role of agro-industry in reducing food losses in the middle
TRANSCRIPT
1
Role of Agro-industry in Reducing Food
Losses in the Middle East
and North Africa Region
2
Role of Agro-industry in Reducing Food
Losses in the Middle East and North Africa
Region
Prepared by:
Dr. Adel A. Kader
Professor Emeritus of Postharvest Physiology
Department of Plant Sciences
University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA
Dr. Lisa Kitinoja
Postharvest Training Specialist
The Postharvest Education Foundation
La Pine, Oregon 97739, USA
Dr. Awad M. Hussein
Professor Emeritus of Postharvest Physiology
Alexandria Postharvest Center (APHC)
Department of Pomology
Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University
Alexandria, Egypt
Dr. Omar Abdin
Assistant Professor of Crop Science
Alexandria University
Alexandria, Egypt
Dr. Amer Jabarin
Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics
Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness
University of Jordan
Amman, Jordan
Dr. Ahmed E. Sidahmed
Associate Director for Development and Partnership
International Programs Office, CAES, University of California, Davis, California 95616; USA
Agro industry and Infrastructure
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Regional Office for the Near East,
Cairo, Egypt
February 2012
3
4
Table of Contents
List of Authors……………………………………………………………………………………2
Executive Summary (Adel A. Kader)…………………………………………………………….5
1. General background on 19 MENA countries in terms of natural and financial resources, food
security and poverty index (Amer Jabarin)………………………………………………….9
2. Estimates and causes of losses during postharvest handling, processing, storage, and
distribution of locally produced and imported agronomic food crops (cereals, legumes). (Omar
Abdin)……………………………………………………………………………………………16
3. Estimates and causes of losses during postharvest handling, processing, storage, and
distribution of locally produced and imported horticultural food crops (fruits and vegetables).
(Awad M. Hussein)………………………………………………………………………………29
4. Estimates and causes of losses during postharvest handling, processing, storage, and
distribution of locally produced and imported animal source foods (dairy, meat, poultry, fish).
(Ahmed E. Sidahmed)……………………………………………………………………………36
5. Socioeconomic factors affecting postharvest losses and food waste, and scale appropriate
strategies for overcoming these factors. (Lisa Kitinoja) ………………..……………………….53
6. References……………………………………………………………………………………..77
Appendices
A. Biographical statements of authors…………………………………………………………...89
B. Background statistics on the MENA region…………………………………………………..93
C. The Gini Index………………………………………………………………………………100
D. Production and trade of animal source foods in the MENA region…………………………101
E. Morocco Traceability decrees……………………………………………………………….104
5
Executive Summary
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region includes nineteen countries spread over
Asia and Africa including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,
Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, West Bank & Gaza, and
Yemen. In terms of natural resources, the vast majority of MENA countries suffer from severe
water shortage and deterioration of water quality due to many reasons including high population
growth rate, urbanization, traditional agricultural sectors which produce traditional low value
agricultural products that demand huge volumes of water, and inefficient marketing and food
processing systems. About seventy percent of water resources in the MENA region are used for
irrigation, with declining supplies.
The MENA region is characterized as one of the major food importers in the world. The
production of cereals, the major staple food, is the lowest among all of the major crops. Also the
harvested area of cereals represents only about 3% of the total harvested area of all crops. As a
result, the MENA region is considered as the main importer of cereals in the world. In 2008, the
value of imported cereals by MENA countries amounted to US$ 28.7 billion. Iran, Egypt,
Algeria and Saudi Arabia are the largest importers of cereals in the region. In 2008, cereals
imports formed 35 percent of the total agricultural imports of the MENA region. The region‟s
dependence on imports continues to increase. In general, it is difficult to find reliable data about
the agro-industries in the region and this situation must be changed to facilitate assessment of
needs to improve quality of the produced products and to plan future developments of agro-
industries to increase self-sufficiency within the region.
Postharvest technology is an inter-disciplinary science and includes techniques applied to
agricultural produce after harvesting for its protection, conservation, processing, packaging,
distribution, marketing and utilization to meet the food and nutritional requirements of
consumers. Preventing postharvest losses, improving nutrition and adding value to food products
will generate jobs, reduce poverty and enhance food security and the growth of economy by
improving the livelihoods of people. Studies of postharvest food losses can be based on surveys
or sampling at different points between the production and consumption sites. Both quantitative
losses (loss in weight) and qualitative losses (loss in sensory quality, nutritional value, and
market value due to reduced grade) should be determined in all MENA countries. Any attempt to
reduce food losses must begin with identifying the location, magnitude, and causes of the losses
to be able to select the most appropriate intervention to reduce the losses.
Although only limited data on the magnitude of food losses in the MENA region are available, it
is generally estimated that about 15% of cereals and legumes and 33% of perishable horticultural
crops are never consumed by humans. Gustavsson et al (2011) provide a summary of current
estimated food losses by region, and report losses for the food supply chain (FSC) in North
Africa, West and Central Asia during postharvest period (including handling, packaging, storage,
processing and distribution) to be 14 to 19% for grains, 26% for roots and tubers, 16% for
oilseeds and pulses, 45% for fruits and vegetables, 13% for meats, 28% for fish and seafoods,
and 18% for dairy products. A diagram of where losses occur in the food supply chain is shown
in Figure 0.1. Reducing these losses in order to increase food availability and food security for
the MENA population is much less costly than increasing production by expanding production
area and/or productivity per hectare and/or by increasing imports.
6
Figure 0.1. Diagram of where losses occur in the food supply chain (developed by Lisa Kitinoja
and Adel Kader)
Storage practices and facilities in the MENA region on the whole remain woefully inadequate.
Strategies for reducing losses and waste of agronomic food crops include: (1) drying to reduce
moisture content to below 8 to 14%, depending on the commodity ; (2) effective insect dis-
infestation and protection against re-infestation; (3) storage temperature management (storage
potential doubles for every 5 ºC reduction in temperature); (4) maintaining storage relative
humidity in equilibrium with moisture content of the product to reduce the incidence of molds;
and (5) proper sanitation procedures to minimize microbial contamination and avoid mycotoxin
formation. International development organizations and governments should give highest priority
to improving storage facilities of agronomic food crops at the national, regional, village, and
household levels in all MENA countries.
