third NGO, ASEP (Advancement of Small Enterprises) was hired to facilitate artisan - training
courses in Mendera, Kenya. Under PAs from 15th June to 15
th August 2010, 6080 farmers, of
which 2408 were women, received training in post-harvest handling and storage; and, 80 silos
were produced and distributed.
7. During the same period, FAO-Somalia identified and implemented procurement procedures to
import galvanised steel sheets and fixing materials providing other artisans, in the six districts,
7
with material to build the project‟s silos under the guidance of the newly trained artisans, using
soldering techniques.
8. Another round of PAs with SATG and COOPI from 15th August to 15
th December 2010
facilitated the production of 4620 silos, of which 3990 were distributed; and the training of 5000
more farmers of which 1660 are women. The demonstration underground silo was completed, the
cost of which proved prohibitive resulting in the EC- approved removal of Result 3 from the
objectives of the project during its final phase.
9. A 6-month, no-cost extension allowed the training of 6000 more farmers of which 1800 were
women; the completion of silo deliveries; and, a final survey of 571 beneficiaries was completed
by one of the NGO implementers.
Findings: Relevance and design
10. The actions fall within the framework of the United Nations Transitional Plan (UNTP) for
Somalia and conform to the EC Strategy for Somalia (SISAS). However, local involvement in the
intervention design is noted only during the inception surveys, when the relevance of the actions
was confirmed.
11. The original logical framework is simple, clear and consistent with overall objectives,
purpose and results. The log-frame (LF) was revised during the Project‟s no cost extension
removing Result 3-the improvement to underground pits; and reducing benefitting households
from 7000 to 5000, comprising those receiving metal silos. Consequently, after revision the
Purpose Objectively Verifiable Indicator (OVI) anticipates a 25% rather than a 50% reduction in
storage losses from 5000 rather than 7000 households. As households harvest more grain than
the new silos can hold, all 571 interviewed in the final survey still have underground stores that
have not been improved i.e. the silos hold 120 kg to 250 kg while the pits may contain 1.0 to 2.0
tonnes, which suggests that the OVI required further reduction.
Findings: Efficiency
12. The Indicative Action Plan anticipated the completion of most actions by the end of Semester
3 (5th and 6th quarters) with all actions completed by 15
th December 2010. In the event, fund
disbursement and project activities occur mostly in the final semester and no-cost extension
period. Virtually no activities are noted in the first, second, and fifth quarters.
13. Achievements for OVI 1 exceed the revised LF expectations with the provision of 5021 silos
/5000 planned silos. Achievements for OVI 2 connect to training of 19,555 farmers instead of an
anticipated 7000 (target exceeded by 279%). All farmers who received silos received training but
only 26% of household members who attended training received silos. (EC OVI 609). Delivery
was 6 months behind schedule in a 2-year project but within budget. The production cost of the
silos at US$ 40 per unit is in line with costs of similar silos produced by CEFA, IMC and
WOCCA.
Findings: Effectiveness
14. Training: In the final survey conducted by COOPI, returns from 99% of the farmers say that
the training received will help reduce post harvest and storage losses. Similarly, 98% (30% over
base line) say they will now discard infected or broken heads when filling stores; 50% (50% over
baseline) have now heard of aspergillus mould; and, 96% say they will consider buying a metal
silo. However, 96% are still using underground pits with no improvements in prospect.
Telephone interviews, conducted by the Mission, confirm that the training succeeded in raising
awareness of storage losses but, without the delivery of silos, in the opinion of the Mission, the
courses are unlikely to have led to any behavioural change due to the nature of the training
programme implemented.
15. Silos: All recipients said that silos will reduce losses and are valuable assets. Telephone
interviews confirm all metal silos were delivered in good condition; however, they were
8
universally considered too small. Only 19% persons interviewed had used silos to hold home-
produced grains because of a combination of late delivery and failure of the final Gu rains in the
project period which reduced the harvest that could have been stored in the new silos. The small
size of the silos (150-250 kg) means that most of them are kept in- house to be used as storage
units for grain taken from the pits or purchased for consumption.
Findings: Impact
16. Silos of 120 kg and 250 kg capacity delivered to target group farmers with 2-5 ha are too
small to have an impact on their marketing activities; nevertheless, the silos will be useful assets
for conserving seeds for the next season or holding grains for household use in good condition.
Larger scale farmers have been introduced to the concept that similar silos to hold 1-2 tonnes can
be built, to a good standard, by local artisans; and that the materials may be imported under
current conditions. The final survey and telephone interviews confirmed the willingness of most
farmers interviewed a) to buy such silos and b) to pay the market price with c) all wanting the
option to buy bigger units.
17. The removal of the simple lining solutions from the household underground-pit agenda
(dung- chaff or plastic linings) would seem to the Mission to have been a mistake as it removed a
potentially more cost-effective option for on-farm storage of larger volumes.
18. Questionnaires noting mould notwithstanding, as no scientific tests for aspergillus moulds or
aflatoxins have been conducted; the suspected presence of aflatoxin in sorghum in underground
pits in Bay Region has still not been confirmed. While this should not detract from concerns to
improve the prevailing storage conditions that cause moulds of sorghum to flourish, the high
level of importance attached to this disease and the heightened concerns created means that the
presence of aspergillus and aflatoxins should not only be scientifically confirmed, but also the
situation should be monitored regularly by a local NGO.
Findings: Sustainability
19. The Project is essentially an out-put focussed delivery project. For the training delivered to be
effective in terms of changing behaviour, routine follow-up extension messages at village and
household level are required.
20. The metal silos are in place, but most farmers have not yet have not yet used them. They are
clearly valued, but supply will continue only if individual farmers or other projects request the
artisans to make more. However, as no international supply-chains (with or without credit) to
suppliers of galvanised sheets or fixing materials exist, continuity will depend on uptake by other
NGOs and donors.
Findings: Gender
20. At household level the Project‟s interventions are essentially gender neutral however, gender
was considered as a criterion in the selection process of beneficiaries in each location and female
beneficiaries identified at levels ranging from 21% to 54%, according to the strength of
traditional feelings in the district. With active involvement of village elders and with the
compliance of some Al Shabaab authorities, 6900 trainees (35%) and 1540 silo recipients (30%)
are noted to be women. Under current EC evaluation terminology, the Project‟s approach to
Gender Interests is considered to be significant.
9
Recommendations: Further actions
An extension programme to follow-up the training objectives should now be
implemented for the 19,555 households already informed and involved in the project.
The presence of carcinogenic mycotoxins should be confirmed scientifically, through
locally managed verification tests (2- stages:- petri- dish cultures of moulds; and
“aflastick” confirmation field test for aflatoxin; and, where present, concentrated support
offered and routine monitoring established using a local NGO.
FAO should liaise with CEFA monitoring grain in store and testing pit linings.
FAO should assist in establishing supply chains for galvanised sheets and fixing
materials for the trained artisans wishing to continue to make silos for sale.
Recommendations: Lessons learnt
For storage projects, assessing effectiveness of storage, not just delivery of training or
assets, should be included within the project objectives.
Surveys of grain in-store should always involve sampling and tests of grain quality over
an appropriate period.
The contracted NGO implementer should not conduct the final evaluation survey.
All training of trainer courses should include, as well as learning objectives relating to
subject matter, learning objectives that relate to techniques for training of farmers and
household members with little or no levels of literacy.
Training of Trainer courses should provide would- be trainers with itemised training
packages including equipment and materials and a programme of instruction to follow.
Farmer training sessions, other than awareness-raising sessions, must always be practical;
have no more than one or two clearly stated, practical objectives that all the trainees can
demonstrate before leaving.
All trainees should receive follow-up extension visits after the training course to review
progress and correct faults.
Standard EC OVIs need to be selected with more care to be sure they match the action.
Remotely-managed development projects should include an extra-long period of
inception, to allow firm working relationships to be established.
Projects with long-term contractual agreements with donors should pass on the advantage
of continuity to NGO implementers through Letters of Agreement or Partnership
Agreements with durations which reflect the project period and the continuous funding
available, to enable them to recruit and keep suitable staff.
NGOs should be obliged to show the conditions of employment of their key technical
and administrative staff in their Letters of Agreement/ Partnership Agreements, which
should, in turn, reflect the duration of the project and the guaranteed funding available.
FAO Project managers, themselves (not surrogates) should manage the projects through
regular contact with all implementers to enable them to plan, organise and control
actions. Such managers, using remote-management approaches, should not be expected
to take on other tasks with heavy responsibilities that would not be required of other
project managers, with more direct access to their projects.
10
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Project
1.1.1. “Improvement of storage facilities and post- harvest handling and storage practice in Bay
Region, Southern Somalia”, is an FAO Project jointly funded by EC (€ 800,000): FAO (€
88,900). The Project entitled began on 16.12.2009 and, following a no cost extension of 6
months, closed on 10.07.2011.
1.1.2. In anticipation of the closure, a final evaluation of the Project was undertaken by AA
International Ltd from June 2nd
to July 9th 2011 with the following terms of reference:-
To conduct an independent analysis of the Project in terms of relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, potential impact and sustainability.
To provide an account of the Projects‟ achievements for all stakeholders and donors.
To identify strengths and weaknesses apparent in both design and implementation.
To provide recommendations for further actions judged necessary to consolidate or
complement to actions.
To provide recommendations from lessons learnt that may assist in the design and
implementation of similar projects.
1.1.3 The methodology used in the evaluation is summarised in Annex 1.
2.0 Description and Background of Project
2.1 Somali Governance
2.1.1 Somalia presently exists as three distinct territories under three separate administrations viz
Somaliland, Puntland and the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) area of South/ Central
Somalia. The three administrations act independently of one another in all aspects of the
government of a combined, total population of 7.7 million people.
2.1.2 Two of these administrations, Somaliland and Puntland are noted to exert a tangible degree
of governance over their domains with a recognisably coherent pattern of infrastructure, public
institutions and support services, albeit all without a great deal of fiscal support. The third
administration, TFG, exerts no tangible influence beyond certain districts in the port of
Mogadishu, which means that local government in Bay Region encompassing all the project area,
as noted in the map in Annex 2, is in the hands of the TFG opposing and diverse factions of the
Al Shabaab movement.
2.1.3 Any Project implemented in Al Shabaab areas relies for its access to communities and the
survival of its presence on a) the relevance of the project‟s purpose and b) positive relationships
created between the implementing agencies (in this case, the Somali Agriculture Technical
Group, SATG; and Cooperazioni Internationale, COOPI) and the local population. If convinced
of the value of the project purpose and beneficial relationships between the agencies and the
community, the Al Shabaab power- base at each site generally supports or, at least, does not
hinder progress. In this regard, strong clan allegiances and family structures provide an
identifiable network of support for the interventions that extend, in scope, beyond the boundaries
of sites of single actions.
11
2.2 Resources Pertinent to the Project
2.2.1 In South/ Central Somalia, an essentially arid to semi-arid climate subtends five ecosystems
ranging from coastal to desert types. The Project area in Bay Region is landlocked, semi –arid
and located in discontinuous communities in six districts of “Crop and Settlements” zones
surrounded by “Grass/ Shrub” zones. Out of an area of 4 million hectares that comprise Bay
Region, approximately 350,000 hectares are planted each year with the principal crop, a local
landrace of sorghum. Other crops of minor importance are cowpeas, mung-beans and peanuts.
2.2.2 The sorghum landrace is a goose-necked, compact-headed durra type with plant height
ranging from 2 metres to 3 metres and grain colour varying from white, light red, to red. The
local landraces have good grain quality and are well adapted to the environmental conditions. The
low levels of production, quoted in the Project literature (and elsewhere), emanating originally
from Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit (FSNAU) data, are noted to be inconsistent with
the performance of such sorghum landraces in Somaliland. In the agro-pastoralist zones in
Somaliland, yields of up to 7 tonnes per ha have been observed and averages of 1.5 tonnes per ha
were recorded in 2010 (Robinson W.I. 2010; FAO/ WFP Assessment of Available Marketable
Sorghum in the Agro- Pastoralist zone, Somaliland).
2.2.3 However, the production in the rain fed sector is subject to enormous variations due to wide
rainfall fluctuations that result in unpredictable variations in both areas cropped and yield per unit
area. In the South- Central sorghum belt (Gedo and Bay Region), Gu 2010 rainfall was
exceptionally high. In Bay Region especially, the cereal production was the best in the last 15
years, as it reached 205% of post war average and 294% of the 5-year average, having a
significant impact on the food security situation of the area. Consequently, household income and
access to food improved as a direct result of increased household production and greater labour
opportunities. By contrast, the 2011 Gu season is noted to have been particularly poor, with many
households claiming total crop failure, which, as we shall see later, leaves the majority of the
silos provided under the project during early 2011, unused.
2.2.4 However, irrespective of harvest level fluctuations, what is invariably true is that farmers in
the Bay Region experience significant losses after harvest and during storage. Given that average
yields are probably much higher than stated, support through the introduction of new technology
(metal-silos) and training on post-harvest losses, handling of grain and storage practices becomes,
proportionally, of even greater economic importance if such support results in reduction of losses
of more grain stored over a much longer period.
2.2.5 Improvement in storage practices will result, therefore, in increased grain for sale that is of
a substantially higher quality than the current product, ergo, resulting in higher household
incomes.
2.2.6 Further, in terms of potential achievements, increasing rural-based incomes through
improved agricultural production addresses the pertinent issue of the poverty reduction in relation
to Millennium Development Goal Number 1.
2.3 Improved Storage
2.3.1 In Bay Region, current sorghum stores include underground pits, sacks and drums. The
Project Document literature review1 contends, “It is well established that the traditional storage
systems (underground pits and sacks) generally create conducive conditions for rodents, insects,
and diseases... ”and....” in some cases, due to excessive heat and moisture in the underground
pits, could cause a multiplication of fungus called Aspergillus which produces dangerous toxins
(aflatoxins) for humans”.
1 FAO (2008) Project Document (proposal in response to EC Call for Tender 2008)
12
2.3.2 In contrast, it is noted that maize2 storage in oil-drums has already become a widely popular
practice in the Lower and Middle Shebelle Regions of Somalia. Similarly, the adoption rate of
drum storage systems for maize in Somaliland is 78%3. Farmers using oil-drums report
significant reduction in post-harvest losses of maize previously caused by pest, vermin and
disease attacks. The Project Document goes on to state that “one of the disadvantages is the
limited capacity of the drum (200 kg)”....and “in high potential areas, like the Bay Region, bigger
storage capacity will be required”4.
2.4 The Project Action
2.4.1 The action of which the revised log-frame (LF) (with changes noted) is provided in Annex
1, was originally planned to address identified constraints in two ways, training and supply of
assets, through three stated results:-
Result 1: Storage losses halved in the target population of about 7,000 households through
interventions aimed at improving storage techniques and facilities in six districts
in Bay region (sorghum growing area)
Result 2: Awareness of appropriate improved post-harvest and handling practices among
local farmers, in the project area, enhanced
Result 3: Existing underground pits in the project area, improved.
2.4.2 It was anticipated that Results 1 and 3 would be achieved via the introduction of a new
storage technology i.e. the “household metal silo” /or the improvement in the current
underground storage system5, with Result 2 being achieved through training of trainers, who
could train farmers in a series of courses at village level throughout the 6 districts.
2.4.3 The farmers to be targeted were identified as farmers with commercial attitudes, experience
and enough land to generate surpluses for sale.
2.4.3 The use of a locally produced, household, metal silo is similar to using oil-drums for
storage already practised for maize in the Lower and Middle Shabelle. The chosen design was a
galvanised-steel sheet silo, recommended by FAO Technical Department, Rome has previously
helped reduce storage losses of grains in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique,
Namibia and Senegal. In contrast to the oil-drum system of storage, which depends on imported
oil-drums, the silos of FAO design can be built locally, albeit from imported metal sheets, with
different sizes of storage capacity according to need.
2.4.4 The planned Project action- to improve existing pit storage-involved deriving and testing,
with the communities, a suitable means of lining the existing underground pits, using suitable
materials, to alleviate the problems widely associated with their use.
2.4.5 As it is fully recognised by all UN agencies that insecurity of International Organisations‟
personnel in South-Central Somalia precludes direct action, all activities were necessarily
conducted by proxy organisations, either contracted under short-term Loan Agreements (LOAs)
to deliver certain punctual tasks directed by FAO, or, recruited under Partnership Agreements
2 Maize grain is more susceptible to fungal attack and general storage losses than sorghum. 3 Beneficiaries Results Assessment Report. 2008. Improvement of traditional system in Somaliland 4This statement goes some way to imply that sorghum production in Bay is higher than the maximum 300- 600 kg/ha quoted; but appears not to have been considered when the size of metal silos delivered under the OSRO 811 was determined. ( see telephone interviewss- Annex 8) 5 As shown later, following a pilot improvement of an underground silo, the approach was abandoned as too costly and the actions redrawn with donor approval.
13
(PAs) to implement more complex actions jointly with FAO. For the first 18 months, SATG, the
only NGO available at the time with a) contacts in Bay Region and b) a suitable level of
agricultural knowledge at managerial level and c) a network of agricultural specialists among the
Somali Diaspora that should allow them to conduct the tasks, implemented the Project.
2.5 Inception
2.5.1 Following signatures and fund release in December 2008 and February 2009 respectively, a
build-up of tension and ultimate eruption of heavy fighting occurred between insurgents (Al
Shabaab) and troops belonging to the GNU (Government of National Unity) in Mogadishu after a
long period of relative peace. This resulting confusion meant that project activities from January
to April 2009, when the Recipient Organization (FAO) and the then sole implementing NGO,
SATG, were attempting to establish operational modalities at field level and negotiate access to
the project implementation area, were severely hampered.
2.5.2 Consequently, as indicated in the Management Summary presented in Figure 1, project
implementation during the first 6 months began too slowly and was restricted to recruiting
SATG, in month 5, under a short Letter of Agreement (LoA1) to conduct a desk top review of
storage; and to conduct a baseline and grain storage survey in the field (Bay Region) with the
objective of collecting sufficient information to validate data included in the project proposal.
Figure 1: Project Actions.