Availability and efficient use of the cold chain for perishable foods (i.e. fruits, vegetables, dairy
products, meats and fish) is much more evident in developed countries than in developing
countries, including MENA countries. Unreliability of the power supply, lack of proper
maintenance, and inefficiency of utilization of cold storage and refrigerated transport facilities
are among the reasons for failure of the cold chain in developing countries. Cost of providing the
cold chain per ton of produce depends on energy costs plus utilization efficiency of the facilities
throughout the year. The extent of proper use of the cold chain is generally greater for exported
food products than for those that are handled through modern retail distribution channels, while
7
food products that are handled through the traditional marketing channels are often exposed to a
broken or no cold chain.
Strategies for reducing postharvest losses and waste of perishable foods in developing countries
include: (1) application of current knowledge to improve the food handling systems and assure
food quality and safety; (2) removing the socioeconomic constraints, such as inadequacies of
infrastructure, poor storage facilities and marketing systems, and weak research and development
capacity; and (3) overcoming the limitations of small-scale operations by encouraging
consolidation and vertical integration among producers and marketers of each commodity or
group of commodities.
The following are some examples of the recommended scale-appropriate loss reduction
interventions for horticultural food crops: (1) improved containers to better protect produce from
damage; (2) providing shade to reduce temperature and provide a natural source of cooling; (3)
improved curing of root and tuber crops; (4) use of water disinfection methods and other
sanitation procedures; (5) use of cost-effective cooling methods, such as evaporative forced air
cooling, and hydro-cooling with well water; (6) effective insect control (dis-infestation and
protection against re-infestation); (7) improved small scale storage methods such as a cold room
with a CoolBot-controlled air conditioner; and (8) improved food processing and packaging
methods.
The following are highlights of actions and strategies that could assist in the reduction of waste
and loss of animal source foods: (1) Promote the development of effective value adding steps on
the commodity value chain (input, breeding, feeding, health improvement, technology adoption,
market information, micro-finance) that provide sufficient incentives to the producers through
enhanced competitiveness and access to markets; and (2) Adopt better technologies to enhance
the effectiveness and reliability of the food supply chain (processing, transport, distribution and
consumption). Much of the needed infrastructure, both physical and institutional, remains to be
developed before food losses and food waste will be reduced. Examples include weather
forecast messages to growers, fishermen and pastoralists; community supported rural roads, cold
chains and other kinds of appropriate infrastructure for linking producer to markets.
There are many socio-economic and cultural factors affecting implementation of changes in
postharvest technology aimed at reducing food waste along the value chain. How best to address
these factors while taking into account the social and cultural norms of the MENA region is a
key element in any agro-industrial development plan. Specifics will vary by country and by type
and market value of food product, so a first step will be to better characterize local food sector
development needs on a case by case basis.
Food security and food loss reduction efforts go hand in hand with promoting improved food
safety. Recommendations include: (1) assure consumer health and food safety through
compliance with public health, food safety and other sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS)
requirements; (2) establish policies and resources for control and prevention of trans-boundary
animal diseases (cross border control and certification and zoonotic; (3) training and awareness
building of the producers, food supply chain (FSC) stakeholders about food hygiene, handling
and safety measures; (4) animal feed improvement (i.e. quality, safety e.g. dry fish feeding for
cattle in southern Yemen and the coast of Oman, preparation of fishmeal for poultry feeding); (5)
creation of salmonella free environments for the poultry sector; and mastitis free environment for
the dairy sector; (6) promote the development of appropriate cold chain infrastructure; and (7)
establish and implement an effective traceability system for all food products.
8
Future actions needed to reduce postharvest food losses and enhance food security in the MENA
region include the following:
1. Survey the magnitude and causes of losses in quality and quantity during harvesting and
postharvest handling of major commodities and food products in each country in the
region (establish baseline data).
2. Encourage coordination and collaboration among FAO and other international
organizations with national organizations in capacity building activities within the
MENA region.
3. Assess locally available tools and facilities for harvesting, packaging, transport, storage,
processing and marketing of each commodity.
4. Simplify and harmonize food quality and safety standards and their enforcement within
the MENA region.
5. Determine return on investment of application of improved technologies intended to
reduce losses, maintain quality and food safety.
6. Disseminate information on scale appropriate postharvest practices and technologies to a
wide range of target audiences and end users.
7. Identify problems in the agro-industrial sector which will need further problem-solving
research to improve the quality of the products up to international standards and to
produce new products that meet consumer demands.
8. Support activities related to data collection, analysis, and evaluation aimed at continually
improving the agro-industries in the MENA region.
9
1. General background on 19 MENA countries in terms of natural and
financial resources, food security, and poverty index
1.1 Introduction
The MENA region includes nineteen (19) countries spread over Asia and Africa and includes
Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, UAE, West Bank & Gaza, and Yemen. The region is
currently facing serious populist uprisings that are affecting the whole economic and social
structure of the region. The countries of the region share many common political and
socioeconomic characteristics, namely highly suppressive political systems led by long-serving
leaders and citizen anger against corruption. Demographic statistics show that about one fourth
of the population is poor and around seven percent are undernourished.
In terms of natural resources, the vast majority of MENA countries suffer from severe water
shortage and deterioration of water quality due to many reasons including high population
growth rate, urbanization, traditional agricultural sectors which produce traditional low value
agricultural products that demand huge volumes of water, and inefficient marketing and food
processing systems. About seventy percent of the water resources in the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) region are used for irrigation, with declining supplies.
This section of the report focuses on the general background of the 19 countries in terms of
natural and financial resources, food security and poverty index.