2.5.3 The desk review of similar interventions in the Region and elsewhere was conducted to help
the project management unit learn lessons from previous projects and experiences of other
organizations in Somalia and similar environments. The review, confirmed the importance of
reducing storage losses and the appropriate nature of the interventions; and, assisted in setting of
priorities. However, the review does not place enough emphasis on the fact that sorghum grains
are stored in similar circumstances for several years without significant deterioration using
traditional pits holding hundreds of tonnes of sorghum, with only dung and straw- chaff linings in
Sudan Central Clay and Eastern Clay plains6.
2.5.4 The baseline and storage survey involving 360 farmers in 6 districts was undertaken by a
team of 5 SATG specialists to:-
6 Abdulla, AT; Stigter, H. and NI Bakheit (2001) LEISA Magazine 17.1.Underground storage of sorghum as a banking alternative.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
un
its
quarter
Farmers Trained SATG Farmers Trained COOPI Silos Constructed SATG Silos Constructed COOPI Silos distributed SATG
14
assess post-harvest and storage losses of sorghum crop in traditional underground stores
of the Bay Region,
assess the weaknesses of current grain storage system in the Bay Region,
identify and recommend ways of effectively improving grain storage systems in the
Region as part of efforts to mitigate the significant high current grain storage losses;
assess the prevalence of aflatoxin-producing Aspergillus flavus in the Bay Region.
2.5.5. The survey, through a three-part questionnaire but involving no grain analyses, , confirmed
the many weaknesses of the traditional pits already apparent in both the Guidelines for grant
applicants Reference: EuropeAid/126984/L/ACT/SO and the FAO Project (Proposal) Document
through farmer-estimates only, (NB not grain sample analysis), of percentage7 losses by pests,
vermin, fungal diseases and physical damage; and, contamination possibilities but failed to
recognise the inherent strengths of the underground storage systems viz:
the stored grains are completely hidden from view, which is often the most important
characteristic of storage facilities in conflict zones;
the underground silos are big enough to store as many tonnes of grain as are produced, at
the sole cost of experienced labour;
the time period over which the sorghum grain is stored and over which the losses stated
actually occur, may extend to several years.
2.5.6 Although mould was identified as present in the stores surveyed, neither the presence of
aspergillus nor of aflatoxins were confirmed by scientific tests.8 The presence of both was
assumed by the specialists on the team conducting the assessment from observing the mould.9
2.5.7 The base-line survey questionnaire, with an accompanying final (end line) survey
questionnaire that was conducted by COOPI at the end of the project, plus juxtaposed summaries
of returns of both surveys are included in Annex 6.
2.6 Implementation
2.6.1 Following the surveys and reviews of the Inception period, there was an unexplained gap of
70 days. During that hiatus in activity, the SATG team was disbanded and local momentum was
lost10
.
2.6.2 In, July 2009, FAO issued a second LOA enabling SATG to conduct training on post-
harvest handling and storage losses for farmers; and, on the construction of household metal silos
for artisans. In the event, a four day course on post-harvest and storage losses was conducted in
Hargeisa, Somaliland, for six trainers of farmers selected from six different villages in the Bay
region. The training packages used by the trainers of trainers (ToTs) were based on the findings
of the inception studies and designed to ensure that field agronomists and technicians sufficient
knowledge on the post harvest and storage losses for proper implementation of the project.
2.6.3 The three modules presented as Training of Trainer modules to be delivered during the
four-day course include 13 very clear objectives connecting to the grain handling and storage
7 Without completing regular sampling of stores and bench-top, grain-sample analysis it is impossible to offer any
meaningful estimate of the losses in such detail. 8 Three moulds are common out of some 40 noted in stored sorghum:- fusarium (most common); penicillin and aspergillus; identification may only be confirmed by culturing and microscope examination of the mycelium . Only some species of aspergillus produce aflatoxin, which is carcinogenic. Other moulds can, however, induce vomiting and sickness. 9 The management summary in Figure 1 shows that following LoA 1 there was a gap of 70 days, during which time the SATG team was disbanded; therefore no confirmatory contact has been possible to determine how aspergillus/ aflatoxin were identified. NB A Pictorial Guide for sorghum moulds was produced by ICRISAT (1999) Information Bulletin No 59 – NB no mention is made of its use in the storage survey. An “aflastick” seven minute field test for aflatoxin presence in stored grains is available in kit form- again no mention is made of its use or of the use of any other tests. 10 Mission interview, SATG Executive Director.
15
topics, as noted in Annex 7, but contain no objectives relating to how the farmers, with varying
degrees of literacy and numeracy, should be trained to establish behavioural change. There are,
therefore, no written modules showing content or behavioural objectives for the training of
farmers.
2.6.4 The omission noted in 2.5.8 notwithstanding, 1337 farmers, of which 681 were female,
were trained during the period of the LOA 2, which ended on October 31st 2009. The training
courses were planned to be delivered in a series of village level courses presented to groups of 10
trainees, three times a day, over a three-day period in each village. The training of artisans was
not conducted.
2.6.5 A further LOA issued after a gap of 15 days, LOA 3 from 15th November 2009 to 15
th May
2010, empowered SATG to begin the carried forward training of artisans, the introduction of
metal silos and to plan the demonstration of an improved underground pit; as well as continuing
the farmer training programme initiated in LOA 2. During LOA 3, a further 1138 farmers,
including 387 women were trained in the 6 districts; and, 6 local artisans were trained in
producing metal silos (12 silos made during the course).
2.6.6 The graphic illustrations of the progress made throughout the project period for the main
activities in Figure 1, show an overall lack of progress to beyond the mid-point of the original
project period, a situation which appears to prompt managerial changes viz
the recruitment of a second implementing NGO, COOPI, with an established track record
in working in South Central Somalia;
the issuance of back-to-back contractual partnership agreements (PAs) with the two field-
operational NGOs (SATG and COOPI) and
the recruitment of a third NGO, ASEP (Advancement of Small Enterprises) to facilitate
a) three artisan training courses in Mendera, Kenya and b) the distribution of silos made
during the training courses in Gedo Region.
2.6.7 Under two separate, simultaneous PAs with FAO from 15th June to 15
th August 2010,
independent reports from SATG and COOPI show a surge of activity (Figure 1) that includes:-
Training in post-harvest training and storage of a further 6080 farmers, of which 2408
were women.
o In COOPI‟s case, the courses to farmers were delivered by three newly-
appointed local extension worker trainers, who themselves were trained on a
two-day ToT course, the content of which is included in Annex 7
o As with the SATG courses there is no inclusion of training objectives relating to
the actual training of farmers; or documents produced showing content or style
of training delivered to farmers.
80 silos were produced and distributed.
Beneficiaries were selected by councils of elders, according to basic criteria connecting
to the tenets noted above; and the farmer willingness to attend training.11
During the same period, FAO identified and finalised procurement procedures that
afforded the purchase and import of 10,000 x 1.2 mm galvanised steel sheets and fixing
materials to the project area through Mogadishu during August and September 2010,
providing the NGO-identified craftsmen in the 6 districts to build the project‟s silos
under the guidance of the newly-trained artisans using soldering techniques.
2.6.8 Second PAs with SATG and COOPI from 15th August to 15
th December 2010 (original
closing date) facilitated mass production of silos and continued training resulting in the
11 Women were allowed to attend training; and have been nominal recipients of silos, but the de facto owner of the silo is likely to be the male household head.
16
production of 4620 silos, the distribution of 3990 (630 distributed later in Dinsor District due to
unrest); and the training of a further 5000 farmers of which 1660 are women.
2.6.9 In addition, under PA2 SATG completed the construction of a demonstration household
underground silo. With contributions to the design apparently emanating from beneficiaries12
the
silo finally constructed, as shown in Plates 1, 2 and 3 in Annex 9, looks more like and
underground bunker or bomb shelter, and seems a long way from the concept of a household
grain storage pit with an improved and affordable lining. The cost of the demonstration silo,
noted at US $ 1300 for a single household, resulted in the EC- approved removal of Result 3 from
the objectives of the project during its final phase.
2.6.10 Given the earlier delays and the unfinished state of the project, a no-cost extension was
granted by the EC to FAO to allow the completion of revised targets (January 2011- see log-
frame revision Annex 3). Consequently, further PAs (PA3) were issued to both SATG and
COOPI allowing the training of a further 6000 farmers of which 1800 are noted to be women;
and, the fabrication of another 500 and distribution of these and the 630 remaining silos (see
2.5.13); and, the training of 78 agro-traders in silo use.
2.6.11 In parallel with the key activities noted above:-
SATG and COOPI prepared and delivered awareness-raising activities, which were
suitably low-key in the field, where response to agency publicity in Al Shabaab
administrative areas is normally negative and may well be violent.
FAO developed posters, in English and Somali languages, advocating improved storage
practices, which were circulated in-country and between agencies; and raised project
visibility through the production and distribution of threshing mats, stickers and labels,
and the inclusion of updated activities on the FAO- Somalia website.
2.6.12 Under a final as-worked extension, COOPI completed a final (end line) survey, covering a
total of 571 farmers in the project areas of both NGOs. The questionnaire used is included in
Annex 6 and the results are presented in the effectiveness section of the next chapter.
3.0 Findings
3.1 Relevance and quality of project design
3.1.1 Within the context of Somali‟s three separate administrations Somaliland, Puntland and
South-Central (TFG), the Somali Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP) provides the only
national plan offering national recovery, reconstruction and development priorities. Volume 2 of
the RDP, connecting to South-Central Somalia, identifies, under Section (iii) Rebuilding key
productive sectors – 3.100, inter alia the previous importance and commercial significance of
rain fed sorghum production in the project area. The actions fall within the priority noted and
within the framework of the United Nations Transitional Plan (UNTP) for Somalia, identified
through the Joint Needs Assessment (JNA). All actions contribute to the Strategic Outcome 5
(Vulnerable and marginalised groups have improved sustainable food security and economic
opportunities).
3.1.2 The project‟s objectives of decreasing losses and improving quality of stored sorghum grain
in the Bay Region are directly in keeping with such priorities. Similarly, the project‟s approach,
connecting improvement with private sector initiatives i.e. artisan silo makers, concurs with the
overall policy to encourage businesses to generate the recovery.
12 Hussien Haj (2011) Personal Communication, Mission Debriefing June 2011
17
3.1.3 Closer to the action, the anarchic and changing nature of the Al Shabaab administrations
means that there are no coherently identifiable or meaningful, socio-economic development
policies or strategies enacted at district level. With the de- facto district governors changing very
frequently, NGOs are equally frequently faced with shifts in local interpretations of Al Shabaab
policy ranging from freedom-to-work to office-closure. It does seem, however, that community
opinion of on-going interventions is listened to carefully by most administrators, with positive
outcomes for actions deemed to be useful.
3.1.4 In this regard, the SATG conducted baseline survey (Annex 6) of community opinion,
prepared with the partial intention of confirming the relevance of the project‟s objectives as well
as establishing the status quo is the best guide to contemporary relevance. The returns from the
survey show high levels of recognition of storage losses, and high levels of farmer interest in
reducing grain losses through improvement to storage systems at farm level and beyond.
3.1.5 The EC Strategy for Somalia (SISAS) focuses on strengthening of household livelihoods in
rural areas. This includes intensification and diversification of smallholder agriculture and
livestock production, market diversification and marketing improvement, improved capacity of
rural communities to manage development activities and facilitate reintegration, improved access
to rural services, sustainable natural resources management, strengthened emergency
preparedness and prevention, and enhancement of the technical capacity of line administrations
and other relevant institutions.
3.1.6 Further, concomitant with the EU's chief objectives to increase production and improve the
marketing of local production, EC-Somali funded research in Bay Region, conducted by
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GTZ),13
which indicated that in all
tested underground grain storage pits, moisture and temperature were conducive for fungal
development and therefore grains were potentially contaminated by aflatoxins. Consequently, an
Internal EC concept note from the Somalia Operations Unit identified the need improve storage
to eliminate the contaminant and to reduce post- harvest loss in South Somalia, which, in turn, led
to EC- Call for Proposals, “Strengthening Livelihoods and Food Security Through Reduction of
Grain Post-harvest and Storage Losses in Southern Somalia” under which funding the action
under review is being conducted.
3.1.7 The high levels of cereal loss in storage is a concern to many agencies, examples of current
projects with similar orientation in Somalia include a) the provision of small household silos by
WOCCA in Middle Shebelle, initially with Oxfam- Novib funding; b) investigations into storage
losses and their amelioration in Middle Shebelle, being undertaken by CEFA since 2009, with EC
funding; and c) improved storage for seeds in Gebile, Somaliland being undertaken by the
International Medical Corps (IMC) with USAID (OFDA) funding.
3.1.8 The well-defined nature of the EC-Call for Proposals restricted the type and style of
activities to support to the improvement of farming household's grain harvest, post-harvest and
transportation techniques; support to the rehabilitation and improvement of traditional household
underground pits and techniques in sustainable and cost-effective manner, paying particular
attention to the problem of aflatoxins; and/or support to the introduction and development of
alternative appropriate cost-effective and sustainable household storage techniques and facilities.
3.1.9 Further, the rubric to the call specified that at inception of the action, the selected applicant
should conduct a baseline survey and make a technical, financial and social feasibility study of
the proposed interventions.
13 GTZ (EC funded) "Assessment of stored grains kept in underground pits and identification of possible ways to improve the keeping and grain quality in Bay Region, May 2006
18
3.1.10 The project design embraces all the actions noted above as described in section 2.5 and in
Figure 1. Insomuch as activities follow the requirements to achieve the results, they are noted as
appropriate. In addition, conditions in South- Central Somalia preclude anything other than
remote management by any International Organisation (IO), placing all operational matters and
day-to-day decision making in the hands of politically- acceptable local NGOs, which- by itself
dictates the approach to be adopted within the framework of the subject. This approach requires
extra time to establish another tier of relationships to allow the exercise to be conducted, in this
case by SATG, a newly-formed NGO in an area where NGO activity was minimal.14
3.1.11 The original logical framework, presented with its revisions in Annex 3, is simple, clear
and consistent with regard to overall objectives, purpose and results. However, as a result of
SATG‟s survey of interventions and beneficiary involvement in design detail, rather than an
improved lining to the underground pits, it was proposed that a cellar should be built for each
house. This decision went unchallenged by FAO. A demonstration cellar was subsequently built
according to a design more appropriate for Canada, the location of SATG headquarters, than for
each house in Somalia. It proved to be so expensive, at US $ 1300 per unit, that improvement to
“underground pits” (Result 3) was sidelined and then removed from the Results with the
agreement of the EC. This left the metal silo as the only storage- intervention option, which, if
targets were to be achieved, meant limiting the size of the silo to a maximum of 250 kg that was
thought by the implementers (SATG) to be enough to cater for the harvest. This has been shown
to have been an underestimation of production from the farms of 2-5 ha, that the project was set
up to support (see 3.1.13).
3.1.12 The log-frame was revised during the Project‟s no cost extension removing Result 3-the
improvement to underground pits15
; and reducing benefitting households from 7000 households
to 5000 households being those targeted to receive new metal silos.
The Purpose OVI remained basically the same after the revision, with the proviso that the revised
-Purpose OVI anticipates a 25% rather than a 50% reduction in storage losses in the 5000
households.
3.1.13 As most of the household receiving silos have the need to store much more grain than the
new silos can hold, as noted in the returns in the Final Survey which show that all 571 households
interviewed still have underground stores, the revised Purpose OVI is still under challenge, not
now from the target number of household included for the action as this was adjusted, but from
the percentage of grain harvested that may be stored in a better way e.g. the silos hold 120 kg to
250 kg while the individual household pits contain 1.0 to 2.0 tonnes.
3.1.14 Using a standard EC OVI 609 as the OVI for Result 2, means that after the revision, the
indicator reduces everything to the delivery of metal silos to households i.e. as the indicator is set
at 70% adopters / those receiving training and the adopters, post revision, are those receiving
metal silos, the value of the OVI is 5021/19,555 or 26%, nowhere near 70%, because so many
more people were “trained” than actually received silos.
3.1.15 Any development of OVI 2 to include the actual use of the metal silos, or behavioural
change wrought by the broader content of the training package on post-harvest handling/ storage,
delivered at village level to thousands of trainees, is precluded due to project closure before a
14 As noted in 2.4.5 SATG, although newly formed, had the connections in Bay Region and with Somali diaspora
agriculturalists. They were, therefore, selected for the initial actions. The Somali- diaspora agriculturalists left the project after LoA 1 was completed and no further LoA was issued for 3 months. 15 Concepts of lining the pits with sorghum chaff and dung, as in Sudanese vertisols were eschewed, reducing the probability of home-based improvement initiatives in favour of imported solutions (although silos are locally made they depend on imported sheets).
19
main harvest following training16
and b) the absence of any finalised behavioural objectives for
farmer trainees.17
3.2 Efficiency and adequacy of project implementation
3.2.1 An outline of finance EC grant availability, spend with LOAs and PAs attached is
summarised in Figure 2. In Figure 2, the graph shows a bimodal, skewed distribution matching
the profile of project activities presented in Figure 1, showing virtually no activities in the 1st, 2
nd,
and 4th and 5
th quarters.
3.2.2 The Indicative Action Plan (Section 1.9, OSRO-SOM 811 Project Document) anticipates a
completion of most actions by the end of Semester 3 (5th and 6th quarters) with all actions
completed by 15th December 2010. In the event, activities have been mostly undertaken in
Semester 4 (7th and 8
th quarters) and during the 6 month no cost extension that followed. In
summary, the initial inefficiency was compensated by accelerated performance during the final
six and in the extension period.
Figure 2: An outline of finance availability and spend.
16 Situation exacerbated by a GU season failure. 17 Extract- last sentence, COOPI Training of Trainers ” The packaging and promotion of the technology remains the main task of the agricultural trainers” No behavioural objectives were prepared or training programmes produced.