1.2 Natural and financial resources
The total area of the MENA region countries is 1,222 million hectares. There is a huge variation
among the 19 countries of the region in terms of area. Bahrain is the smallest country with only
76 thousand hectares, while Algeria is the largest country in the region with 238 million hectares
(refer to Appendix B for a complete list in table B.1).
The development in the area devoted to agricultural land in the targeted MENA region countries
during the last two decades shows a huge variation in the agricultural lands among the different
countries. In general, the total area of agricultural land increased from 371 million hectares in
1990 to 413 million hectares in 2008 (FAO, 2010). According to these statistics, Saudi Arabia
possesses the largest amount of agricultural land while Bahrain has the smallest. (Refer to
Appendix B for a complete list in table B.2).
Despite the huge area of agricultural lands, the total arable land consists of only one fourth of the
total agricultural lands. Arable land are defined as land that can be used for growing crops, has
good production resources in terms of water supply and richness in nutrients, and is located in an
area of suitable climatic conditions. The total area of the arable lands in the region is estimated
at 55.5 million hectares as of 2008 (FAO, 2010). Table B.3 (see Appendix B) indicates that Iran
has almost one third of the total arable land in the region followed by Morocco.
1.3 Demographic characteristics
One of the demographic characteristics of the MENA region is the high population growth and
fertility rates. The total population has increased from 285 million in the year 1995 to 380
million in 2010. The region‟s total population is expected to increase to new record number of
445 and 502 million, by the years 2020 and 2030 respectively. This would mean putting too
much pressure on the limited natural resources of the region to produce more food and to meet
10
the increasing demand on water for the other purposes. Actual and projected population for the
19 countries of MENA region have been reported by FAO Stats (refer to Appendix B for a
complete list in table B.4). Egypt‟s population is the highest followed by Iran. The population of
the two countries represents 42 percent of the total population of the region.
Agricultural population in the MENA region represents about 21 percent of the total population
as of 2010. The ratio varies among the different countries based on the total area of arable lands
and the level of urbanization. Egypt has the largest number of agricultural population while
Bahrain and Qatar have the lowest (refer to Appendix B for a complete list in table B.5). One of
the major challenges facing the region in meeting food demands is the lack of the skilled
agricultural labor force needed for adapting new and advanced technologies. Agricultural
education, at all levels, is still lagging behind advanced education in the MENA region as it is in
most developing countries.
1.4 Employment and agricultural labor force
The level of unemployment is a major concern facing all countries and decision makers in the
MENA region, especially non-oil producing countries. FAO Stats provides the actual and
projected total economically active population distributed by country (refer to Appendix B for a
complete list in table B.6). In 2010, the total economically active labor force amounted to 135
million individuals. Over the next 10 years an additional 29 million new laborers are expected to
enter the labor market in MENA region which means additional challenges to the current
economies. Statistics show that in 2010 the agricultural labor force formed about 20% of the total
employed individuals in the region. Iran and Egypt are the leading countries in terms of labor
force. The two countries account for 42 percent of the total labor force in the region.
An alarming signal from the records of the International Labor Organization (ILO) indicates that
the MENA region witnessed the highest unemployment rates among the developing regions both
in the 1990s and during last decade. Despite the lack of detailed numbers on unemployment in
many countries of the region, the unemployment rate has been hovering around 12%. Although it
is hard to conduct direct comparisons among the different countries due to the differences in
measurement tools used, in some countries of disturbance (i.e. Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon) the
employment rate exceeded the 15% level as indicated in table B.7. (See Appendix B)
1.5 Agricultural Production
The level of agricultural production in the MENA region varies from one country to another
depending on the land and water resources, climatic conditions, skilled labor, capital investments
and other socioeconomic factors. The available statistics classify agricultural production in the
region into the following groups:
Hazelnuts, with shell
Cereals
Citrus Fruit
Coarse Grain
Fiber Crops Primary
Fruit excl Melons
Oil crops Primary
Pulses
Roots and Tubers
Vegetables & Melons
11
Table 1.1 demonstrates the trend of agricultural production of the above mentioned agricultural
groups. The table indicates that the production of these groups increased from 153 million tons in
1995 to 233 million tons in 2009. Egypt, Iran and Morocco are the largest agricultural producers
in the MENA region. However, the pace of increase in agricultural production didn‟t increase at
the same rate of population growth and consequently the food gap was enlarging during the last
two decades.
Table 1.1. Total production of main agricultural commodities in MENA region during 1995-
2009 (1000 tonnes) 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Algeria 8,084 6,835 14,065 14,859 13,285 11,347 18,753
Bahrain 35 34 28 40 38 37 39
Egypt 44,023 55,042 62,486 64,405 64,525 67,287 70,145
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 46,191 47,793 68,180 67,621 70,909 55,671 66,563
Iraq 9,245 7,502 10,638 10,803 10,093 7,706 8,006
Jordan 1,853 1,475 2,030 2,036 1,860 1,894 2,034
Kuwait 121 207 271 288 290 284 293
Lebanon 3,268 2,526 2,876 2,650 2,900 2,937 2,986
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1,595 1,837 2,006 1,914 1,962 1,955 2,032
Mauritania 474 360 352 346 366 381 408
Morocco 8,808 11,175 16,140 24,147 14,835 19,184 26,860
Occupied Palestinian Territory 573 1,082 1,066 1,086 1,059 1,105 1,179
Oman 440 593 501 498 538 556 596
Qatar 70 89 59 73 89 86 93
Saudi Arabia 7,520 5,799 7,790 7,877 7,809 7,413 6,695
Syrian Arab Republic 13,036 9,705 13,457 14,887 13,214 10,393 13,659
Tunisia 3,636 5,217 6,977 6,623 7,293 6,630 8,344
United Arab Emirates 1,024 3,962 1,261 1,246 1,253 1,236 1,260
Yemen 2,675 2,938 2,854 3,488 4,068 3,564 3,468
Total 152,669 164,170 213,036 224,888 216,387 199,666 233,412 Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
Citrus fruits are the leading agricultural crop produced in the MENA region. As indicated in
figure 1.1, Citrus production forms 44% of the total agricultural production of the region
followed by primary oil crops. Cereals, the basic food staple in the region, are the least produced
crops. The majority of the citrus trees is under irrigation and consumes lots of water. Iran is the
leading country in citrus production (33%) followed by Egypt (26%) and then Morocco (13%).