LOAs SATG
PAs SATG
PAs COOPI
-100000
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
Q1
15
/1-1
5/4
/09
Q2
15
/4-1
5/7
/09
Q3
15
/7-1
5/1
0/0
9
Q4
15
/10
-15
/0
1/1
0
Q5
15
/1-1
5/4
/10
Q6
15
/4-1
5/7
/10
Q7
15
/7-1
5/1
0/1
0
Q8
15
/10
-15
/1
2/1
0
Exte
nsi
on
15
/1-1
5/4
/11
Quarter
US
$
Money $
Payment $
Final Evaluation Report
August 2011 Final
3 1 2 3
1 2 3
LOA and PAs SATG and PAs COOPI for the duration of the project
20
3.2.3 Funds use:
The first tranche from the EC was received on 15 03.2009, three months after the start
date.
Drawdown of the first tranche was not completed until 15th August 2010, 18 months
later.
The second tranche of funds was not requested until 15th October 2010 and actually
released after the end date of the project- 15th December 2010.
Draw down of the second tranche is still on-going during the Mission being used during
the no-cost extension which ends 15th July 2011.
Cost per beneficiary (rounded) US $ 1.04 million provided training for 19,555 people in
the need for improved post harvest handling of grain and on-farm storage; and, provided
5021 household (26.5% trainees) with a locally- fabricated metal silo, most of which
have 250 kg capacity (250 are 120 kg silos), costing an average of 40 US$ to produce (cf
CEFA metal silos capacity 540 kg – cost 130 US $; WOCCA – metal silos 500 kg
capacity- cost 50 US$; IMC metal silos -1000 kg capacity – cost 140 US$).
3.2.4 Periods of reduced/ subdued activity connect to unrest in Mogadishu during the first two
quarters, fuelling uncertainty prior to SATG‟s establishment in Bay Region, and, in part no
activity following the SATG studies appears connected to the withdrawal of the SATG team; an
increased managerial workload placed on the OSRO 811 Project Manager, who simultaneously
held the position of Coordinator of the Somali- Food Security Cluster; and during Quarter 3 was
also Project Manager of the newly won EC- Food Facility Project18
. Whether coincidental or not,
OSRO 811 activities increased after the full-time EC-FF Project Manager was appointed in
January 2010.
3.2.5 Assessing the quality of works undertaken, in a situation where even spot checks are
precluded, means being restricted to reports, photos and second hand opinions generally. In this
case, opinion is conditioned by the facts that a) the Final end line survey was undertaken by one
of the implementers; b) the final survey was conducted following the delays noted above, and a
GU crop failure at a time when beneficiaries and agencies were lobbying strongly for more aid.
Given the above caveats:-
The Baseline/ storage surveys were conducted in accordance with standard
approaches to sampling across Bay Region (all six districts).
The Final survey was conducted in the same locations as the Baseline Survey.
No scientific tests on grain quality, species of mould or presence of mycotoxins were
conducted during the initial or final surveys; yet standard tests that could be conducted
in the field exist for monitoring grain quality in stores, properly identifying moulds
and testing for aflatoxins; reflecting a tendency either a) to expect too much from the
field implementer; or, b) a willingness to accept inadequate technical performance of
specialists working under such very difficult circumstances.
Training of Trainer Courses (for farmer trainers) exhibit well-designed courses with
clear behavioural objectives.
No such approach/ documents is noted for the actual farmer training courses in the
SATG and COOPI programmes; reflecting a tendency to leave details of
implementation to the contractor.
Metal silos were constructed from galvanised sheets according to FAO design19
using
materials from the top end of recommended range (sheets used 1.2 mm thickness from
quoted range 0.4 to 1.5 mm).
Fixing of silos was switched from welding (suitable for sheets >0.8 mm) to bending
and soldering, due to lack of access to electric power in workshops.
18 Opinion voiced in discussion with the FAO-SOM Operations 19 FAO (undated) Guidelines for the construction of a 250 kg household metal silo using welding technique, FAO Rome
21
The demonstration/ pilot underground pit is very over-designed and not in keeping
with the context. Pit lining- not underground house building was required. This should
have been obvious to FAO technicians at the design stage the concept presented by
SATG should have been challenged.
3.2.6 The very slow start to activities followed by the discontinuous series of LOAs provided to
SATG, did nothing to establish a project identity in Bay Region, or, to provide continuity in
thinking (let alone delivery), or, to keep the initial SATG team together. Implementation in a
conflict zone, coupled with administrations in a continuous state of flux requires some stability
somewhere and this does not seem to have been apparent until Quarter 6 when contiguous PAs
were issued for the two implementing NGOs. Thereafter, project support is noted to improve in
general.
3.2.7 Locally managed (FAO- Somalia) international procurement is clearly an extremely
important attribute that led to remarkably smooth delivery of materials and services, despite the
manifold setbacks of importing through Mogadishu. The time taken from compiling tender
documents to delivery of metal sheets was less than 3 months. This needs to be compared with
the performance of both the FAO Central and Regional procurement offices, in similar
circumstances, which in the recent experience of the author takes more than 1 year.20
3.2.8 Managerial flexibility, shown in recruiting 2 more NGOs in the final Semester, COOPI to
implement the project in the field; and ASEP as a contractor to provide training facilities for
Somali artisans in Kenya, allowed the project to deliver the Results expected in terms of quantity-
exceeding training targets or matching revised targets, for silo distribution, albeit a Semester (two
quarters) behind schedule. The EC – sanctioned removal of underground stores from the results
(Results 3) to concentrate on the production and delivery of metal silos expedited delivery,
allowed FAO to proselytise a proven, appropriate technology that has since been taken up by
other agencies in the Region21
and enabled the Project to be completed, within budget but with a
25% time overrun.
3.2.9 The nature of the Call of the Project was EC-prescriptive and precluded any stakeholder
involvement in the initial design; however, returns from the Final (end line) Survey show that:
46% of the beneficiaries felt that they had contributed to the design of the project
through information provided in the baseline survey.
3.2.10. FAO‟s short-term LOAs and PAs with NGOs require regular reporting of actions, which
may be cross-referenced with fund disbursement and spend. Monitoring, in this case, connects to
the content of such reports and is necessarily focussed on delivery- either of a survey, training or
the construction and distribution of metal silos. The project period of 24 months is not, even in
design, conducive to monitoring the effect or impact of any of the actions as a) the project was
due to close before any prolonged period of storage could take place; and, b) NGO teams are
disbanded at contract end. Further, in the event, the delays in implementation meant that some
4,500 / 5021 silos were delivered during or after the last quarter of the project period, and have
yet to be used properly in the manner intended i.e. with grain freshly harvested from the owners‟
fields.
3.3 Effectiveness
3.3.1 Considering the data below, the major quantitative targets have been met:-
19,555 farmers in Bay Region have attended short courses in post-harvest grain handling
and storage; exceeding the expected number of trainees (7000) by 279%.
20 Robinson WI ( 2007) Eritrea- actual experience procurment; Robinson WI ( 2010) FAO- Food Facility Project Monitoring for EC, Afghanistan; Jawad, N (2011) Personal Communication – FAO Tajikistan- Regional Procurerment procedures. 21 It should be noted that Kenya has a previous history of use of such silos for maize storage.
22
53 artisans from Bay region have been trained in metal silo production using bending/
soldering techniques; exceeding the expected number (20) by 265%.(NB Six more
artisans were trained for WOCCA, when the El Shabaab administrations concerned did
not allow artisans identified by SATG and COOPI to travel to the training venue).22
A further category of artisans were involved, locally at village level, in making the silos
under the direction of the trained group. From the NGO reports it is unlikely that the
number exceeded 15 as against 300 artisans anticipated.
In an additional action, 78 agro-traders were trained in metal-silo use.
3.3.2 A comparison of key points from all overall returns from the baseline and final surveys
(99.7% of whom had received silos of 120kg (46%) and 250 kg (54%), conducted by the two
implementing NGOs, is provided in Table 1 . A summary of all the returns by district is given in
Annex 6 indicates complete satisfaction with the actions.
Table 1 Summary of Comments from beneficiaries: % Highly Satisfied (Excellent- Good)
Action Delivery Quality Usefulness
Training 95%- logical, timely 94% - clear 97%-needs met
Silos 99%-“before next
harvest”- received in
good condition.
99%- still in good
condition
82%-contribute well
100% storing more
than 400 kg.
96% still using
underground pits
3.3.3. Returns from the much smaller spot check telephone interviews conducted by the Mission
using an independent translator with no connection to the implementing NGOs and with the
ability to speak all local dialects were enthusiastic but less overwhelmingly positive:-
Training:
courses had been completed in villages- trainees attended one session the duration of
which ranged from 1.5 hrs to 4 hrs;
trainees per session ranged from 6 to 40 persons;
SATG courses are reported to have had no practical content;
COOPI courses -instructors showed grain from the new silos but practical training was
limited;
awareness of the importance of storage issues among trainees is noted to have been
raised but few trainees (19% from telephone interviews)
retained details of what to do and how to do it.
Given that the trainers were required to train farmers in 13 subject areas to deliver 13 behavioural
objectives (ToT modules) with no instructions how this might be achieved, it is not surprising
that few details have stuck in the minds of the farmers questioned.
Silos:
metal silos had been delivered in good condition;
silos were universally considered to be too small;
only 19% persons of interviewed had used the silo to hold home produced grains- the
remainder had not yet used silos;
silos were kept in the houses- to be used as day-to- day storage units.
3.3.4 Whereas the project actions are fully concomitant with the food security policy of the
participating government, as noted in umbrella agreements signed between FAO and the Ministry
of Agriculture (MoA) of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG); actions are
22 Insecurity in Mendera, Kenya caused the final training to be switched to Uganda. At the last minute the artisans were refused exit, leaving places to which FAO was financially committed to be taken up by artisans from a similar project.
23
delivered in Al Shabaab administered areas and are, therefore, subject to the vagaries of conflict
and inconsistent administrative policy interpretations, as personnel change. The more frequently
personnel change, the greater the likelihood of adverse effects on implementation.
3.3.5 In this regard, such external factors influenced the project progress in a number of ways:-
Since 2008, in Somalia 26 aid workers were killed and 12 were kidnapped. In Bay
Region access to Al-Shabaab areas has been limited and difficult. This has had
consequences for the population, as provision of food deliveries and other forms of
assistance is limited. After the regional capital, Baidoa, which was formerly the seat of
the transitional government, was captured by Al Shabaab in January 2009, access of
International Organizations to project area has been impossible.
Activities in Bay Region are therefore run for FAO by local employees of NGOs under a
remote management policy. „Remote management‟ is defined as a reactive position
where, by necessity, international staff are remote from national staff and, by necessity,
there is a transfer of decision-making and skills to national staff, and capacity-building of
national staff in order to get the planned job done.
The local employees act as links to the local communities, and in order to avoid conflicts
and accusations of clans being treated inequitably, the local employees must have the
same clan affiliation as the population in the project areas.
The first contracted NGO, SATG, recruited Diaspora located staff to conduct the studies,
and initial delays occurred regarding Al Shabaab approval for team access to the field
with GIS equipment and satellite phones (never granted).
At the same time a tense security situation in Bay region delayed the onset of SATG‟s
activities in the field. The situation may have been exacerbated by SATG‟s low level of
operational experience and presence in Bay Region. However, the security situation
experienced during the initial phase of the project posed a major threat to the
achievement of expected results. The two assumptions of the logical framework matrix
“Target areas remain accessible” and “Security conditions remain conducive for project
implementation” were not met.
In spite of the difficulties, the initial studies were completed by 20th June 2009.
Following the studies, however, the staff were not retained as a prolonged gap occurred
between Letters of Agreement, LOA 1 and LOA 2, between FAO and SATG. The delay
and the ensuing switch to locally resident staff, also on short term contracts but
apparently recruited from local NGOs in Bay Region, disrupted continuity and
effectiveness, a state from which the Project does not seem to have recovered until
COOPI and Advancement of Small Enterprises, (ASEP) – a Nairobi based Somali NGO,
were contracted by FAO to assist in the field implementation (COOPI) and to facilitate
the artisan training in Kenya (ASEP), respectively.
The initial delay in OSRO 811 contrasts vividly with impressive start and on-time
scheduling of the FAO- Food Facility Project being managed, initially, by the same FAO
team but implemented by NGOs well-established in their districts, incidentally not in
Bay Region, from the outset.
At a more practical level, at different times, insecurity in Hargeisa, in the environs of the
Kenya border town of Mendera and interference by Al Shabaab administrations stopped
the movement of artisans out of the Region to attend training courses elsewhere, causing
disruption and delays to the local fabrication of silos. The final course, organised in
Uganda for security reasons, was made out of bounds for Bay Region artisans at the last
minute in March 2011, which caused FAO to offer the planned training to artisans from
a similar project implemented by WOCCA.23
3.3.6 This assessment, conducted remotely as the main delivery components were ending, has not
identified any unintended consequences.
23 Funding used will be reimbursed.
24
3.3.7 At household and farm level the Project‟s interventions are essentially gender neutral
insomuch as the whole household benefits if grain losses are reduced and food is safer to eat.
However, from the initial training courses, the question of gender has been considered in the
selection process in each location and female beneficiaries identified at levels ranging from 21%
to 54% according to the strength of traditional feelings in the district. Unlike some areas in
Somalia, in Bay Region women are involved in farming and trading therefore, with active
involvement of village elders and with the compliance of Al Shabaab authorities 6900 trainees
(35%) and 1540 silo recipients (30%) are noted to be women. By the same token, some 30% of
agro-traders introduced to the use of metal-silos are also noted to have been women, sustaining
Under current evaluation terminology the projects consideration of Gender Interests would
therefore be considered to be significant.
3.3.9 Environmental issues in the broadest sense have not been threatened by any of the actions;
indeed, all activities have been directed positively towards improving the health of households by
improving the quantity and quality of grain in-store. The project has not actively promoted the
use of chemicals for grain storage, however, because of their size (small storage units), given the
way that the metal silos are likely to be used, i.e. for day-to- day with daily opening requirements,
significant protection from insect pests will require the use of storage chemicals. 24
3.4 Impact
3.4.1 As noted above, it is too early to determine impact. The final (end line) survey returns
record complete satisfaction; the telephone question and answer interviews suggest that the silos
are too small. FSNAU seasonal assessments are based on interviews with households anticipating
food aid. In the opinion of the Mission, the average values of maize and sorghum yields quoted
over the years at 0.3 t/ha are considerable underestimates of the actual levels of production
achieved. Silos of 120 kg and 250 kg capacity delivered to the median range of farmers in the
project with 2-5 ha and aspirations of better marketing strategies, are too small to have an impact
on their marketing activities; nevertheless, the silos will be useful assets for conserving seeds for
the next season or holding grains for household use in good condition.
3.4.2 Larger scale farmers have been introduced to the concept that similar silos holding several
tonnes can be built, to a good standard, by local artisans; and that the materials may be imported
under current conditions through Mogadishu economically. The final survey showed and the
telephone question and answer returns confirmed the willingness of all farmers interviewed a) to
buy such silos and b) to pay the market price; with c) all wanting the option to buy bigger units.
3.4.3 The training courses delivered to 19,555 farmers by the farmer trainees, were anticipated by
the Trainers of Trainers to contain 13 distinct behavioural objectives i.e. intended to bring about a
very complex series of changes in behaviour in post- harvest and storage procedures. Given that
the courses were:-
delivered by local extension agents following 4 day (SATG) and 2 day (COOPI) ToT
courses that contained no teaching instructions, no prepared behavioural objectives for
the farmer trainees;
delivered in a series of single sessions a) that lasted from 1.5 to 4 hrs, b) were delivered
to men and women with mixed backgrounds, c) in groups ranging from 6 to 40 persons,
with c) widely varying levels of literacy and numeracy, and d) delivered without
practical materials (stored grain was reviewed in COOPI courses) and with e) no
apparent follow-up to attendees;
24 The Mission visited similar silos in use in a convent school near Nairobi where maize, rice, beans and peas from markets had been bulk stored since December 2010. Storage chemicals were found to be necessary within 3 weeks, to prevent losses from weevils and other insects.
25
It is most unlikely that any impact other then raising awareness of concerns and issues related to
post-harvest handling and storage will have been achieved.25
3.4.4 Because of NGO (SATG) staff changes, it has not been possible to determine why the
original concept of lining the large underground pits was reworked into building an underground
bunker (Plates 1, 2 and 3; Annex 9) to store grain; which, at a cost of c. US$ 1300 per unit,
ultimately proved to be prohibitively expensive. SATG‟s Director‟s explanation26
is that this
change came from the participatory process within the initial studies, so was the peoples‟ wish.
The base line survey report suggests otherwise, noting farmer concern that such a construction
was too expensive. The decision, however, may say more about the naivety or interests of others
rather than popular opinion. In any case, whatever the cause, the removal of the simpler solutions
from the underground-pit agenda (dung- chaff or plastic linings) would seem to the Mission to
have been a mistake as it removed a potentially more cost-effective option for bulk storage of
actual quantities of grain normally produced by most of the farmers in the project who have 2-5
ha and need to store 1-2 tonnes, from the programme.27
3.4.5 Certainly one of the issues and concerns noted to have registered with the farmers
interviewed in the final survey is the negative impact of traditional stores on household health.
The EC Guidelines to the Call for tender specifically identify the need to “reduce the exposure of
population to carcinogenic aflatoxins due to inappropriate storage conditions”. In this respect, the
Mission notes that whereas sorghum head mould is generally accepted as present, neither the
GTZ study in 2006 (quoted in the Guidelines), nor the returns in the Project baseline/storage
survey confirm, scientifically, the presence of either aspergillus or aflatoxin. The former study
identifies suitable conditions in the pits in Bay Region, the latter notes the presence of moulds
and reconfirms the need to study the situation. The only other information the Mission could find,
relating to the contamination of sorghum in pits in Bay Region is from previous FAO project
reports. In 2006-7, an EC-funded FAO Project OSRO/SOM/607/EC “Consolidation of the
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Initiative in Somalia” included the purchase of 200 litre oil-
drums in which to store grain maize, most of which were distributed in the Jowhar area where
extensive flooding is a fairly regular occurrence and where many contaminated underground pits
containing maize had been seen. Survey and research work was undertaken in conjunction with
the FAO partner United Nations Association (UNA) to establish the benefits of the oil-drum
storage technology over the traditional underground pit stores, which, in part, included sending
via the African Insect Science for Food and Health (ICIPE), 22 samples of maize from
underground pits in the Jowhar area; and sorghum samples from pits in Somaliland to the
University of Arizona for aflatoxin testing. Initial contacts from University of Arizona, noted by
this Mission, confirm that maize “samples from the Johwar area, which were water contaminated
were heavily infested with mycotoxins”. No comments on the sorghum samples could be traced
in FAO archives or in ICIPE records. Consequently, the suspected presence of aflatoxin in
sorghum in underground pits in Bay region is still not confirmed. While this should not detract
from concerns to improve the prevailing conditions that may cause moulds of sorghum to
flourish, the high level of importance of this issue means that the presence of not only aspergillus
but also aflatoxins should be confirmed and monitored. In short, if the elimination of the threat
from the carcinogenic contaminant, aflatoxin, is expected as an impact of the project, the
presence of the contaminant needs to be properly confirmed and monitored.