Figure 1.1. Agricultural production in the MENA region in 2009 by product (in 1000 MT)
12
Figure 1.2 shows the acreage of main crops produced in MENA region in 2009. As in the case of
production, citrus is the leading crop in cultivated area. Citrus occupies 29% of the total
cultivated area in the region followed by fiber crops with 11%.
Figure 1.2. Acreage of main crops in the MENA region in 2009 by product (in M ha)
The MENA region is characterized as one of the major food importers in the world. As indicated
above, the production of cereals, the major staple food is the lowest among all of the major
crops. Also the harvested area represents about 3 percent of the total harvested area in all crops.
As a result, the MENA region is considered as the main importer of cereals in the world. In
2008, the value of imported cereals by MENA countries amounted to 28.7 billion US$. Iran,
Egypt, Algeria and Saudi Arabia are the largest importers of cereals in the region. In the year
2008, cereal imports were 35% of the total agricultural imports of the MENA region. Figure 1.3
demonstrates the region imports trends of all agricultural imports over the period 1995-2008. It is
very clear from the graph that the region is becoming more dependent on imports, especially in
the recent years.
Figure 1.3. Total agricultural imports in the MENA region 1995-2008 (M$)
Courtiers of the MENA region also export some agricultural products (Figure 1.4). The total
exports amounted to 15.4 billion tones in 2008 of which fresh fruits and vegetables represented
about one third. The major horticultural exporters are Egypt, Morocco and Jordan.
13
Figure 1.4. Total agricultural exports of the MENA region 1995-2008 (M$)
Using the same sets of agricultural trade data, the gap between imports and exports can be
estimated. Figure 1.5 shows that the gap has been widening during the last decade and reached to
a new record in 2008. The gap amounted to an alarming level of 66 billion US$ in 2008. The
main reason for this gap is the continuous increase in the pace of imports at a rate higher than the
increase in exports rate.
Figure 1.5. Total agricultural gap in the MENA region 1995-2008 (M$)
1.6 Poverty and Inequalities
The issue of poverty and inequality can be partially explained by analyzing income and
expenditure of a given country. However, there are other factors believed to play a role in the
level of poverty in the MENA region. Income and expenditure are monetary welfare measures
that require additional socioeconomic indicators of well being in order to fully understand the
situation and to draw conclusions. The indictors may include life expectancy at birth, maternal
and child health, nutritional status, access to health facilities, literacy, school enrollment, female
education attainment, etc. Published social indicators by many of national and international
organizations show that the situation in the MENA region has remarkably improved during the
last two decades.
Poverty is observed through the measuring the well-being of a population which depends on both
monetary and non-monetary variables. A justifiable measure of poverty should depend on
income indicators as well as non-income indicators that may help in identifying aspects of
welfare not captured by incomes.
Table 1.2 demonstrates the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in constant prices of 2000
for all countries in the MENA region. The table shows a huge variation in the per capita income
between the different countries. On average of the period 2005-2009, Qatar ranked first with a
14
per capita income of 34,700 US$ while the lowest was Mauritania at 473 US$. The shaded rows
in the table mark the oil producing countries in the region. It should be stated here, that the per
capita GDP does not correctly reflect the actual per capita income since it cannot take into
account the inequalities among the different individuals in the society.
Table 1.2. Per capita GDP for MENA countries in constant prices of 2000 US$ (1995-2009)
Country Name 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average
(05-09)
Qatar
28,793 29,878 31,357 34,960 38,960 38,466 34,724
Kuwait 19,048 17,223 22,070 22,646 23,072
22,596
Bahrain 11,170 12,262 14,719 15,369 16,299 16,968
15,839
Saudi Arabia 9,085 9,128 9,816 9,887 9,854 10,035 9,863 9,891
Oman 7,749 8,271 9,024 9,334 9,763 10,779
9,725
Libya
6,340 7,009 7,272 7,554 7,685 7,692 7,442
Lebanon 4,605 4,576 5,085 5,064 5,403 5,859 6,342 5,551
Tunisia 1,651 2,033 2,407 2,518 2,652 2,747 2,805 2,626
Jordan 1,723 1,764 2,130 2,245 2,378 2,499 2,497 2,350
Algeria 1,662 1,796 2,117 2,128 2,159 2,177 2,190 2,154
Iran, Islamic Rep. 1,409 1,584 1,924 2,008 2,137 2,158 2,168 2,079
Egypt, Arab Rep. 1,214 1,423 1,539 1,614 1,697 1,786 1,836 1,694
Morocco 1,128 1,270 1,526 1,624 1,648 1,718 1,781 1,659
Syrian Arab
Republic 1,181 1,170 1,242 1,274 1,295 1,330 1,350 1,298
West Bank and
Gaza 1,246 1,369 1,056
1,056
Iraq
1,030 668 691 684 731 743 703
Yemen, Rep. 465 519 552 554 556 560 565 557
Mauritania 420 415 441 514 472 478 462 473
Source: Online World Development Indicators (WDI), World Bank 2011
The Gini index is usually used in economic and social research to measure income inequalities
within a country and to compare income inequality between countries and between separate
geographical regions of a country, where higher Gini coefficients indicate more unequal
distribution, with 100 corresponding to complete inequality. Appendix C provides more details
on the Gini index and how it is calculated.
The Gini index for some of the countries in the MENA region was obtained from the World
Development Indicator (WDI) database of the World Bank. The index is available only for a few
countries in scattered years. Table 1.3 shows the Gini index for Algeria, Egypt, Iran Jordan,
Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia and Yemen. The values of the index for these MENA countries
are all in the low to middle range, falling between 33.4 and 44.5.
15
Table 1.3. Gini Index for some MENA countries
Country GINI Index
Algeria 35.3
Egypt, Arab Rep. 33.5
Iran, Islamic Rep. 44.5
Jordan 38.8
Mauritania 39.0
Morocco 40.0
Tunisia 40.0
Yemen, Rep. 33.4
Source: Online World Development Indicators (WDI), World Bank 2011a
16
2. Estimates and causes of losses during postharvest handling, processing,
storage, and distribution of locally produced and imported agronomic food
crops (cereals, legumes)
2.1 Introduction
World demand of food is on the rise not only in order to cover the increase in population growth
but also to meet the needs of increased per capita consumption. In a report done by the
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) "Bread and Protests; the return of high food
prices" (March 2011), it was noted that as a consequence of the limited resources of land and
water in the MENA region and the rise in demand due to population growth, the region imports
more food per capita than any other, accounting for 25–50% of national consumption. MENA is
now the world's largest cereal-importing area by tonnage (International Food Policy Research
Institute-IFPRI, 2010). Given an annual population growth rate in MENA region of 1.7% and the
limited available resources from land and water, the gap between food consumption and food
demand will widen unless measures are taken to maintain the gap at its current state or to work
on reducing it. Consumer habits are also shifting from staple food products to higher-value food
products, and given the limited resources of land and water, this will increase the region's food
trade deficit. This together with the recent climate changes that are happening across the globe
caused a surge in food prices in 2007-08 and again in 2010-11.
The increasing demand on food will have to be compensated with more production, however
given the sometimes limited resources of land and water this could be a challenge. Efforts to
close the gap between production and consumption have historically been focused on increasing
agricultural land area and increasing food productivity through improving the yield per unit area,
while reducing the losses that occur in the supply chain of food grain was a secondary approach.
Significant quantities of food produced in developing countries are lost pre-harvest and post
harvest. Securing food will require several strategic choices through better crop yields and
reduction in the postharvest handling losses of food along the supply chain until it reaches the
consumer.
Given the importance of grains and other field crops in production and food security and the
urgent need to cover the gap between supply and demand, MENA countries must adopt
measures to reduce the losses of locally produced and imported food crops. Reduction in the
postharvest losses not only will save on the availability of the food but will also improve the
efficiency of production. Given the partial liberalization of the market in the MENA region and
the rising food prices this will offer the private sector an opportunity to capitalize on the
opportunities to invest in the postharvest supply chain of grains (e.g. dryers, silos, mills, hermetic
storage facilities and trucks).
2.2. Estimates of Postharvest Losses
A study by the World Bank estimated food grain losses to be between 7-10% from the field to
the market, and another 4-5% along the full supply chain (World Bank,2011b). These losses in
the MENA region would translate to an annual loss of 12-16 million tons of grain, which is
enough to feed between 70 and 100 million people. The main causes of these losses were due to
the improper methods of harvesting, storage, transportation and processing of the crop.
According to Harris and Lindblad (1978) identifying new technology and improving existing
ones will be the key to reducing postharvest grain losses. The lack of finance and adequate
training are two key constraints as well as political and cultural constraints in some cases. As
17
early as 1975 an FAO subcommittee identified four constraints that might hinder the use of
available technology to reduce on-farm losses: (1) Lack of arrangement for producing the
necessary inputs; (2) Inadequate distribution channels for the necessary inputs; (3) Lack of
purchasing power or credit arrangements for the farmers to buy the inputs; and (4) Inadequate
information for the farmer on how to use the inputs.
Despite some improvements, farm losses are still significant today. Losses vary by crop, variety,
year, infestation magnitude, storage type, drying method, handling techniques, transportation
method and distribution system. The diagram in figure 2.1 shows examples of postharvest losses
for grains at the farm level. Given such enormous variability, reliable statistics on the magnitude
of postharvest losses are not readily available.
Figure 2.1. Losses in the food grains system (Courtesy of American Association of Cereal
Chemists).
The value chain of field crops is composed of a series of interconnected activities that includes
harvesting, drying, threshing, storing, milling, storing, packing, transportation and marketing. A
loss in any link of the chain contributes to the total losses encountered. Postharvest losses can
be quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative losses are physical loss of a product in any part of the
chain. Qualitative losses are losses in quality, market value or nutritional value, or in the worst
case, of a having a non-marketable product that is not fit for human consumption.
Postharvest losses lead to losses in market opportunities and nutritional value through the
reduction in food quality and food safety. Good postharvest management can reduce food losses
18
and can improve the quality and safety whilst enhancing supply-chain efficiencies, rural income
and employment.
There has been a tendency to overestimate storage losses, and figures of 30% or more are
commonly reported for humid countries in Asia. By contrast the results of detailed field studies
in the MENA region suggest that under traditional storage systems losses are typically around 5
to 10% over a storage season. Storage loss figures around the 5 to 10% level should not however
be considered insignificant.
Ahmad (2003) summarizing the status of production and losses of some major strategic crops in
Iran, noted that the total production of cereal group including wheat, maize and barley in 2006-
2007 agricultural year was about 24 million tons and based on expert estimates, relative
percentage of crop losses (qualitative and quantitative) of cereal crops was about 12.9%.
Therefore the absolute losses of this group of crops were 9.8 million tons. Considering the non
linear relationship between the amount of losses and increasing production in order to
compensate for those losses, an additional amount of 3.54 million tons has to be imposed on
cereal production systems.
In this section of the report, focus is on the three main cereal crops (wheat, rice and maize) and
pulses that are produced and/or imported in the MENA region; and on the magnitude of losses
encountered during their supply chain that have a big impact on the region's economy and its
state of food security.
The MENA region imports approximately 31 million tons of wheat, 20 million tons of maize
and 4.7 million tons of milled rice, totaling approximately 55 million tons of imported grain.
This quantity needs to be handled, stored and processed in line with good material handling
practices, good storage practices and good manufacturing practices to minimize losses happening
across the chain.