25 This conclusion is reached by the Mission after c. 40 years experience in various forms of agricultural training/ extension. No more than 1 or 2 behavioural changes are likely to be successfully introduced in a single training session with any group of farmer trainees anywhere. The 13 disparate objectives identified in the ToT modules ( Annex 7) are way beyond the reach and scope of the courses offered. 26 Mission debriefing, June 30th, FAO-Somalia, Nairobi 27 CEFA are developing pit-linings using water holding dam- lining sheets imported from Dubai at 40US$/ South Africa
80 US$- for a 1.5 t silo.
26
3.5 Sustainability
3.5.1 The Project is essentially a delivery project, that is to say when the deliveries are over, the
project ends. In this case, a no-cost extension of 6 months was allowed by EC- funders to allow
the deliveries to be completed.
3.5.2 For the training delivered to be effective in terms of changing behaviour, routine extension
messages at village and household level are required. No such opportunities exist under the
present state of public or private services. As NGO implementers complete project tasks they
move out or are waiting for another contract from another funder, which may or may not be in a
related subject.
3.5.3 The metal silos required to be delivered under the project have all been delivered and
installed, but most have yet to be used. They are clearly well-appreciated and may be replicated if
individual farmers or other projects request the artisans to make more.
However, perhaps because the concept of artisan centres, made in the original proposal, was
dropped during the period of revision, no supply chains (with or without credit) to suppliers of
galvanised sheets or fixing materials have been created by the project
3.5.4 The FAO Strategy in Somalia 2011-2015 (Draft) identifies “Improving Livelihoods and
Food Security in Somalia” as an overarching objective. The Outcome of Component 1 B is
“Incomes increased and greater incentives to invest for increased production through marketing”.
The first mentioned of a series of results within this outcome is “On-farm post harvest losses
reduced” through directly “improving post harvest management, storage and pest control, and,
the public and private capacity to train farmers in storage, post harvest management and the safe
use of inputs”.
3.5.5 The first Project Report to the EC estimates post-harvest and storage grain losses as 20-
30% of the total production. In Southern Somalia, this translates to economic losses ranging
between 50,000 and 80,000 tonnes per year, corresponding to an estimated value of US$ 15
and 25 million, respectively. The Project under review is an integral part of a strategy
designed to reduce this loss, which is also noted to be the concern of many other agencies,
consequently. The experience gained should be widely shared both:-
Within the FAO Project teams involved with all aspects of agricultural development,
especially improved seeds multiplication and marketing.
All agencies involved in the Somalia Food Security Cluster.
3.6 Gender Mainstreaming
3.6.1 Within FAO‟s Draft Strategy for Somalia, the Principles of Intervention dictate that the
issue of women‟s access rights must be addressed but does not state clearly how this is likely to
be achieved. The disparate nature of Al Shabaab‟s inconsistent approach to gender is noted in
OSRO 811 Progress Report to EC 3 which reports that “some administrations of Al Shabaab
impose a draconian interpretation of sharia on its people inter alia holding public whippings of
women who refuse to wear the veil, public amputations of convicted thieves, and public stoning
of adulterers and, in some cases, rape victims”.
3.6.2 At household and farm level, the Project‟s interventions are essentially gender neutral
insomuch as the whole household benefits if grain losses are reduced and food is safer to eat.
However, in Bay Region, women are involved in framing and trading and the project has used
such traditions to advantage. From the initial training courses, gender has been considered in the
selection process in each location and female beneficiaries identified at levels ranging from 21%
to 54% according to the strength of traditional feelings in the district. As reported in 3.3.7 with
the active involvement of village elders and with the compliance of some Al Shabaab authorities,
27
6900 trainees (35%) and 1540 silo recipients (30%) are noted to be women. Under current
evaluation terminology the project‟s consideration of Gender Interests would therefore be
considered to be significant.
3.6.3 Lack of Mission access to the field, and an understandable absence of gender issue related
questions in the Final (end line) and Baseline Surveys allows for no further comment to be made
regarding the current role of women in the villages, or how the project may have influenced their
participation in present events. Human Rights Watch Reports (August 2011) suggest that
conditions in South- Central Somalia have deteriorated rapidly in the past two months. The mass
exodus to refugee camps in Kenya, Ethiopia and Mogadishu confirm the current state of chaos.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 Concluding Summary
4.1.1 The Project‟s revised log-frame (January 2011) identifies two Results namely:
Results 1 -Storage losses reduced for the target population of about 7,000 households through
interventions aimed at improving storage techniques and facilities and
Results 2 -Awareness and divulgation (sic) of appropriate post-harvest practices and technologies
among local farmers enhanced. The revised Results OVIs are:
OVI I. 5,000 metal silos produced and utilized by local farmers;
OVI 2. “Proportion of farmers who have adopted a new practice, as a percentage of those
attending dissemination sessions” (EC standard indicator for agricultural extension 609).
4.1.2 The achievement for OVI 1 exceeds expectations with 5021/5000 metal silos delivered by
the end of the project period plus 6 months, (no-cost extension granted to July 2011).The
production costs of such silos at US$ 40 per unit is in line with costs of similar silos produced by
CEFA, IMC and WOCCA.
4.1.3 The achievement for OVI 2, the EC standard OVI 609, is less easy to assess. Firstly, 19,555
farmers have been trained instead of the 7000 farmer target. On one hand, 5021 silos have been
distributed to households compared to 19,555 farmers who have attended training suggesting a
26% guaranteed uptake (EC OVI 609 anticipates 70% uptake). On the other hand, if achievement
is based on the final (end line) survey questionnaire returns summarised in Annex 6 , 99%
farmers say the training they received will help reduce losses; 98% (30% over base line) say they
will now discard infected or broken heads when filling stores; 50% (50% over baseline)- have
now heard of aspergillus mould; 96% say they will consider buying a metal silo, but, 96% are
still using underground pits with no improvements in prospect. The dichotomy connects to the
definition of training and selection of the OVI. From the nature of the courses and numbers
trained, it is clear that the courses were awareness-raising courses not skills training courses,
therefore, a different EC OVI should have been selected from the list of standard OVIs.
4.1.4 Project visibility, a difficult subject in a volatile environment administered by a force with a
stated intention of defeating the official government; has been handled well by the project,
capitalising on the experience of other FAO funded projects involving a low-profile approach in
the field and sensible publicity, concentrating of technical goals and achievements
internationally.
4.1.5 Delivery of a project in a conflict/ post conflict zone in circumstances infested with
suspicion and uncertainty, especially through a process of remote management, requires a very
strong relationship between the community and the implementers (NGOs); and, between the
implementers and the organisers/ managers (FAO). Luck, trust, good judgement and good
planning are needed in equal measure and, given that the project has a clear and appropriate
28
purpose that is accepted by all stakeholders, continuity in terms of staff and the approach adopted
by those staff would appear to be of paramount importance. For the first 4 to 5 quarters out of the
8 quarters forming the project period, the Project appears to have lacked a satisfactory level of
direction and continuity reflected in Figures 1 and 2. Establishing better direction and continuity
and reinforcing the field activities through contracting extra services from NGOs, more
experienced than SATG in working in South-Central Somalia, effectively rescued the project
from a very poor post-mid-term position compared to the EC food Facility Project.
4.1.6 The EC approved revision of the Project‟s Results at the beginning of Quarter 8, after the
demonstration model of improvement of underground pits (Result 3) in the manner chosen was
shown to be uneconomic28
, concentrated all the project‟s efforts on a much simpler action i.e. the
provision of a FAO-proven, standard solution to storage problems through the delivery of
standard-design, metal silos to all participating households. The action, which was already in the
original proposal as the introduction of an alternative storage technology was now given the lead
role. As artisan training programmes had already begun, equipment required- identified and
procured, galvanised sheets needed- identified and suppliers sourced, the action was able to be
taken up quickly to great effect by both SATG and the new implementing NGO, COOPI.
Any continuation of local production of silos by the trained artisans will depend on the
establishment of supply chains bringing galvanised sheets of the appropriate size and thickness
and fixing materials into Bay Region.
4.1.7 The Mission considers that the downside of the revision is that the metal silos supplied are
too small to replace the large underground pits of the median group of farmers with 2-5 ha, to
whom the project is directed. Such pits will now remain in use and unchanged. Nevertheless, the
use of the metal silos will be advantageous, especially as seed stores (silos 120 kg –seed for <10
ha; 250 kg- seed for <20 ha) for the larger farmers; and, as grain stores for the farmers with 0.5
ha or less. The uses to which the silos are put by the median group are likely to vary from
household to household. They will probably be used as house-based grain stores receiving
threshed grains from the pits as is needed for home consumption, however, such outcomes may
only be assessed after the coming harvest.
SWOC of Improvement of storage facilities and post- harvest handling and storage
practice in Bay Region, Southern Somalia
Strengths
The completion of the project
confirmed that interventions by UN are
possible in Bay Region, using remote
management.
The attendance on courses confirmed
that women could be involved in
project activities including training.
The training courses heightened
awareness of storage losses and
possible health issues connected to
poor quality storage
The provision of metal silos will
reduce storage losses of seeds of bigger
farmers; and reduce losses of grains
used in the households.
The project mounted an impressive
Opportunities
Increased awareness of issues
connecting to storage should engender
local initiatives regarding improvement
of lining of underground pits.
The metal silo introduced has been
proven to be acceptable; and can be
made locally.
The project has identified artisans who
are able and willing to make metal
silos.
The target group of farmers with 2-5
ha have expressed a willingness to buy
similarly constructed but much larger
silos to store their farm stock prior to
sale.
Supply chains for metal sheets and
28 A feature, easily obvious earlier, from the design and bills of quantities presented by SATG in Quarter 3.
29
remedial action to complete the actions
in line with revised OVIs within the
no-cost extension granted by the EC.
Locally managed (FAO- Somalia)
international procurement procedures,
offering maximum flexibility, were a
key contributor in the level of
efficiency in delivery.
fixing materials may now be
established for artisans.
Public opinion is now likely to support
the regular monitoring and testing of
grain- in- store.
Weaknesses
The project management in the first 18
months was indecisive and this led to
protracted delays.
The Letters of Agreement with NGOs
in the first 18 months were too short
and not contiguous, disrupting the
continuity of NGO staff recruitment
and capacity building.
Poor technical monitoring of NGO
staff actions led to: a) an absence of
scientific testing of grain store
contaminants; and b) wrong option
being taken on the way to improve
underground stores; c) wrong option
on selection of size of metal silos.
Lack of alternative options means that
actions were assessed in the field by
the same NGO team implementing of
the actions.
Constraints.
The project area, Bay Region is a
conflict zone.
Access to Bay Region is still precluded
to International Agencies.
The attitude of individual El Shabaab
district administrations to interventions
remains both unpredictable and
changeable.
Importing materials through
Mogadishu remains a lottery, requiring
local support and know-how.
Recommendations emanating from
reviews such as this should be general
rather than specific, and flexible rather
than prescriptive allowing the
managers room to manoeuvre.
The current (August 2011) emergency
conditions will necessitate a review of
programme priorities.
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 Recommendations for further actions
5.1.1 The project has been completed, the Partnership Agreements have ended and the
implementing NGOs would, under normal circumstances, no longer be in Bay Region. Under the
current conditions of mass exodus from South- Central Somalia, it is most unlikely that any of the
implementing NGO staff are still resident in the six districts, or, if they are resident, available for
anything other than relief operations. It is also impossible to tell, with regard to this project,
which actions are now relevant, which actions are now priorities or even which actions are now
possible. From the evaluation the following actions are judged to be necessary, when
circumstances allow, to consolidate actions.
The absence of any follow-up visits following training and delivery of silos means that
opportunities are being lost to capitalise on the awareness that has been raised to improve
post –harvest grain handling and storage. An extension programme should now be
mounted among the 19,000 households already informed and involved in the project to
reinforce training objectives.
The presence of carcinogenic mycotoxins in sorghum stores in Bay Region is only still
only suspected. Where aspergillus fungus and aflatoxin contamination is suspected, the
presence should be confirmed scientifically, through locally managed verification tests
(2- stages:- petri- dish cultures of moulds; and “aflastick” confirmation field test for
30
aflatoxin; and, where present, concentrated support offered and routine monitoring
established using a local NGO.
FAO should liaise with CEFA, who are not only monitoring grain in store, but are testing
imported pit linings that are much cheaper than the pilot/demonstration pits prepared by
SATG. Further, pits lined with locally available materials that have proved to be useful
elsewhere (e.g.“wattle and daub”, using straw and animal dung in the vertisols of
Central- East Sudan) may still have applications away from flood plains.
The previous recommendation notwithstanding, the interest in buying larger metal silos,
expressed by the target group of farmers, means that FAO should assist in establishing
supply chains for galvanised sheets and fixing materials for the trained artisans wishing
to continue to make silos for sale (different sizes); and, should also investigate
opportunities of associated private sector support for credit/insurance for such artisans.
5.2 Recommendations from lessons learnt
5.2.1 The design and implementation of similar projects to improve storage of grain should
ensure sufficient time is built into the project to allow the assessment of products in store.
Therefore, it is recommended that:-
Assessing effectiveness of storage, not just delivery of training or assets, should be
included within the project objectives, increasing the length of the project to include the
usual, or an appropriate, period of storage.
Surveys of grain in-store should always involve sampling and tests of grain quality over
a period of time, using simple bench-top techniques that may easily be accomplished in
the field. It should not be considered sufficient to ask farmers to guess the percentage
damage by supposed effect or probable cause.
Simple tests for moisture content, 1000 grain weight, % broken grains, % insect
damaged grains, % contaminated grains etc may be conducted in situ, if necessary, with
an accurate balance, a magnifying glass and the imagination of a good specialist adviser.
Final evaluations should not be conducted by the contracted NGO implementer.
5.2.2 Training courses to be conducted in the field under uncertain and changing conditions need
more forethought and as much preparation as training courses in an established institute. Further,
it is highly likely that the front-line trainers of farmers available at village level, are going to
need as high a level of instruction in training as they are going to need in the subject matter. In
this regard, it is recommended that:-
All training of trainer courses include, as well as learning objectives relating to subject
matter, learning objectives that relate to training of farmers and household members with
little or no levels of literacy.
Training of Trainer courses should provide would- be trainers with itemised training
packages including equipment and materials and a programme of instruction to follow.
Farmer and household member training sessions, other than awareness-raising sessions,
must always be practical; only conducted in small groups (maximum 10 persons) when
sufficient materials and pieces of equipment are available for all trainees to participate;
have no more than one or two clearly-stated, practical objectives that all the trainees can
demonstrate before leaving.
All trainees should receive follow-up extension visits after the training course to review
progress and correct faults.
EC standard OVIs should be selected more carefully to ensure that they match the action.
5.2.3 Assuming technical competence, remotely- managed projects in South- Central Somalia
rely for their success on the relationships created between implementers, local administrators and
communities. Such relationships are built on trust which needs time and continuity of personnel
to achieve. Therefore, it is recommended that:-
31
Projects with long-term, contractual agreements with donors should pass on the
advantage of continuity to NGO implementers.
NGOs selected to implement development-orientated projects involving the introduction
of technology and behavioural change should be awarded contracts, either through
Letters of Agreement or Partnership Agreements, with durations which reflect the project
period and the continuous funding available, to enable them to recruit and keep suitable
staff.
NGOs should be obliged to show the conditions of employment of their key technical
and administrative staff in their Letters of Agreement/ Partnership Agreements, which
should, in turn, reflect the duration of the project and the guaranteed funding available.
Remotely-managed development projects include an extra-long period of inception, to
allow firm working relationships to be established.
5.2.4 FAO Project managers, themselves (not surrogates) should manage the projects. Therefore,
it is recommended that:-
Project Managers should remain in regular contact, possibly daily, with all implementing
NGO‟s key staff, through cell-phones, thereby maintaining a high level of understanding
of all events and all actions, at all sites and at all times that will enable them to plan,
organise and control actions.
FAO Project managers, using remote-management approaches, should not be expected to
take on other tasks encompassing responsibilities that would not be expected of other
project managers with more direct access to the field.
___
32
Annex 1 - Evaluation Format and Methodology
A1.1 The methodology adopted required to be presented to FAO- Rome, in an Inception Note to
be approved by the Monitoring and Evaluation Section. Consequently, an Inception Note was
written, submitted, received comments that were incorporated into a Final text and approved
within the first few days of the field mission.
A1.2 The approach follows closely the format and topics used by the EC in Results Orientated
Monitoring (ROM) for their Food Facility (FF) projects; conditioned by the Somalia situation
summarised below. Circumstances dictated that the evaluation was necessarily confined to work
that might be carried out in or around Nairobi, (Kenya) not in the field of operations in Bay
Region, South Somalia, where access to international consultants is denied for security reasons.
Consequently, tools/methodology used preclude:-
any direct investigation of field operations,
any direct review of use of the silos in situ;
any direct review of effect of training on trainee behaviour;
any first-hand quantitative evaluation of keeping of grain in the new silos provided.29
A1.3 In the above context, UNEG norms and standards that the evaluation should be impartial,
independent and credible will be applied within the limits of an evaluation based on:-
reviewing all project documents (listed in Annex 4);
interviewing FAO OSRO 811 and other project staff,
interviewing staff of the two NGOs, Somali Agriculture Technical Group (SATG) and
Cooperazione Internazionale COOPI, implementing the project;
interviewing staff of three NGOs (CEFA, WOCCA, IMC) that are promoting the new
silo technology introduced by FAO elsewhere in Somalia;
reviewing returns of baseline and final (end line)30
household surveys of beneficiaries;
analysing the summarised data from the 2 surveys that are held by FAO- Somalia in
Nairobi (Survey baseline/ final questionnaires and results included in Annex 6).
conducting a telephone “question and answer” survey with 16 beneficiaries of the
training courses and silos delivered under the project (5 day exercise to identify, locate
and interview the respondents- (Questions and Results included in Annex 8).
interviewing FAO staff supporting other agricultural projects related to grain and food
security in Somalia;
interviewing the craftsman (in Kenya) recruited by FAO to make demonstration silos and
to train local artisans;
observation of similar silos in use in Kenya;
interviewing EC project officer.