Elements and major causes of grain losses across the supply chain are almost the same regardless
of the type of grain and include improper practices related to time of harvest, method of
harvesting (manual or mechanical), threshing, packaging, storage, transportation and processing
methods.
2.2.1 Wheat
Major wheat producers in MENA region are Iran with a total production of 13.5 Million tons,
Egypt (8.5 million tons), Syria (3.7 million tons), Morocco (3.8 million tons), Algeria (3.0
million tons) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (2.0 million tons). The total MENA region local
production of wheat is approximately 35 million tons. If the wheat losses of 15% reported in
Iran and Egypt apply to the rest of MENA region then expected annual losses of wheat in the
MENA region could reach more than 5 million tons.
Wheat losses in Iran are estimated to be 2.38 million tons representing 15% of total wheat
production; given an estimated yield per acre of 2.38 tons an area of 1 million acres must be
planted to compensate for the grain loss.
El-Lakwah (1984) stated that the principle causes of losses in quality and quantity of stored
grains in Egypt were rodents, insects and birds. Estimated annual losses caused by rodents alone
are about 4-10% in weight of stored grain. Losses at the wheat grain collection centers at the
Principle Bank for Development and Agricultural Credit (PBDAC) ranged from 2 to 12% with a
19
mean value of 6.5%. High loss values are obtained when wheat is heavily infested by
Trogoderma granarium or under heavy rodents attack. Figure 2.2 is a photo of stored wheat in
Egypt, where it is stacked outdoors, exposed to heat, pests and dust.
Figure 2.2. Stored Wheat produced from local farms in Egypt (Photo courtesy of the World Food
Program (WFP) of the United Nations (UN), Cairo)
Results also indicate that the longer the storage period the higher the losses. Wheat in Egypt is
typically stored for 4 to 8 months. Transport losses are generally due to spillage. Figures 2.3 and
2.4 illustrate two types of spillage, from bulk loads where wind carries loose grain away during
uncovered transport, and from poor quality sacks, which can tear and results in losses of grain
during handling. Uncovered loads can also easily be subject to losses due to theft.
Estimated losses at the farmer's and merchant's level ranges from 4-10% for grain and pulses and
equals 20-50 million $US annually (El-Lakwah, 1995 unpublished). Kamel, (1977) estimated
losses due to pest damage alone to be 3.7% of the annual production of cereal grains and 2.1% of
main pulses (broad beans and lentils).
Figure 2.3. Local transportation of wheat in Egypt (Photo courtesy of the World Food Program
of the United Nations, Cairo)
20
Figure 2.4. A photo illustration of the amount of losses encountered in transportation of locally
produced wheat in Egypt (Photo courtesy of the World Food Program of the United Nations,
Cairo)
A report by Mansour and Iglesias (2011), noted that a recent study was conducted in Egypt
showing that total losses in wheat from harvesting until baking is estimated at 13 to 15 % of the
total amount of wheat consumed in Egypt, which is approximately 8 million tons. Therefore
losses could reach more than one million tons annually. According to the same report, another
important source of losses that could not be quantified is theft in the form of selling the
subsidized wheat flour in the black market to beef and dairy producers as they believe that
adding flour to the feed ration increases milk production. Low quality bread is another
contributor to loss, as it forces the consumer not to eat all the bread they buy. Some traders
collect the leftover bread, dry it and sell it by the kilo to the poultry, beef and milk breeders at
0.22$/kg.
2.2.2 Maize (Corn)
Egypt is the largest corn producer in the MENA region with an estimated 5.9 million tons of
grain followed by Iran at 2.3 million tons. The entire MENA region imports about 19.5 million
tons of maize according to the USDA, of which Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia comprise more
than 57% of that figure. Any losses that could be identified and reduced will have a big impact
on availability of the corn.
Figure 2.5 shows a diagram developed by AGROTEC/UNDP/OPS in 1991 showing the type and
causes of losses along the postharvest pipeline for maize. Losses are traced back to exposure to
heat, rain, humidity and contamination which lead to a host of losses due to birds, insect and
rodent pests, spillage, molds, rancidity, sprouting, breakage and poor processing practices.
21
Fig.2.5. The postharvest pipeline for maize (Mejia, 2003)
Scarce and very limited data are found on assessing maize losses in MENA region therefore this
study also draws on data from other similar regions to try to estimate the expected losses in
maize producing countries in the MENA region.
Although grains must be harvested at a moisture content of 13 to 15% in order to avoid microbial
spoilage, maize is harvested mainly at a moisture content of 18 to 20% in Lower Egypt and at
around 15% in Upper Egypt. This is mainly due to the hotter and dryer climate of Upper Egypt
which assists the corn in drying down to 15% in the field. At the 18- 20 % moisture level the
corn must be dried as fast as possible, but unfortunately due to the non-existence of corn dryers
in Egypt, the corn is left to dry in the open air either shelled or as cobs. This long drying period
causes losses in terms of quantity and quality of the grain.
Quantity losses are due mainly to insects and bird infestation in addition to spillage, while the
quality losses are due to higher mycotoxin levels which are detrimental for the feed industry. In
response to loss of locally produced grain quality after long term storage, the local feed mills opt
for imported corn grain rather than locally produced grains. Establishing corn grain collection
centers with proper drying and storage methods at the farmer's level or at the cooperatives level
will be crucial in minimizing the level of losses and increasing the value of the corn and hence
providing better income for the farmers.
According to Mejia (2003) in an FAO report on Maize Postharvest Operations, the magnitude of
the losses during field drying and harvesting is likely the highest in the entire postharvest supply
chain of maize as it is influenced by several factors. These factors include the time of harvesting,
maize variety, weather conditions, harvesting practices in terms of time period and whether the
harvest is done by hand or machine. The aforementioned factors also make the maize grain
vulnerable to infestation by pests during storage. The magnitude of losses will differ from one
country to another depending on climate and local pest populations, and losses could be as low
as 5% or as high as 50% in heavily infected areas. Mejia (2003) estimated that average losses
during this phase range from 7 to 12 percent.