A1.4 The evaluation began with the arrival of the Consultant in Nairobi on June 2nd
. Initial
meetings were held with FAO –Somalia staff, documents collected, a programme of meetings
arranged and an Inception Note prepared. The document review started on June 3rd
and continued
until the report was completed.
29 This point is exacerbated by the fact that the Project time-frame and inevitable delays in implementation mean that most silos will be filled for the first time after the project has ended. 30 Completed at the end of field operations –in this case delivery of training and silos.
33
A1.5 A debriefing meeting with stakeholders was held in the FAO-Somalia headquarters on June
30th.
A1.6 The Evaluation Report was be written in the format requested in the ToRs in Aberystwyth,
Wales (AA International Ltd office) and submitted to FAO- Somali‟s agriculture coordinator on
July 11th.
Annex 2 – Map of Project Intervention Area
34
Annex 3 – Logical Framework
OSRO/SOM/811/EC “Strengthen livelihoods and food security through reduction of grain, post harvest and storage losses in Southern Somalia
Logical Framework - Revised Logical Framework and differences to the Original Logical Framework (shown by (*)
Intervention Logic Objectively verifiable indicators of achievement Means of
verification
Assumptions/Risks
Overall Objective:
To improve the livelihood of Somali people
by reducing food insecurity at household
level
Purpose (Specific Objective):
Food insecurity reduced by strengthening of
livelihoods at household level, through
reduction of grain post-harvest and storage
losses
I. 5,000 household benefit from 25% reduction in post harvest
and storage losses
(*ORIGINAL OVI- 7,000 household benefit from 50%
reduction in post harvest and storage losses)
Baseline survey
reports, post training
and distribution
questionnaires,
FSNAU and
FEWSNET reports.
Target areas remain
accessible
Security condition
remain conducive for
project
Implementation
No major climatic
events (flood
drought, etc) or
migratory pest occur
during project
implementation.
Expected Results
1: Metal silos technology, tested, multiplied,
adopted and disseminated
I: (*ORIGINAL- Storage losses- halved for
the target population of about 7,000
households through interventions aimed at
improving storage techniques and facilities
I. 5,000 metal silos produced and utilized by local
farmers
Progress reports, post
training and
distribution
questionnaires, final
project report.
(* Progress reports,
final project report,
Midterm and final
35
II: Awareness and divulgation of
appropriate post-harvest practices and
technologies among local farmers enhanced
(* ORIGINAL RESULT III: Existing
underground pits improved)
II EC OVI 609- 70% of farmers who have adopted a
new practices in percentage of those who have
attended dissemination sessions (609 from list of
standard indicators)
evaluation reports)
Activities Means and costs
Means of
verification Assumptions
Result 1: Metal silos technology, tested, multiplied, adopted and disseminated
36
1.0. Inception study
1.1. Train artisans on silos construction (50
from different districts)
1.2. Distribute constructed samples (240 silos)
to farmers for demonstration and data
collection purposes
1.3. Establishment a private system of silos
production and build 5,000 household
metal silos
1.4. Distribute household metal silos to
farmers for utilization (5,000 silos)
1.5. Organize market days for the farmers and
traders on household metal silos utilization
1.6. Train farmers on installation, use and
proper management of metal silos
1.7. Contribution (provision of row materials)
to dissemination of new technology
(* Establishment of Artisan centres)
(*Promote the benefit of the new
technology through ICT)
Means: Costs:
Revised (*Original)
1. Human Resources 268,755 269,000
2. Travel 8,050 7,750
3. Equipment and supplies 42,300 42,300
4. Local office/Action costs 31,900 29,700
5. Other costs, services 28,988 26,698
6. Other 450,755 455,300
7. Subtotal direct costs of the Action 830,748 830,748
(1-6)
8. Administrative costs 58,152 58,152
9. Total eligible costs of the Action 888,900 888,900
(7+ 8)
Inception study
report
Technical
appraisal report
Assessments
report
Activity, mid-
term and final
reports
Training
materials and
training
attendance sheets
Field evaluation
results
Delivery notes
(silos)
Technical
pictures
Result 2: Awareness and divulgation of appropriate post-harvest practices and technologies among local farmers enhanced
2.1 Prepare training packages on post-harvest
losses and handling appropriated practices
2.2 Conduct short-term training on post-
harvest losses (for extension agents)
2.3 Organize and coordinate extensive training
at village level
2.4 Where needed evaluate and distribute
appropriate simple drying equipment
Costs included above
Training
materials and
training
attendance sheets
Delivery notes
37
(*Result 3: Existing underground pits improved (in Original Logical Framework only)
3.1 Preliminary study (including desk review of
previous studies) on the traditional grain
storage system-underlying causes for grain
losses
3.2 Propose improvement on the traditional
grain storage system
3.3 Support the adoption/implementation of the
proposed technology/improvement
4.0 Monitoring
5.0 Evaluation (Mid/Final)
6.0 Reporting
Technical report
38
Annex 4 - List of Documents Consulted
Abdulla, AT; Stigter, H. and NI Bakheit (2001) LEISA Magazine 17.1.Underground storage of
sorghum as a banking alternative.
Beneficiaries Results Assessment Report 2008. Importance of Traditional Systems in Somaliland.
BoQs Renovate U/G store ( build cellar -blocks and concrete)/ BoQs silos.
COOPI ( 2010) OSRO 811 Progress Report, Nairobi.
COOPI (2010) Training Modules 1 Harvest and Post Harvest Losses, Nairobi, Kenya.
COOPI (2010) Training Modules 2 Post Harvest and Grain storage Losses, Nairobi, Kenya.
COOPI (2010) Training Modules 3 Household Metal Silo and Aflatoxin, Nairobi, Kenya.
COOPI( 2010) Final Narrative Report, Nairobi.
COOPI(2010) Agricultural Trainers Refresher Training Course 4-6 June Mandera, Nairobi
COOPI(2011)Final Narrative Report, Nairobi.
FAO (2008) Impact Assessment Report- Improvement of Traditional Grain Storage System in
Somaliland OSRO/SOM/ 612/EC.
FAO (2008) Project Document (Proposal in response to EC Call for Tender 2008).
FAO (undated) Guidelines for the construction of a 250 kg household metal silo using welding
technique. FAO, Rome.
FAO -Somalia (2010) 3rd Progress Report 1.02.2010 to 31.07.2010, Nairobi , Kenya.
FAO-Somalia ( 2010) Training Module, Construction of HH metal silos using soldering, Mandera,
Kenya.
FAO-Somalia ( 2009) 1st Progress Report 16.12.08 to 31.07.09, Nairobi, Kenya.
FAO-Somalia ( 2009) 2nd Progress Report 1.08.2009 to 31.01.2010, Nairobi, Kenya.
FAO-Somalia ( 2009) Visibility and Communication Strategy (for OSRO 811), Nairobi, Kenya.
FAO-Somalia ( 2010) Artisans 6 day Training on Construction of HH metal silos (34 from Bay,
Middle Juba, Middle Shabelle, Gedo), Mandera , Kenya.
GTZ (EC Funded) (2006) Assessment of Stored Grains kept in underground storage pits and
identification of ways to improve keeping and quality in Bay Regions, GTZ- Somalia.
Howel .M ( 2005) Technical Manual for Construction of Small Metal Silos, FAO, Rome (+ Somali
Translation).
Hussein Haj (2011) Personal Communication, Mission Debriefing June 2011.
Robinson W.I. 2010; FAO/ WFP Assessment of Available Marketable Sorghum in the Agro-
Pastoralist zone, Somaliland.
SATG ( 2009) Base Line Survey ( Local) on Post Harvest and Grain Storage Losses in Bay Region,
South Somalia. SATG, Nairobi, Kenya.
SATG ( 2009) Base Line Survey (Regional)on Post Harvest and Grain Storage Losses in Bay Region,
South Somalia. SATG, Nairobi, Kenya.
SATG ( 2009) Desk Review on Post harvest and Grain Storage Losses. SATG, Nairobi, Kenya.
SATG (2009) TOT Training on Post Harvest and Storage Sept 11-15th, Hargeisa.
SATG (2009) TOT Training on Silo Construction ( trainers Gedo Adan & Khadar Ali for 6 Artisans)
Dec 10-20th 2009.
SATG (2009-2011) Mid-Term, Progress and Final Narrative Reports, Nairobi Kenya.
SATG (2010) Farmers Training on Harvest and Post Harvest Losses, Sept 28th -Oct 10th; Jan 15th-
15th Feb 2010.
SATG( 2010) Underground Storage Construction, Nairobi , Kenya.
39
Annex 5 – List of Persons and Institutions met during the Mission
Rose Jeptoo Kioko (Programme Assistant) - European Union (EU).
Evelyn Njue (Programme Manager) - Cooperazione Internazionale (COOPI).
Mohamed Hussein Haj (Executive Director) - Somali Agriculture Technical Group (SATG).
Agatha Ongaya (Finance and Administration Assistant) - Somali Agriculture Technical Group
(SATG).
Stephanie Zighe (Capacity building manager) - European Committee for Agriculture and Training
(CEFA).
Flavio Braidotti (CEFA Regional Representative) - European Committee for Agriculture and
Training (CEFA).
Patrick Martin - European Committee for Agriculture and Training (CEFA).
Daud Nur (CEO) - Women and Child Care Association (WOCCA).
Robert Vandersteeg - Women and Child Care Association (WOCCA).
Ali Ibrahim (Acting Country Director Somalia) - International Medical Corp (IMC).
Paul Kairu (Artisan Trainer).
Isaac Wafula Deputy Principal Bishop Mazzoldi Secondary School (Male and female > 18-20 yrs.
200 children).
Sister Mary O-i-C Food storage silos, Bishop Mazzoldi Secondary School
Sergio Innocente. Agricultural Coordinator- FAO Somalia
Elizabeth Karungo - FAO OSRO 811 Project
Stoyan Nedyalkov - FAO Procurement Officer
Chris Pappas- FAO Operations Manager
Dario Cipolla – FAO Project Manager.
AbdiFateh Mahad - Telephone interviewer
40
Annex 6 – Baseline and End line Survey Questionnaires
Baseline Survey Questionnaire on Post-Harvest and Storage Losses through
Somali Agriculture Technical Group (SATG)
The purpose of the survey is to assess the current grain storage system in the Bay Region, the
weaknesses of the system and potentials for improvement. The survey will be conducted in the six
districts (Bairdoa, Burhakaba, Dinsor and Qansahdhere, Berdale and Ufurow) of the Bay Region. It is
anticipated that sorghum is the major crop in the Region covering over 95% of the crop. A sample of
50 to 60 farmers will be randomly selected in each district. The questionnaire is composed of three
parts: a) general information, b) post harvest losses and c) storage losses.
Location Details
Region: _____________________________________________________________________
District: ____________________________________________________________________
Village: _____________________________________________________________________
Article I - General information
1.1 Crop Type
Sorghum
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
1.2 Main variety
Local
Introduced
1.3 Farm size (in acres)
< 1
1 to 2
2 to 5
5 to 10
> 10
1.4 Number of family members:
2 to 3
4 to 5
>5
1.5 Major yield limiting factor
Weeds
Insects
Diseases
Drought
41
All of the above
Other, please
specify____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
1.6 Inputs
Fertilizer
Pesticide
Other, please
specify____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
1.7 Marketing: How much of your grain product is marketed immediately after harvesting?
10 to 30% (small quantity)
30 to 50% ( average quantity)
> 50% (large quantity)
Article II _ Post-harvest losses
2.1 Type of grain storage that is available
Underground pit: □ Small □ Medium □ Large
Drum: □ Small □ Medium □ Large
Other, please specify: □ Small □ Medium □ Large
2.2 Type of grain storage used
Underground pit
Drum
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2.3 If you don‟t use underground pit, why?
Reason:______________________________________________________________
2.4 Grain losses are caused by several factors. Specify which one is the most important to you
Losses during harvesting
Losses due to transportation (from field to the drying area)
Losses due to grain drying
Losses due to grain storage
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
2.5 What is the estimated loss during harvesting?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20%( below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
2.6 What is the estimated loss due to transportation?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
42
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
2.7 What is the estimated loss due to grain drying?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
2.8 What is the estimated loss due to grain threshing?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
2.9 Prior to grain storage, do you discard sorghum heads affected with diseases
Yes
No
2.10 Prior to grain storage, do you discard broken heads that may be source for disease inoculums?
Yes
No
2.11 Grain drying: How do you dry your crop?
On the floor and in direct contact with the soil
On a mat
On plastic sheet
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Article III _ Grain Storage Losses
3.1 What is the (harvest lost quantity) due to grain storage?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
3.2 What are causes of the stored grain losses?
Insects
Rodents
Diseases
Moisture
All of the above
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
3.3 What is the (quantity) storage loss due to insects?
43
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
3.4 What is the (quantity) grain loss due to rodents?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
3.5 What is the (quantity) grain loss due to diseases?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
3.6 What is the (quantity) grain loss due to moisture?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
3.7 Specify the three most important insects affecting the stored grain
____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3.8 Specify the three most important diseases in the stored grain
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3.9 If moisture is one of the damaging factors on grain storage, what is the source of the moisture?
Excess rainfall
Underground moisture
Improper drying method
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3.10 Will plastic liner and plastic top cover protect the stored grain from contact with moisture?
Yes
No
44
I don‟t know
3.13 Is your grain storage built in elevated land and drained properly in the event of excessive rain?
Yes
No
3.14 Are you aware of fungus called Aspergillus causing Aflatoxin. How important is this fungus to
you?
Very important
Important
Not important
I don‟t know
3.15 Who is the household responsible member to manage the grain store structure and how many
kilos per year is stored.
The man
The woman
Other member of the family (please specify)
400 kilos,
> 400 kilos
Final (End line) Evaluation Questionnaire
The purpose of the survey is to collect post intervention information in order to measure change of
farmer practices with respect to post harvest grain management practices and to assess overall project
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The survey will be conducted in the six
districts (Bairdoa, Burhakaba, Dinsor and Qansahdhere, Berdale and Ufurow) of the Bay Region. It is
anticipated that sorghum is the major crop in the Region covering over 95% of the crop. A sample of
60 farmers will be interviewed in each district who already participated in the baseline survey
conducted beginning of the project. The evaluation questionnaire is composed of five parts: a)
relevance, b) efficiency, c) effectiveness, d) impact and e) sustainability.
Name of household: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex (male or female): ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of enumerator: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Region: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Village: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date/season: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45
1. RELEVANCE
1.1 Are you involved/consulted in the development of metal silos design?
Yes
No
If Yes, please explain how---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 Do you find the metal silo suitable/beneficial for use in the storage of your grains?
Yes
No
I do not know.
1.3 Has the training on post harvest and storage management been beneficial and suitable to
you and to your needs?
Yes
No
If No, please explain why----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Yes, please explain how---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4 Your needs, in post harvest losses and grain storage management are met through this
project?
Yes
No
If Yes, please explain how---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If No, please explain why---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EFFICIENCY
2.1 Were you received the project inputs (initial consultations, silos, trainings) in logical
fashion and in good time ?
Yes
No
If Yes, please explain how---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If No, please explain why----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Have you received any metal silo distributed by FAO through the implementing partner ?
Yes
46
No
If yes, what is the size of the metal silo provided?
120Kg
250K
Other, please specify -----------------------------------------------------------------
2.3 Was the metal silo received in good timing before the crop harvesting period?
No
Yes
2.4 What is the quality of the household metal given to you?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
2.5 Was the conducted training convenient to you (location and time etc)?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
2.6 Was the training delivered efficiently? (simple, clear messages, practical/demos etc)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
3. EFFECTIVENESS
Grain Storage Losses
3.1 What is the main purpose of the grain that you choose to store with the household metal
silo?
Marketing
Consumption
Production
Other, please specify -----------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 How was the household metal silo received contributed to better storage of your grain?
Well
Fairly well
Poorly
47
3.3 Has the training on post harvest and storage losses management been sufficient for you to
help reduce further grain losses?
Yes
No
If No, please explain -----------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 Specify the three most important insects affecting the stored grain:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3.5 Specify the three most important diseases in the stored grain
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3.6 If moisture is one of the damaging factors on grain storage, what is the source of the
moisture?
Excess rainfall
Underground moisture
Improper drying method
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
3.7 Will plastic liner and plastic top cover protect the stored grain from contact with
moisture?
Yes
No
I don‟t know
3.8 Is your grain storage/silo built in elevated land and drained properly in the event of
excessive rain?
Yes
No
3.9 Are you aware of fungus called Aspergillus causing Aflatoxin. How important is this
fungus to you? Do you how to prevent/control it?
48
Very important
Important
Not important
I don‟t know
Yes
No
3.10 Type of grain storage currently used
Underground pit
Drum
Metal silos
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
3.11 Grain losses are caused by several factors. Specify which one is the most important to you
Losses during harvesting
Losses due to transportation (from field to the drying area)
Losses due to grain drying
Losses due to grain storage
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
3.12 Prior to grain storage, do you discard sorghum heads affected with diseases?
Yes
No
3.13 Prior to grain storage, do you discard broken heads that may be source for disease
inoculums?
Yes
No
3.14 Grain drying: How do you dry your crop?
On the floor and in direct contact with the soil
On a mat
On plastic sheet
Other, please
specify_____________________________________________________________
4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 Are you utilizing the metal silos?