In a report published by the FAO, "Discovering the Full Story" (Grolleaud, 2002) it was
mentioned that overall maize losses in Brazil were 17.7%, comprising 4.4% for harvest, 7.8% for
storage and the remaining postharvest operations accounted for 5.5%. According to the
22
Postharvest Information System maize losses in Sudan and South Africa are 18 and 12.3%
respectively.
Ahmad (2003) reported that the estimated corn losses in Iran were a minimum of 11% of the
total maize production. Iran imported around 3.2 million tons in 2010, according to the USDA
figures, and produces locally around 2.3 million tons, so local losses could then reach
approximately 260,000 tons. Inevitably approximately 292,000 tons more production has to be
imposed to grain production system which will increase the cost of production by 12.3 percent.
Therefore through better management and reduction of losses of grain maize this increase in the
cost of production could be avoided and the extra land can be freed and allocated to other
strategic crops. In a recent study in Iran (Asadi et al. 2010) it was estimated that waste at the
harvesting stage was 0.5 - 2 %, plus there were cutter plane losses (0.5 - 1 %), masher unit
losses, (0.2 – 0.4 %) separator losses, (0.04 – 0.2 %), cleaner losses and other factors. During the
postharvest stage, waste was classified into four categories including transportation (5.5 %),
winnowing (0.2 %), storing (4 %) and converting wastes (5 %) respectively.
2.2.3 Paddy Rice
Major Rice producers in the MENA region are Egypt, Iran, Iraq and to a lesser extent
Mauritania. Figure 2.6 presents a diagram representing the main areas of losses during handling
of rice throughout the traditional and mechanized value chains.
Fig. 2.6 Rice losses across the supply chain (Hodges et al. 2010).
Several studies in Egypt documented the losses that occur in the rice supply chain. Abdelbary et
al (1981) declared that the average losses during harvesting, transportation and threshing on a
national basis were 25.3%. Estimated losses of paddy rice are 5% in Iran (Ahmad,2003). Even
this low figure translates to absolute losses of 130,000 tons; 138,000 tons more production is
required to compensate for these losses. This compensation will cost approximately 60 million
US dollars to plant the extra area.
In developing countries transportation of paddy rice from field to the processing areas is
performed mainly by humans and animals. These traditional methods of transport are related to
the harvesting and field drying activities, and very often result in high grain losses. Another
study (FAO,1982) concluded that camel shattering losses was about 4.4% for a distance of 2km.
However, threshing using tractors accounted for 3.5% losses in addition to the presence of mud
balls and a higher percentage of breakage of the milled rice according to Ramos (1982). A report
by El-Hissewy (1999) concluded that the harvest and post harvest losses in rice ranged from 8.16
23
to 28.5% and differs according to the methods used. Most of these losses were due to the use of
traditional mills.
A recent assessment of rice postharvest losses showed that manual harvesting and tractor
threshing results in 2.5 percent losses compared to 1.4 percent with combine harvest. In addition
to that, the longer the storage period the higher the breakage percentage, they found that at three
months storage breakage was 2.9 percent and rose to 5.4 percent with 12 months storage.
Moisture content of the rice grain was another important factor in increasing the breakage. A
14% moisture breakage was 5.3% compared to 9.3% at 20% moisture. Therefore pre-harvest
conditions during rice harvest are a major factor for reducing losses in rice production. A well
aerated store improved the breakage percent by 1.2 points according to the same study.
It was shown in Proceedings of the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission (2002)
that grain losses range from 5.6 to 60% if harvesting is done one week to 4 weeks beyond the
maturity date. In general the correct time to harvest is one week before the maturity date.
Threshing is another contributor in rice losses mainly due to:
Some grains remain in the panicles and a repeat threshing is required
Grains are scattered when the bundles are lifted just before threshing
Grain can stick in the mud floor
Birds and domestic fowls feed on the grain
Rice grains must be kept at a moisture level between 12 to 14% for best results during milling
and storage. However, paddy rice is often harvested with moisture content of 24 to 26%
(typically if irrigation is not managed properly or it rains at the time of harvest), and therefore it
has a high respiration rate and is susceptible to attacks by microorganisms, insects and other
pests. The heat released during the respiration process is retained in the grain resulting in losses
in terms of both quantity and quality. Therefore harvested grain with high moisture content must
be dried within 24 hours to 14% for safe storage and milling. Losses due to poor drying
practices range between 1 to 5% and good drying is crucial for minimizing postharvest losses
during storage.
The cheapest source of drying is sun-drying; however heated-air dryers speed up the drying
process, reduce handling losses, maintain grain quality and provide better control during drying.
Main causes of losses during the drying process:
Grains shattering from stalks or spilling out from bags during transport.
Birds and domestic fowl.
Spillage outside the drying area.
Over-drying, especially during sun drying.
Delayed drying or no grain aeration, resulting in stack burning.
The main causes for losses during storage are:
Attack by insects, rodents and birds as a result of inadequate protection.
Spoilage due to high moisture content and improper drying.
Losses in farm storage have been estimated to be about 6.2%
24
Unfortunately small scale farmers often lack the resources to store large amounts of grain and do
not have a large storage structure, they are therefore obliged to sell their rice to traders or buyers
immediately after harvest because of their need for cash. These factors create a lack of
incentives to dry the rice properly.
An FAO report on the International Year of Rice (2004) summarized an efficient approach to
reducing rice losses in that most of the rice losses were a result of inadequate storage and drying
operations. Efficient storage is critical for rice as 4 to 6 percent of the total rice crop is lost
during storage and that FAO recommended the use of small metal silos as means for reducing
small and medium scale rice losses. The rice postharvest systems should focus on both
preventing food losses and improving the efficiency of technology that are used to add value to
rice and its products.