Yes
No
49
If No, please explain why---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Yes, please explain how--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Current Farm size (in acres)
< 1
1 to 2
2 to 5
5 to 10
> 10
4.3 What changes have resulted from the received household metal silo?
List
1.____________________________________________________________________
2.____________________________________________________________________
3.____________________________________________________________________
4.4 What changes have resulted from training on post harvest management? List
1.____________________________________________________________________
2.____________________________________________________________________
3.____________________________________________________________________
4.5 Do you foresee any indirect positive or negative impacts as a result of the introduced
household metal silos?
Yes
No
If No, please explain why---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Yes, please explain how--------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.6 Who is the household responsible member to manage the grain store structure and how
many kilos per year is stored.
The man
The woman
Other member of the family (please specify)
400 kilos,
> 400 kilos
50
Grain Storage Losses
4.7 What is the (harvest lost quantity) due to grain storage?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
4.8 What is the (quantity) storage loss due to insects?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
4.9 What is the (quantity) grain loss due to rodents?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
4.10 What is the (quantity) grain loss due to diseases?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
4.11 What is the (quantity) grain loss due to moisture?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
Post-harvest losses
4.12 Marketing: How much of your grain product is marketed immediately after harvesting?
10 to 30% (small quantity)
30 to 50% ( average quantity)
> 50% (large quantity)
4.13 What is the estimated loss during harvesting?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
51
10 to 20%( below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
4.14 What is the estimated loss due to transportation?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
4.15 What is the estimated loss due to grain drying?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
4.16 What is the estimated loss due to grain threshing?
0 to 10% (small quantity)
10 to 20% (below average quantity)
20 to 30% (average quantity)
> than 30% (large quantity)
5. SUSTAINABILITY
5.1 What is your view on affordability of the household metal silos by any interested farmer?
Not affordable
Fairly affordable
Affordable
5.2 Are you (farmers with the household metal silos) in a position to maintain or service
them?
10% can maintain/service
10-30% can maintain /service
30-50% can maintain / service
Over 50% can maintain / service
5.3 Are there any factors which may prevent you from having access to additional metal silos
from the market?
List
1.____________________________________________________________________
52
2.____________________________________________________________________
3.____________________________________________________________________
5.4 Would you consider purchasing another metal silo in future ?
Yes
No
If No, please explain why --------------------------------------------------------------------------
53
FE FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE
Districts:
Baardheere Final
Evaluation
Baydhaba Final Evaluation
Buur Hakaba Baseline
Buur Hakaba Final Evaluation
Diinsoor Baseline
Diinsoor Final Evaluation
Ufurow Baseline
Ufurow Final Evaluation
Qansax Dheere Baseline
Qansax Dheere Final Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION
Baseline
Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION Final
Evaluation
% % % % % % % % % % % %
1.1
Are you involved in the development of metal silos
design
Yes. 43 83 100 37 12 46
No. 100 57 17 63 88 54
If yes, explain how. Silo thickness Practicals Group discusion Group discusion Group discusion
1.2
Do you find the metal silos suitable/beneficial for
use in grain storage
Yes. 100 97 100 100 100 100 99.5
No. 2 0.3
I don’t know
No data 1 0.2
1.3
Has the training on post harvest and storage
management been beneficial
Yes. 95 100 100 100 100 100 99
No
No data 5 1
If No, Please explain why.
If Yes, explain how.
Learnt how to
manage seeds
Silo
management,Good
quality silos,
Managing of silos
& reducing grain
loss
High capacity &
performance,
Good knowledge &
technology
Learnt good
storage, Improved
family livelihoods,
Learnt how to
manage seed, Good
knowledge on grain
storage
Learnt how to
manage seed, Good
knowledge on grain
storage
1.4
Were your needs, in reducing post harvest losses
and grain management met
Yes. 90 97 97 100 100 100 97
No. 10
If Yes, explain how.
We had
problems of
insects
Gained knowledge
on better grain
management, Silos
saves seeds for a
long time
Better grain
storage, More
silos, knowledge
on silos
management
Improved family
livelihoods,
Gained good
knowledge on
seed storage
management
Improved family
livelihoods, Help to
solve pest problems
Improved family
livelihoods, Gained
good knowledge on
seed storage
management
If No, Please explain why.
No data 3 3 3
Article II -EFFICIENCY
2.1
Did you receive the project input In logical fashion
and in good time
Yes. 97 98 100 100 97 100 99
No 3 2 3 1
If yes, explain how.
Getting training
on silos
Training and
consultation
Training and
consultation Training Training Training
If No, Please explain why.
2.2.1
Have you received any household metal silo
distributed by FAO through implemeting partner
Yes. 100 100 98 100 100 100 99.7
No
No data 2 0.3
FINAL EVALUATION and BASELINE SURVEY FOR POST HARVEST AND STORAGE MANAGEMENT : BAY REGION - REGIONAL
Article I- RELEVANCE
ALL REGION ALL REGION
54
FE FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE
Districts:
Baardheere Final
Evaluation
Baydhaba Final Evaluation
Buur Hakaba Baseline
Buur Hakaba Final Evaluation
Diinsoor Baseline
Diinsoor Final Evaluation
Ufurow Baseline
Ufurow Final Evaluation
Qansax Dheere Baseline
Qansax Dheere Final Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION
Baseline
Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION Final
Evaluation
% % % % % % % % % % % %
2.2.2 If yes, what is the size of the metal silo provided
120 Kg Capacity 53 47 47 59 40 12 44
250Kg Capacity 47 46 48 36 60 88 54
Others, Please Specify
No data 7 5 5 2
2.3
Was the household metal silo received in good time
before crop harvesting period
Yes. 100 100 97 93 100 100 98.6
No. 7 0.8
No data 3 0.6
2.4
What is the quality of the household metal given to
you.
Excellent 62 3 40 18 21
Good 38 80 54 98 85 80 72
Fair 14 3 15 2 5
Poor. 3 1
No data 3 2 1
2.5
Was the conducted training convenient to
you(location and time)
Excellent 60 3 44 2 3 38 25
Good 40 77 50 98 97 60 70
Fair 17 3 2 4
Poor. 3 0.5
No data 3 0.5
2.6
Was the training delivered efficiently(simple, clear
messages, practical/demos etc)
Excellent 52 3 40 2 23 20
Good 48 70 53 97 100 75 74
Fair 18 2 2 4
Poor. 9 1
No data 5 1 1
Article III-EFFECTIVENESSGrain Storage Losses
3.1
What is the main purpose of the grain that you
choose to store with the household metal silo
Marketing 53 43 17 3 28 24
Home Consumption 10 7 2 3
Production (Planting next season) 45 42 3 60 55 34
Marketing,planting next season 2 5 3 3 17 5
Home Consumption, Marketing 45 2 8
Home Consumption, Marketing,Planting next season 8 13 34 9
Home consumption,Planting 15 78 3 16
No data 2 2 1
Others, Please Specify
3.2
How has the household metal silo received
contribute to better storage of your grain
Well 92 90 90 87 47 88 82
Fairly Well 8 8 7 13 53 12 17
Poorly 2 0.3
No data 2 1 0.7
55
FE FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE
Districts:
Baardheere Final
Evaluation
Baydhaba Final Evaluation
Buur Hakaba Baseline
Buur Hakaba Final Evaluation
Diinsoor Baseline
Diinsoor Final Evaluation
Ufurow Baseline
Ufurow Final Evaluation
Qansax Dheere Baseline
Qansax Dheere Final Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION
Baseline
Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION Final
Evaluation
% % % % % % % % % % % %
3.3
Has the training on post harvest and storage losses
management been sufficient for you to help reduce
grain losses
Yes. 100 98 93 100 100 100 99
No 2 7 1
If No, Please explain
3.4
Specify the three most important insects affecting
the stored grain.
Rats, Weevils,
Beetles
Weevils, Beetles,
Grain moth
Weevils, rats,
Crickets, beetles,
termites
Crickets, Weevils,
Coachroches,Moth
, temites, rats
Weevils, rats, temites,
crickets
Weevils, rats,
termites
3.5
Specify the three most important diseases in the
stored grain
Aflatoxin Aflatoxin, Smut Aflatoxin, Smut Aflatoxin, Smut Aflatoxin, Smut Aflatoxin, Smut
3.6
If Moisture is one of the damaging factors on grain
storage, what is the source of the moisture
Excess rainfall 13 10 13 3 10 27 13
Underground Moisture 87 58 57 58 55 53 61
Improper drying method 2 2 2 7 2
Others, Please specify
Excess rainfall,Underground Moisture 30 28 34 33 8 22
Excess rainfall, improper drying methods 5 1
No data 5 1
3.7
Will plastic liner and plastic top cover protect the
stored grain from contact with the moisture.
Yes 5 90 81.7 22 90 75 53 10 83 22 77 37
No 35 10 3.3 30 10 18 47 30 15 27 19 25
I don’t know 60 15 48 0 7 0 60 2 51 4 38
3.8
Is your grain storage/silo built in elevated land that
drains properly in event of excessive rain
Yes 100 100 100 93 100 98 100 33 100 100 100 88
No 7 2 67 0 12
3.9
Are you aware of fungus called Aspergillus causing
Aflotoxin.How important is this fungus to you.
Very important 2 27 43 97 97 7 45
Important 1 12 2 2 61 13
Not important 62 40 32 2 23
I don’t know 36 32 10 30 18
No data 3 1 1 1
Do you know how to prevent / control it
Yes 62 20 62 73 35 98 58
No 38 80 38 27 65 2 42
3.10. What type of grain storage are you currently using
Underground pit 93 95 98 97 97 97 96
Drum
Household metal silo 7 3 2 3 3 2 3
Others, Please specify
Drums, underground pits 2 1 1
56
FE FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE
Districts:
Baardheere Final
Evaluation
Baydhaba Final Evaluation
Buur Hakaba Baseline
Buur Hakaba Final Evaluation
Diinsoor Baseline
Diinsoor Final Evaluation
Ufurow Baseline
Ufurow Final Evaluation
Qansax Dheere Baseline
Qansax Dheere Final Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION
Baseline
Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION Final
Evaluation
% % % % % % % % % % % %
3.11
Grain losses are caused by seversl factors. Specify
which one is most important to you.
Losses due to harvesting 48 27 3 3 3 40 21
Losses due to transportation(from field to drying
area) 7 13 10 18 11 10.3
Losses due to grain drying 10 3 12 34 1 10
Losses due to grain drying, losses due to harvesting 2 2 5 2 2
Losses due to grain storage 33 10 2 18 11
Losses due to grain drying, Losses due to grain
storage 3 3 5 2
Losses due to grain
drying,storage,transport,harvesting 27 92 28 2 26.8
Losses due to grain drying,transport, harvesting 3 5 5 3 2 3
Losses due to storage, Harvesting 13 2 17 5
Losses due to transportation,Harvesting 7 36 7
Loss due to Storage, Transport and harvesting 2 3 2 1
Loss due to Storage, Transport 2 0.3
Loss due to grain drying, transport 2 0.3
No data 2 0.3
Others, Please specify Threshing Threshing Threshing Threshing
3.12
Prior to grain storage , do you discard sorgum heads
affected with diseases
Yes 100 95 75 92 63 98 42 100 90 100 68 98
No. 5 25 7 37 2 58 10 32 1.7
No data 1 0.3
3.13
Prior to grain storage ,do you discard broken heads
that may be a source of disease inoculums.
Yes 98 82 48 93 30 100 40 100 52 100 43 95
No. 2 17 52 5 70 60 48 57 4
No data 1 2 1
Grain drying
3.14 How do you dry your grain
On the floor and in direct contact with the soil 100 64 87 2 50 100 67
On a mat 23 1 1 5
On a plastic sheet 10 3 18 5
Others, Please specify
On mat,on a plastic sheet,On the floor in direct
contact with soil 2 7 30 6
On mat,On the floor in direct contact with soil 2 2 2 1
On plastic sheet,on the floor in direct contact with
the soil 85 14
No data 3 5 3 2
Article IV-IMPACT ASSESSMENT4.1 Are you utilizing the metal silos
Yes 100 97 97 98 100 100 99
No 3 3 0.7
If No, please explain why Size not enough Not available
If Yes, Please explain how
Storing seeds Good protection
from pests, Saving
seeds for a long
time
Good quality for
seed storage
Good for keping
food for
consumption
Storing seeds for
planting
Storing seeds for
planting
No data 2 0.3
57
FE FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE
Districts:
Baardheere Final
Evaluation
Baydhaba Final Evaluation
Buur Hakaba Baseline
Buur Hakaba Final Evaluation
Diinsoor Baseline
Diinsoor Final Evaluation
Ufurow Baseline
Ufurow Final Evaluation
Qansax Dheere Baseline
Qansax Dheere Final Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION
Baseline
Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION Final
Evaluation
% % % % % % % % % % % %
4.2 Current Farm size(in acres)
<1 13 0 2 0 0 0.5 2
1 to 2 35 23 0 70 13 7 4 28 15 22 8 31
2 to 5 63 28 47 20 47 63 73 62 42 78 52 52
5 to 10 34 25 3 31 28 20 10 35 28 13
>10 2 28 7 3 8 11.5 0.3
No data 2 7 2 1.7
4.3
What changes have resulted from the received
household metal silos
Fresh food,Good
market
price,Good seed
germiantion,
Reducing grain
loss, Fresh and
nutritious
food,Good market
prices
Reduces grain
losses,Good seeds
for germination,
Fresh food
Reduces grain loss,
Improves grains
quality
Good storage, Good
market prices, Good
quality and quantity
of the stored crops
Good storage, Good
market prices, Good
quality and quantity
of the stored crops
4.4
What changes have resulted from training on post
harvest management,
Learnt how to
handle grains
before storage,
reduce insect
problems,
reduce grain loss
Reduces grain
losses, Saving
seeds for a long
time,Knowledge on
silo management
Better grain
storage
management, High
capacity pests and
diseases control,
Good management
of silos
Good knowledge
on storage
management
Reduces loss of grains
after harvest
Reduces damages by
insects, How to
handle grains for
storage and silos,
How to reduce losses
4.5
Do you foresee any direct positive or negative
impacts as a result of the introduced household
metal silos
Yes 100 97 92 100 7 83 80
No 3 3 93 17 19
If No, Please explain why Less storage Availability of silos Availability of silos
If Yes, please explain how
Good seeds for
future use
Good protection
from pests, good
storage, saving
seeds for along
time
Good quality &
long life
Keeps grains for
long time
Availability of silos Good seeds for future
use, stores grains for
long
No Data 5 1
4.6.1
Who is the household member responsible for
managing the grain store structure
The man 100 62 90 91 82 100 88
The Woman 38 2 2 18 10
Other members of the family(please specify)
No Data 8 7 2
4.6.2 How many Kilos per year are stored
400 Kilos 32 23 9
>400 Kilos 100 68 60 98 100 100 88
No Data 17 2 3
Grain storage Losses
4.7.
What is the (harvest lost quantity) due to grain
storage
0 to 10% (small quantity) 13 45 15 37 12 2 12 5 18 27 14 21
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 87 44 13 40 11 97 5 93 19 72 12 72
20 to 30% (average quantity) 8 50 18 55 51 2 45 1 50 5
> than 30 (large quantity) 3 22 22 32 18 24 1
No data 5 1 1
58
FE FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE
Districts:
Baardheere Final
Evaluation
Baydhaba Final Evaluation
Buur Hakaba Baseline
Buur Hakaba Final Evaluation
Diinsoor Baseline
Diinsoor Final Evaluation
Ufurow Baseline
Ufurow Final Evaluation
Qansax Dheere Baseline
Qansax Dheere Final Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION
Baseline
Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION Final
Evaluation
% % % % % % % % % % % %
4.8. What is the quantity storage loss due to insects
0 to 10% (small quantity) 85 55 50 20 30 10 67 6 13 13 40 32
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 13 38 27 65 48 58 30 87 45 87 38 58
20 to 30% (average quantity) 5 13 10 22 30 3 7 28 16 9
> than 30 (large quantity) 2 10 0 0 13 6 0.3
No data 2 5 2 0.7
4.9 What is the quantity loss due to rodents
0 to 10% (small quantity) 10 78 52 44 55 41 9 60 30 52 28
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 88 10 48 28 37 83 57 88 28 37 43 56
20 to 30% (average quantity) 2 10 0 20 8 17 2 3 12 33 5 14
> than 30 (large quantity) 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1
No data 5 1
4.10. What is the quantity grain loss due to diseases
0 to 10% (small quantity) 97 37 92 30 95 7 97 10 73 20 89 33
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 3 38 3 49 3 32 3 83 17 53 7 43
20 to 30% (average quantity) 15 0 13 2 61 0 7 8 27 2 20
> than 30 (large quantity) 10 0 0 0 2 2 2
No data 8 2
4.11 What is the quantity grain loss due to Moisture
0 to 10% (small quantity) 97 32 5 25 14 12 20 25 18 30 14 37
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 3 46 47 55 18 33 7 68 25 67 24 45
20 to 30% (average quantity) 12 35 15 53 53 50 7 34 3 43 15
> than 30 (large quantity) 10 13 15 23 23 19 2
No data 5 2 1
Post harvest losses
4.12
Marketing:How much of your grain produce is
marketed immediately after harvesting
10 to 30%( small quantity) 100 22 83 98 30 55 65
30 to 50 % (Average quantity) 35 12 2 70 45 27
>50% (large quantity) 43 7
No data 5 1
4.13 What is the estimated loss during harvesting
0 to 10% (small quantity) 95 30 82 53 80 48 95 7 65 48 80.5 47
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 5 48 18 32 18 50 3 88 33 50 18 45
20 to 30% (average quantity) 12 10 2 2 5 0 2 1 5
> than 30 (large quantity) 10 2 0.5 2
No data 5 2 1
4.14 What is the estimated loss due to transportation
0 to 10% (small quantity) 95 34 65 57 92 75 93 23 100 28 87.5 52
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 3 48 33 28 8 23 7 72 47 12 37
20 to 30% (average quantity) 10 2 10 0 5 23 0.5 8
> than 30 (large quantity) 8 0 0 0 1
No data 2 5 2 2 2
59
FE FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE BL FE
Districts:
Baardheere Final
Evaluation
Baydhaba Final Evaluation
Buur Hakaba Baseline
Buur Hakaba Final Evaluation
Diinsoor Baseline
Diinsoor Final Evaluation
Ufurow Baseline
Ufurow Final Evaluation
Qansax Dheere Baseline
Qansax Dheere Final Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION
Baseline
Evaluation
Overall WHOLE
REGION Final
Evaluation
% % % % % % % % % % % %
4.15 What is the estimated loss due to grain drying
0 to 10% (small quantity) 15 43 60 41 80 55 97 32 92 27 82.25 36
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 85 47 40 40 17 40 3 58 8 67 17 56
20 to 30% (average quantity) 5 12 3 3 10 5 0.75 6
> than 30 (large quantity) 5 2 1
No data 5 2 1 1
4.16 What is the estimated loss due to grain threshing
0 to 10% (small quantity) 75 58 50 40 48 2 33 33 68 25 50 39
10 to 20%( below average quantity) 25 15 43 36 50 11 65 62 32 68 47.5 36
20 to 30% (average quantity) 17 5 17 2 85 2 5 7 2 22
> than 30 (large quantity) 10 2 2 0 0.5 2
No data 5 2 1
Article V- SUSTAINABILITY
5.1
What is your view on affordability of household
metal silos by any Interested farmer
Not affordable 22 7 2 4.7
Fairly affordable 97 68 27 98 98 65
Affordable 3 10 65 100 2 30
No data 1 0.3
5.2
Are you(farmers with household metal silos) in a
position to maintain or service them
10% can maintain/ service 52 54 98 20 1 38
10-30% can maintain/ service 98 35 33 2 80 97 57
30-50% can maintain /service 2 10 2 2
over 50% can maintain /service 3 1
No data 13 2
5.3
Which three factors which may prevent you from
having acces to additional metal silos from the
market
5.4
Would you consider purchasing another metal silo in
future
Yes 90 100 90 97 100 100 96
No 3 2 1
If No, please explain
Materials very
expensive & not
available
Lack of trained
craft men
No data 10 7 1 3
60
Annex 7 – SATG and COOPI Training of Trainer Modules Somali Agriculture Technical Group (SATG) TRAINING MODULE-1
HARVEST AND POST-HARVEST LOSSES
1. Introduction
For centuries, farmers in the Bay Region and elsewhere in the grain-producing areas of Southern Somalia have been following rudimentary grain harvesting techniques that carry the double risks of a quantitative loss of their production and exposure to dangerous toxins leading to illness and deaths among the producers and consumers of the grains. This module is for farmers who wish to learn more about potential grain losses and their causes, as well as some methods for ameliorating farming and post harvest techniques. It is important that farmers are aware of the risks they incur by not improving their current grain harvesting, transportation, drying, and threshing practices. 2. Module Objectives
By the end of the module, participants should: be able to identify the main types of grain losses and their origins be aware of the most important grain handling risk factors recognize the importance of improving grain harvesting and handling practices understand some practices adopted to reduce grain losses which include transportation, drying prior to storage and threshing 3. Welcome and Introduction
Welcome to the module “Harvest and Post-harvest Losses”. We’ll be discussing the most important types of grain losses prior to storage, why they occur, and how we can avoid them. We’ll also be learning about the economic losses due to the traditional harvesting and post-harvesting systems currently practiced by the majority of the farmers in the Bay region. The objectives of this module, therefore, are that you will: Identify the main types of grain losses and their origins Become aware of important grain handling risk factors Recognize the importance of improving harvest and post-harvest handling practices Understand some practices you can adopt to reduce grain losses Appreciate the economic and implication of grain losses. A note about statistics: where estimates of grain loss magnitudes are given for the Bay region, these estimates are based on a single year and may not be representative of overall trends. These figures should therefore be approached with some caution. 4. Post-harvest
In this session we will be discussing post-harvest losses in the Bay region. Post-harvest loss is attributed to harvesting, transportation, drying and threshing. The objective of this session is to identify both the problems associated with post-harvest loss and some possible solutions. 4.1 Harvesting Methods: In the Bay region, farmers estimate that the loss attributed to harvesting ranges from 10-20%. For comparison, FAO estimates losses from field drying and harvesting in eastern and southern Africa at 12%. These losses occur when the sorghum heads are cut and thrown on the ground and are later recollected and kept in heaps for drying. Cracked or broken grains provide an entry point for infestation by insects and moulds during storage. Proper post-harvest handling is critical because if it is improperly done, it may result in serious losses.
Solution: a) Harvest the grain carefully and avoid any possible grain injuries. b) Do not put the harvested panicles (heads) in direct contact with the soil. Heads in direct contact with the soil can
be a source of disease contamination c) Use proper bags to collect the heads soon after harvesting to avoid soil born contamination
4.2 Transportation: In the Bay Region, transportation appears to cause the least amount of grain loss for farmers. It is reported that it accounts for 10% grain loss. In contrast, FAO estimates transport loss for maize in Africa at 1 to 2%. Physical damage, grain spilling or grain deterioration will occur, especially if transport is prolonged.
61
Solution: a) Package the harvesting panicle in proper bags to avoid grain losses b) Load the bags gently into the donkey card c) If no donkey cards is used, carry the bags gently into the drying location
4.3 Drying Practices: Field drying of grains after the harvest is widely practiced in the Bay region. This is done by stacking bundles of pinnacles in the fields and sun-drying them. This practice has the disadvantage of attracting insects and rodents which attack the grains and cause considerable losses. While preparing grain for storage there are three important practices that should be followed: keep the produce dry, cool and insect free. The drying periods for sorghum, adapted by the majority of the farmers, ranges from 10 to 30 days. These drying periods are either too short or too long for practical qualitative and economic reasons. It is important to ensure the appropriate temperature is maintained for the drying period of grains, for example, the temperature should not exceed 43 degrees Celsius for cereal seeds and 35 degree Celsius for legumes. Higher temperatures can be used to dry cereals meant for consumption. Once the crop is dried and stored, continuous checking should be done on the stored crop to investigate the moisture content, presence of pests, moulds or deteriorating grains.
Storing the grains below 12% moisture content is very important in order to minimize the unwanted internal moisture created by the stored grain insects such as weevils. However, these insects cannot be eliminated completely without fully sealed silos. There are several reasons why cooler grain temperatures are desirable: seed germination percentage is maintained longer, moisture migration is reduced and insect breeding is reduced.
Solution: a) Dry the panicles at an average drying period of 20 days. Abrupt or over drying will cause loss of nutrients or
germination capacity b) Use plastic sheets to avoid the panicle in direct contact with the soil c) Protect the panicle from Hagai rains. Cover the harvested product with plastic sheets if the Hagai rains start before
completing the drying process
4.4. Threshing Method
Threshing appears to have a considerable impact on harvested panicles. Although farmers in various districts in Bay region reported a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 20% loss, it is safe to estimate that on average, threshing accounts for at least 15% grain loss for the region as a whole. The overall FAO estimates for loss due to threshing in Africa for maize is rather low and ranging from 2 to 5%. The most common threshing method in the Bay region is the use of pestle and mortar (Kal iyo moye) for threshing the sorghum heads soon after the drying and after the panicle is stored. While most of the grain (about 90%) is sent to storage soon after drying, there are some that are threshed and kept for home consumption. Studies indicate that threshed sorghum grains are more susceptible to sitophilus oryzae than unthreshed grains.
Solution: a) Use plastic sheets or liners. A large plastic sheet should be set below the mortar in order to catch any overspill from
the threshing process. b) Ensure that the panicle are properly dried before threshing
5.0 Review of Module
Let’s review what we’ve learnt about harvesting and post-harvest losses. What have you learnt today? What changes are you going to make to the way you harvest and handle grain?
Points to remember: Improper harvest and post-harvest practices can cause significant grain losses Grain losses in post-harvest is attributed mainly to due to improper harvesting, transporting, drying and threshing. Good harvesting and handling practices will lead into better production and economic return Panicle must be dried at least 20 days prior storage Use plastic sheets when threshing the panicle and in the events where off-season rains is prevalent
Thank you for participating!
62
SSoommaallii AAggrriiccuullttuurree TTeecchhnniiccaall GGrroouupp ((SSAATTGG))
TTRRAAIINNIINNGG MMOODDUULLEE--22
POST-HARVEST AND GRAIN STORAGE LOSSES
1. Introduction For centuries, farmers in the Bay Region and elsewhere in the grain-producing areas of Southern Somalia have been following rudimentary grain storage practices that carry the double risks of a quantitative loss of their production and exposure to dangerous toxins leading to illness and deaths among the producers and consumers of the grains. This module is for farmers who wish to learn more about potential grain losses and their causes, as well as some methods for ameliorating farming and post harvest techniques. It is important that farmers are aware of the risks they incur by not improving their current grain storage practices: while the economic loss from the current grain storage practices is painful, the health hazards have even more serious effects. 2. Module Objectives By the end of the module participants should: be able to identify the main types of grain storage losses and their origins recognize the importance of improving grain storage understand some practices that can be adopted to reduce grain losses 3. Welcome and Introduction
Welcome to the module “Grain Storage Losses”. We’ll be discussing the most important types of grain storage losses, why they occur, and how we can avoid them. The objectives of this module, therefore, are that you will: Identify the main types of grain storage losses and their origins Recognize the importance of improving grain storage and handling practices Understand some practices you can adopt to reduce grain losses A note about statistics: where estimates of grain loss magnitudes are given for the Bay region, these estimates are based on a single year and may not be representative of overall trends. These figures should therefore be approached with some caution.
4. Storage Losses
In this session we will go through storage losses in the Bay region and find solutions to minimize the impact. Storage losses are usually caused by insects, rodents, grain diseases and the moisture in the grain storage system. 4.1 Insects: On average, losses due to insects are reported to be in the range of 10-20% of stored grains, but at times may be as high as 30%. In fact, insects cause the highest loss of grain. For example, farmers in Bardale district reported that the loss due to pests is more than 50% of their harvest per year. The most common insect in the grain stores in the Bay Region are weevils (sitophilus ssp), warehouse moth (sitotroga cerealla), termites and cockroaches. In comparison, in the Kenyan highlands, total losses due to pests were estimated at 57%, with a greater share of this damage resulting from insects than diseases. In Namibia, the bush cricket (Acanthopolus discoidalis) alone has been responsible for up to 30% losses in pearl millet production. Infestation of weevils and warehouse moth often starts when the crop is drying in the field, but there can also be carry-over into storage. These insect pests inflict their damage on stored products mainly by direct feeding. The damage created by insects on the grain can affect the farmers because their grain may lose value for marketing, consumption or planting. The development of insects is limited by temperatures below 15 degree Celsius, and by moistures below 9 degrees Celsius, and by moistures below 13 percent for cereal grains. The application of pesticides can be an effective solution to reduce insect pests; however, pesticides can carry health hazards.
Solution: a) Harvest the crop early so that the crop can be dried properly b) Clean the storage thoroughly and remove all debris from previous crop harvest. Remnants of the left over grain can
be a source of new inoculum c) Clean and disinfect stores at least 6 weeks before harvest. Use natural pesticides such as grinded neem seed,
tobacco leaf, hot paper or any other know herbs that are used to control pests. d) Dust the grain with wood ash e) Use above ground storage technology, drums or household metal silos
63
4.2 Rodents: Stored grain losses due to rodents are estimated at between 10 and 20%. Some of these rodents not only feed on and damage the stored grain, but they also cause indirect grain loss by opening holes outside the underground store which allows water to penetrate and cause extensive damage to the remaining stored grains. The damage caused by rodents is not limited to eating the stored grains but they also contaminate the grains by their urine and hair.
Solution: a) Use drums and bins (including recycled oil drums). These have been found to be efficient, not costly and cost
effective as farmer storage containers mainly used for grain protection. The salient features of the drums are that they are inaccessible to rodents, efficient against insects and sealed against water entry, all qualities that make them excellent grain containers
4.3 Diseases: Fungi are the most common micro-organisms which affect the grains. Initially, they appear as spore, and then spread into individual grains whenever they find a favorable environment such as high moisture conditions.
Solution: b) Dry the panicle properly (at 20 days) in the sun before storage. This will reduce the humidity inside the storage
system. c) Use proper storage techniques and avoid contacts with rain water and humidity condensation.
4.4 Moisture: Depending on the district, farmers in the Bay region reported that stored grain losses to moisture are substantial and range from 10 to 30%. Losses caused by moisture also varied depending on the source of the moisture. The most common source of moisture includes the following;
Flooding due to excessive rainfall Underground moisture Improper drying of grain before storage
Daily and seasonal temperature changes near the storage pit walls set up air movements that carry moisture to the coolest parts of the grain. During harvesting, pockets of high moisture grain or inclusion of green leaf material with the grain can affect quality of all the grain in storage as it allows moisture movement. Solution:
a) Line the inner wall of the pits with cement, so as to avoid moisture movement into the grain storage b) Sufficiently dry the panicles after harvesting, thus reducing the high degree of humidity in the store. c) Construct the underground storage system in an elevated ground d) Construct a drainage system for discharging water away from the storage system
5.0 Review of Module
Let’s review what we’ve learnt about grain storage losses. What have you learnt today? What changes are you going to make to the way you store and handle grain?
Points to remember: Poor grain storage practices can be dangerous to health as well as wealth, particularly if there is a risk of disease
contamination. Grain losses can occur due to insects, rodents, diseases and moisture. It is important to protect your grain so that
your effort on raising a good crop in the field is wasted. Good storage system will lead into better production and economic return Practices a good hygiene system such as through cleaning of your storage at least once a year Apply traditional pest control system Using an air tied system is the basis for a successful grain storage
Thank you for participating!
64
SSoommaallii AAggrriiccuullttuurree TTeecchhnniiccaall GGrroouupp ((SSAATTGG))
TTRRAAIINNIINNGG MMOODDUULLEE--33
HOUSEHOLD METAL SILO AND AFFLATOXIN
1. Introduction For centuries, farmers in the Bay Region and elsewhere in the grain-producing areas of Southern Somalia have been following rudimentary grain harvesting and storage practices that carry the double risks of a quantitative loss of their production and exposure to dangerous toxins leading to illness and deaths among the producers and consumers of the grains. This module is for farmers who wish to learn more about household metal silos as well as a fungal disease called Aflatoxin. It is important that farmers are aware of the risks they incur by not improving their current grain storage system. While the economic loss from the current grain storage practices is painful, the health hazards have even more serious effects. The introduction of household metal silos will likely reduce the grain losses and improve the grain quality. 2. Module Objectives. By the end of the module participants should: be able to identify the main components of the household metal silos recognize the benefits of the new technology understand the cost involved in building the household metal silos appreciate the economic and health risks associated with aflatoxin contamination be familiar with methods to contain aflatoxin contamination 3. Welcome and Introduction
Welcome to the module “Household Metal Silos and Aflotixins”. We’ll be discussing the most important features of the household metal silos and its utilization as a tool for storing grain. We’ll also be learning about the benefits of utilizing silos as well as its impact on reducing the risks to health and wealth of the farmers and consumers. The objectives of this module, therefore, are that you will: Identify the benefits of utilizing household metal silos Become aware of improving the quantity and quality of the grain using an improved storage system Recognize the importance of using an improved storage system Understand some practices that can adopted to reduce grain losses Appreciate the economic and health risks associated with aflatoxin contamination Learn methods to contain aflatoxin contamination. 4. What is Household Metal Silos?
Household metal silo is a storage system that is used in many parts of the world. Studies and experiences gained of similar context in the developing countries have demonstrated that household metal silo:
a) Is the most widely accepted post-harvest technology. b) Improves food security, reduces post-harvest losses, maintains grain quality and safety, and thus safeguards human
health and nutrition. c) Has a positive impact on physical and market infrastructure and enhanced food security in the beneficiary
communities. d) In Afghanistan, studies concluded that household metal silos were one of the technologies most widely disseminated. e) Is lighter and more manageable; it lasts longer and is immune to insect, diseases and rodent attacks as it is airtight,
and so losses are virtually non-existent. f) The system is immune from moisture penetration.
5. Household Metal Silos in Comparison to Oil Barrels
The proposed technology is an above ground storage system that is made of iron sheets of 0.4 -0.6 mm thickness. In contrast to oil barrels, household metal silos can be manufactured locally and in different sizes based on the farmers‟ production capacity, thus introducing the
concept of local ownership of the technology.
6. What are the Benefits of Household Metal Silos?
65
The adoption of the new/improved grain storage technology will provide the farmers with the following:
a) Ability to maintain the high quality of stored grains and eliminate post harvest grain losses due to rodents, pests and moisture.
b) Enable the farmers to strategically take advantage of fluctuating grain prices, rather than off-loading grain at low prices into a post-harvest glut market.
c) Through the provision of training and support to artisans and craftsmen, the household metal silos can be locally manufactured using inexpensive and locally available materials, thus making it easily accessible to the farmers
d) With the new technology, properly applied, farmers will be able to securely store grain for more than 15 years. e) The new technology is expected to improve both food quantity and quality as well as reduce the health hazards
related to Aflatoxin contamination. This will translate into an improvement in health status for farmers and consumers. 7. Aflatoxin In this session we will be introducing aflatoxin and highlighting its harmful effects on humans and on sorghum. In the next sections, we will move on to discussing risk factors and solutions. Many agricultural commodities are vulnerable to attack from a group of fungi that produce toxic metabolites called mycotoxins. Among these mycotoxins, aflatoxins have assumed significance due to their harmful effects on human beings, poultry and livestock. Two species of fungus, Aspergillus flavus (predominant in Asia and Africa) and Aspergillus parasiticus (mostly found in the Americas), produce aflatoxins on various food products. One of the most dangerous aflatoxins finds its way into the milk systems of animals which have consumed contaminated feed (usually groundnut cake or haulms with small pods). This is called aflatoxin M1. 7.1 What are the effects of aflatoxin on humans and livestock? Aflatoxin is carcinogenic and can cause liver and other cancers in humans.
It is synergistic with hepatitis viruses B and C. It lowers the body’s normal immune response to invasion by foreign substances. It impairs growth in children, notably in Africa, and causes childhood cirrhosis in India. In Kenya in 2005, over 100 people died and several hundreds became ill after consuming aflatoxin-contaminated
maize. In poultry and livestock, aflatoxin can cause feed refusal, loss of weight, reduced egg production and contamination of
milk. 7.2 What are the effects of aflatoxin on sorghum?
It causes marked deterioration in grain quality because of fungal growth. Contaminated grains are then unfit for the markets or for consumption.
It causes decay in both seeds and non-emerged seedlings and leads to aflaroot disease. 8. Factors contributing to contamination in sorghum
We will now examine which are the risk factors which contribute to aflatoxin contamination of sorghum. This will help us to determine which
crops and which areas will be especially vulnerable. Risk factors will be present in both the pre-harvest and post-harvest period.
8.1 Pre-harvest
Presence of the A. flavus fungus in soil and air. This infection of sorghum, which occurs at every stage from pre-harvest to storage, causes aflatoxin production in the kernels.
Use of susceptible cultivars End-of-season moisture stress to the crop for more than 20 days Mechanical injury to the grain. Insect damage to grain by grain damaging insect Death caused by diseases at grain maturity stage
8.2 Post-harvest
Harvesting an overly mature crop Mechanical damage to the grain at the time of harvest Stacking the harvest when grain moisture is more than 12% or under high humidity conditions. Damage to the grain by insects during storage. Storing grain when the grain moisture content is high (high moisture content coupled with optimum temperature level
of 28 0C to 31 0C is conducive for the fungus to grow. Drying grain in direct contact with the soil after harvest
8.3 Food products particularly vulnerable to aflatoxin contamination include:
Cereals: maize, sorghum, pearl millet, rice, wheat Oilseeds: groundnut, soybean, sunflower, cotton Spices: chilli, black pepper, turmeric, coriander and ginger
66
Nuts: almond, pistachio, walnut, coconut Milk and milk products
9. How can aflatoxin be contained?
Finally we will examine some ways in which we can reduce aflatoxin risk. Again, there are risk-mitigating steps to be taken both before and after the harvest. 9.1 Pre-harvest
Use aflatoxin-resistant sorghum varieties. Apply farm yard manure/compost @ 5-10 tons/ha. Maintain optimal plant population in the field. Avoid end- of- season drought by planting the crop early in the season. Remove dead plants from the field before harvest. Harvest the crop at the right maturity.
9.2 Post-harvest
At harvest, avoid mechanical damage to the grain Dry the harvested produce thoroughly after harvesting the crop for 15 to 20 days. Dry the produce until the grain moisture is below 12%. Ensure proper hygiene in the storage pit (cleaning the storage pit to ensure that residue from previous crop does not
become the source of contamination for the new grain harvested). Remove mechanical- and insect-damaged grains. Do not mix diseased heads with the non-diseased heads. Remove all immature, damaged and diseased grains prior to storing grain.
10. Review of Module
Let’s review what we’ve learnt about household metal silos and Aflatoxin. What have you learnt today? What changes are you going to make to the way you store and handle grain?
Points to remember: Household metal silo of different sizes and shapes can be manufactured locally using simple tools and with affordable
prices Proper use of household metal silo can reduce the losses both to the quantity and quality of grain, thus improving
the livelihood of the poor farmers Household metal silos can reduce the health hazards association to the aflotoxin food poisoning It will enable the farmers to store their grain for a longer period of time and fetch for better market price
Thank you for participating!
67
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project “improvement of storage facilities and post harvest, handling and storage practices in Bay and Middle Juba regions of Southern Somalia” (OSRO/SOM/811/EC) is a partnership agreement between FAO and COOPI The purpose of the project is to improve the livelihood of Somali people by reducing food insecurity at household level through reduction of grain post-harvest and storage losses. The Partnership Agreement covers activities for the period from 15th June 2010 to 15th August 2010 as detailed in the partnership agreement. The main activities of the project are:
Training of 3,000 farmers on appropriate post harvest and storage techniques; Production of 120 household metal silos using the welding technique; Production of 1500 household metal silos using the welding technique; Community awareness and campaign; Data collection
The agriculture trainers are trained agronomists who are based in the field. As frontline extension officers they are faced with the daunting task of packaging and delivering appropriate innovative technologies to be adopted by the farmers. Somalia as a country lacks the necessary infrastructure for the development of human resource. Keeping abreast on innovative technologies and emerging issues in ones field of expertise is a trend that precipitates development of human resource This training is a refresher for three agriculture trainers in Southern Somalia to increase their knowledge base on improved storage facilities and post harvest, handling and storage practices
IMPROVEMENT OF STORAGE FACILITIES AND POSTHARVEST, HANDLING AND STORAGE PRACTICES IN BAY AND MIDDLE JUBA REGIONS OF
SOUTHERN SOMALIA
0SRO/SOM/811/EC-PA 080/2010
AGRICULTURE TRAINERS REFRESHER TRAINING REPORT
DATES: 4TH-6TH JUNE 2010 VENUE: COOPI GUEST HOUSE MANDERA
REPORT COMPILED BY: WATO J. DENGE
COOPI COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE
68
The knowledge gained will be useful in ensuring the project goals and objectives are achieved. The agricultural team will be involved in training of 3,000 farmers and providing relevant extension messages to the farmers on post harvest, handling and storage management......... 2.0 OBJECTIVE OF THE TRAINING
The specific objectives of the training are:
The participants are able to identify the main types of grain storage losses and their causes.
Understand practices that can be adopted to reduce grain losses.
Aware of improving the quantity and quality of the grain using an improved storage system.
Recognize the importance of advocating and promoting usage of improved storage facilities and post harvest, handling and storage practices.
Appreciate the economic and health risks associated with aflatoxin contamination.
Learn methods to contain aflatoxin contamination.
Recognize the benefits of the improved metal silos technology.
Understand the cost involved in building the household metal silos. 3.0 TRAINING OUTLINES
3.1 Cereal Post-Harvest Handling And Storage In Somalia, the largest part of produced grains is stored in farm underground pits where grains sustain severe losses due to insects and rodents and undergo qualitative changes that lower their market value. Post-harvest losses (including storage) in Somalia are estimated at 20-30% of the production. The high post-harvest and storage losses are not restricted only to Somalia but are common in most developing countries. Similar levels of post-harvest and storage losses are confirmed by various researches conducted in Ethiopia. Only a low moisture content of less than 12% can reduce their multiplication. Rodents can cause high quantity losses in stored grain as they consume part of it. Moreover they contaminate the grains with urine and hair. The other cause of storage losses is the multiplication of fungi due to excessive humidity in particular Aspergillus spp. which produces dangerous toxins (Aflatoxins) which make grain unfit for human consumption. Aflatoxins, even in lower concentration are carcinogenic and at higher concentration acute toxic Traditional underground pits in Southern Somalia have a different shape, size and depth. They are mostly not lined with protective material so that the main problem is the migration of moisture from the surrounding soil walls into the store favouring the development of storage fungi and insects. In addition underground pits are also exposed to heavy rains and unpredictable and devastating flash floods which can completely destroy them and make stored grains unfit for human use. Experiences by farmers in Bay Region to line the walls with plastic sheets proved to be ineffective in case of heavy rainfall and flash floods.
3.2 Aflatoxin Contamination Aflatoxins are metabolites of Aspergillus species that frequently contaminate staple foods in much of Sub-Saharan Africa. According to FAO estimates 25% of the world food crops are affected by myco-toxins each year. Aflatoxins, which withstand cooking, occasionally cause deadly poisoning in people who have eaten heavily contaminated foods. For example in 2005 at least 100 people died and several hundred became ill in Kenya after consuming aflatoxin-contaminated maize. Smaller, repeated doses gradually elevate the risk of liver cancer and, in children, impair growth and immune system. In Kenya during the month of June 2010, 29 districts in Eastern and Coastal provinces were affected by maize contaminated with aflatoxin. One death has been reported while the government is mopping off the contaminated maize stocks from the residents. Aflatoxin contamination of foods is especially severe after long-term crop storage because of excessive heat, humidity and insect and rodent damage result in proliferation and spread of fungi. Cereals are particularly exposed. Rural populations are therefore exposed to high aflatoxin throughout life. Although no data exists on the incidence and impact of aflatoxins in S. Somalia, there is evidence that the post-harvest and storage conditions in underground pits are conducive to its development. Somali people are therefore at great risk of regularly eating aflatoxin-contaminated foods. There is therefore the need to better identify its occurrence in traditional storage pits and in minimizing the risk of occurrence improving grain drying and storage conditions. 4.0 IMPROVED POST-HARVEST AND GRAIN STORAGE FACILITIES Traditional methods of storage have evolved over long periods and many generations and are usually well suited to the climatic and social environment in which they are used. The traditional system has achieved a balance whereby relatively small quantities of grain can be stored over many months, with little damage, and be sufficient to meet immediate family needs. Problems for farmers begin when changes to the system are introduced or needed, such as:
Desire to increase Scale of production Demand by consumers for high quality produce.
69
The need to store for long duration (storage period) Cultivation of improved varieties; Need for alternative building materials when there are shortages of traditional materials, such as grass for roof thatch and
bamboo for baskets; Availability of improved building materials, such as galvanized roofing sheets; Loss of traditional building skills, for example, when people move away from their traditional home; and
4.1 Basic principles of storing grains
For best success in storing grain: Clean grain to remove chaff, weed seeds, and broken kernels. Handle grain gently to minimize cracked and broken kernels. Store grain at the recommended moisture. Aerate stored grain to maintain a cool, uniform, recommended temperature. Check stored grain frequently and take immediate action to eliminate problems.
Storage life in cereal grains is inversely related to temperature and relative humidity in storage. Quality can be maintained by reducing storage temperature and humidity. Mould growth and intrinsic deterioration of grains in storage is negligible when grains are appropriately dry. Improvement should therefore:
Start from harvesting where grain visibly moulded and damaged should be separated (cracked and broken grains provide an entry point to fungi and insect infestation).
Sun drying should be improved by spreading grains on mats and plastic sheets reducing the risk of soil contamination and susceptibility to humidity as well as to facilitate rapid collection in case of unexpected rain.
Transportation is another process where losses are common due to physical damage and grain spilling. Losses can be reduced through packing, loading and handling 4.2 Storage Methods
Farmers may need to look for alternative or improved types of storage structures to either replace or improve their traditional stores. Improved storage structures include both modifications to traditional systems and the introduction of new store types. The commonly used methods for storing grains by farmers are described below. These structures can hold up to two tonnes, though some may hold much more.
i) Platforms and frames Platforms constructed in the open may be four-cornered or circular racks made from timber, bamboo or sisal poles. They are usually raised on legs about 1.5 m above the ground. Cereals are stored unthreshed in heaps or in regular stacks. As the commodity may be placed on the platform very soon after harvest, the structure can be regarded as a drying and storage system. A fire, often the cooking fire, may be lit underneath the platform to speed up drying and to deter pests. The platforms may be completely covered with a detachable thatch roof, which can be lifted off from time to time to aid drying or to remove produce.
ii) Drying and storage cribs Traditional cribs are circular or rectangular with a framework of wooden poles. It should be erected in the open, with the long side across the prevailing wind. This will ensure good ventilation and drying. Grain dries better in a narrow crib. Walls can be made from raffia, bamboo, sisal poles, sawn timber or wire netting. At least half of the wall area should be open to ensure good ventilation. Roofs can be of thatch or corrugated iron sheets. The floor of the crib should be at least 1 m above ground level and legs should be fitted with rodent guards. Cribs are primarily intended for drying produce if they are to be used for storage after drying is complete, it may be necessary to cover the walls with mats to protect the grain from rain.
iii) Baskets Baskets with an open weave are suitable for drying grain, e.g. sorghum heads and maize cobs, especially without husks. Dry, shelled grain can be stored in close-weave baskets or baskets that have mudded walls. Baskets may be woven from twigs, split bamboo, twisted grass rope and sorghum stalks. They may have tight-fitting lids and some may have additional loading or unloading hatches. Baskets may be used for drying and storage. They can be used without mud plaster for the drying phase and then plastered for the storage period.
iv) Solid wall bins Solid wall bins may be spherical, cylindrical or rectangular in shape. Designs are often characteristic of communities or localities. The bins may be made of clay (sometimes strengthened by mixing with straw or twigs) or clay blocks or burnt bricks. More affluent farmers may use bins made from concrete.
v) Metal storage bins Metal storage bins are made from smooth or corrugated galvanized metal sheets. They are usually cylindrical in shape with a flat top and bottom. Most bins used for small-scale storage have a capacity of up to 1 tonne. Grain is loaded through a hatch in the top and can be emptied through a spout in the side at the bottom of the bin. Metal bins can provide maximum protection and security when padlocks are fitted to the A well made and well sealed metal bin will provide good protection against insects, mould, rodents and birds. Before storage, grain must be very well dried, threshed or shelled and then sieved or winnowed. Grain stored in metal bins should be drier than that stored in traditional stores.
vi) Underground storage Pit stores are used primarily for storage of sorghum, millet and small grain pulses such as gram. The best pit stores provide a reliable, hermetic method of long-term storage. Farm-level pit stores may have capacities ranging from 0.5 tonnes to more than 20 tonnes. Pits
70
may be straight-sided, circular or square and some are constructed in the shape of a flask. Pits must always be dug above the water table. An absorbent pit lining made from grass matting and straw or chaff and grain husks will help to reduce damage from moisture that might seep through the walls of the pit. Grain stored in pits often has a characteristic smell and taste associated with the development of moulds. These grains are sometimes damaged by termites. Occasionally burrowing rodents may gain access to the stored grain.
vii) Bag storage Bag storage is a convenient way of keeping threshed grain. The need to thresh or shell grain may deter farmers from using bags if labour is in short supply at harvest time. Bags provide the flexibility to store different types and different quantities of cereals. The storage capacity is limited only by the number of bags available and the size of the storeroom. Bags provide little protection against insects, rodents and moisture. Damage to sacks and contamination by rodents can be a problem and risk of grain loss is high unless preventive measures are taken.
viii) Miscellaneous containers There are other containers used for storage of grain that do not fit into any of the above categories. Metal drums, for example the widely used 44/100 litre capacity drums, may make convenient grain storage bins. These drums rarely have a lid.
4.3 Improved Household Metal Storages
i) What are Household Metal Silos? Household metal silo is a storage system that is used in many parts of the world. Studies done by FAO and experiences gained of similar context in the developing countries have demonstrated that household metal silo:
g) Is the most widely accepted post-harvest technology. h) Improves food security, reduces post-harvest losses, maintains grain quality and safety, and thus safeguards human health and
nutrition. i) Have a positive impact on physical and market infrastructure and enhanced food security in the beneficiary communities. j) In Afghanistan, studies concluded that household metal silos were one of the technologies most widely disseminated. k) Is lighter and more manageable; it lasts longer and is immune to insect, diseases and rodent attacks as it is airtight, and so
losses are virtually non-existent. l) The system is immune from moisture penetration.
ii) Household Metal Silos in Comparison to Oil Barrels
The proposed technology is an above ground storage system that is made of iron sheets of 0.4-0.6mm thickness. In contrast to oil barrels, household metal silos can be manufactured locally and in different sizes based on the farmers’ production capacity, thus introducing the concept of local ownership of the technology.
iii) What are the Benefits of Household Metal Silos? The adoption of the new/improved grain storage technology will provide the farmers with the following:
f) Ability to maintain the high quality of stored grains and eliminate post harvest grain losses due to rodents, pests and moisture. g) Enable the farmers to strategically take advantage of fluctuating grain prices, rather than off-loading grain at low prices into a
post-harvest glut market. h) Through the provision of training and support to artisans and craftsmen, the household metal silos can be locally manufactured
using inexpensive and locally available materials, thus making it easily accessible to the farmers i) With the new technology, properly applied, farmers will be able to securely store grain for more than 15 years. j) The new technology is expected to improve both food quantity and quality as well as reduce the health hazards related to
Aflatoxin contamination. This will translate into an improvement in health status for farmers and consumers.
5.0 CONCLUSION The principles of adult learning were inculcated in the training process where the learner participates completely in the learning process and has control over its nature and direction. The onus of advocating for proper adoption of good agronomic practices with special emphasis on improved storage management in the project area rests with the appropriate packaging of the metal silos as a viable option. The packaging and promotion of the technology remains the main task of the agricultural trainers.
71
Annex 8 – Telephone Question and Answer Survey OSRO -811: Improvement of storage facilities and post- harvest handling and storage practice in Bay Region, Southern Somalia Final EvaluationTelephone/ Text / email survey Part 1Training post harvest grain-handling and storage Location:
Name of questioner Name of contributor: Date of survey Questions
Answers
Confirm identity
Did you receive training in post-harvest grain handling/ storage?
If yes, where, when and for how many hours?
How many people attended your sessions?
During training did you see, smell, touch, move or in any way make contact with grain?
Were you told the objectives of the training- at the beginning? - at the end? – not at all?
Do you remember any of the objectives? If yes- which ones?
Have you had a harvest since the training?
Did you apply any of the suggestions? If so which ones?
At your next harvest, will you apply any of the practices suggested? If so which ones? If not why not?
72
OSRO -811: Improvement of storage facilities and post- harvest handling and storage practice in Bay Region, Southern Somalia Final Evaluation Telephone/ Text / email survey Part 2 Delivery and use of FAO designed metal silo. Name of questioner Date of survey Name of contributor: Location: Telephone number
Questions Answers
Confirm identity
Did you receive an FAO metal Silo for grain storage?
If yes, when, from whom, what size and in what condition did it arrive?
Where, exactly, is the silo now? With you? In house? In garden? And in what condition?
What, exactly, is inside the silo now (today)?
When were the contents placed in the silo, and from where did they come?
Did you treat or test the contents before placing them in the silo?
Have you opened the silo yet? If so why?
What is the condition of the grain (or other) contents now; and if grain- compared to other silos/ stores- how is the hardness, sight, smell, taste?
After using this silo, will you buy one if given the chance? If so, what size? and what price will you pay?
73
Annex 9 – Demonstration Underground Pit
Plate 1: Formation of above ground square for the top slab and steel door construction
Plate 2: Steel bars form the top part of the underground storage
74
Plate 3: Steel door construction of 70 cm x 70 cm at the top of the store to form the inlet and outlet of the store. The door is fitted with 2 steel hedges and locking facility
Annex 10. Terms of Reference for the Evaluation (see pdf file)