2.2.4. Pulses
Faba beans (dry broad beans), chickpeas and lentils are among the most important food crops in
Egypt, Sudan and Yemen. The legumes are a major part of the daily diet and an important
source of protein. Faba beans are the most important pulse representing 80% of the pulses
produced in Egypt (Hassanein et al, 2000).
Production of these pulses does not meet the demand and hence the MENA region imports over
one million metric tons of pulses every year (FAOSTAT, May 2005). These include crops such
as broad beans, lentils, chickpeas, dry beans and dry peas (BenBelhassen, 2005). Major
importing countries are Egypt (36%), Algeria (16%), United Arab Emirates (8%) and Saudi
Arabia (7%). Pulses represent a major portion of the diet of many countries in the region as they
are a cheap source of protein and energy compared to meats. The MENA region produces
around 3.7 million tons of pulses comprising of chickpeas (29%), lentils (23%), dry broad beans
(20%), dry beans (15%) and other pulses (13%).
Despite legume seeds being classified as "durable", during storage they may be attacked by a
number of biological agents that can lead to a total loss of the stored crop. These agents include
fungi, rodents and insects (Dobie 1982). As with grains, pulses stored with excessive moisture
content and/or in humid storage conditions are vulnerable to fungal attacks that can rapidly result
in the complete destruction of the crop, and to prevent that the crop must be dried to below 14%
moisture content. In addition to that care must be taken to prevent subsequent wetting of the
product to prevent the rehydration of the seed.
Very limited data are available on the losses of pulses in the region. Rats and mice can cause
considerable losses during storage, in addition to the fact that seeds could be contaminated by
droppings and considerable spilling may take place through holes chewed into bags. Insect
infestations, mainly due to beetles of the family Burchidae, cause considerable damage due to
the tunneling activity of the larvae in the seed. Estimated losses of cowpea according to Brooker
(1967) are between 3.4 to 5.4 percent.
Hashem (1999) concluded from a study done in Egypt that dry weight losses in faba bean caused
by the burchid beetle after 3 months of storage ranged from 11% to over 38%, depending on the
variety. Exposing the seeds to a modified atmosphere of 85% CO2 for 3 days protected the seeds
from infestation and maintained good quality seeds for one year.
25
2.3. Major Causes of Losses in Cereals and Pulses
2.3.1. Incomplete Drying
Most grains at harvest contain high percentage of moisture, at that level of moisture respiration is
high and hence deterioration is rapid. High moisture promotes the rapid development of insects
and molds that spoil the grains and pulses. Proper drying is therefore crucial to prevent the
deterioration during storage and minimize losses.
The purpose of drying in any grain or pulse is to reduce the moisture content to a safe level for
storage, it is very important to dry the grains or pulses quickly and as soon as possible after
harvesting, ideally within 12 hours to 13% or less for the safe storage from 8 to 12 months.
Grains and pulses stored at higher than 14% moisture will experience growth of molds and rapid
loss of viability.
Drying grains and pulses involves exposing the seeds to ambient air with low relative humidity
in order to evaporate the moisture from the grain or pulse. This process is crucial to the success
of the drying operation and reducing losses from this operation will depend mainly on how
efficiently this process is carried out. A common practice in some countries of the region is to
spread the grains and pulses in the open air for drying for number of days until the product is
dried to acceptable levels. This process lacks any control over the time required, the relative
humidity of the ambient air, the sanitary status of the drying grounds and hence more
contamination and higher losses due to molds, insects and rodents are to be expected. Should the
air not be dry enough the grains or pulses will never reach the desired moisture level or it will
take a longer time than the recommended maximum of 12 hours. This will give an opportunity
for mold to attack and higher levels of mycotoxins will be expected in the dried product.
According to the Agriculture Engineering unit of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
(2009)when exposing rice to ambient relative humidity (77%) and 32ºC air temperature paddy
rice will attain 13.9% moisture content which is safe for storage. If at the same temperature, the
relative humidity rises to 85% or higher, grain exposed to the ambient air over time will reach an
equilibrium moisture content of approximately 15.5% making the grain prone to quality
deterioration.
The same IRRI unit (2009) concluded also that grain moisture content of paddy stored in jute
bags will automatically increase in the rainy season to unsafe levels regardless of how well the
grain was dried before storage. Therefore, for long term storage of grain or seed in tropical
climates it is crucial to prevent re-wetting of grain by humid air by using moisture proof
containers.
Improper drying of the grains and pulses often leads to low quality after storage. Some of the
problems associated with the improper drying include:
(a) Buildup of heat in the grain, as wet grains or seeds will respire at a higher rate generating
heat which will provide a good media for the molds and insects to grow thus deteriorating
quality.
(b) Mold development in the grain that will result in releasing toxins into the grain rendering
the grain unfit for human or feed consumption. This constitutes a major barrier to the
sale of locally produced stored grains to the feed industry in Egypt where the feed mills
are now more strict regarding the levels of aflatoxins in the grain. (Personal
communication)
26
(c) Insect infestation is higher with high moisture grain than with lower moisture, despite the
fact that insect infestation will always be present even at lower moisture levels. A
combination of proper drying and storage will keep insect infestation to acceptable levels.
2.3.2. Inadequate Storage Facilities
The majority of farmers in the MENA region store grain under traditional conditions. In Egypt,
for example the storage capacity for the proper storage of wheat, corn, rice and legumes is very
inadequate. It is expected as per the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR)
announcement that the amount of received wheat in 2011 is expected to reach 4 million tons, that
is in addition to around 4 million tons of imported grain, totaling 8 million tons of wheat grain
channeled to produce the subsidized bread. Yet the total storage capacity in Egypt is only 2.1
million tons and these modern facilities are normally dedicated to the imported grain and not the
locally produced wheat. Therefore the locally produced wheat is being stored in jute bags and in
some instances in woven polyethylene bags in open storage areas throughout the country. It
would be expected that under these conditions of storage the infestation with fungi, insects and
rodents would be high. The proper grain storage facilities are not enough in numbers to handle
the quantity produced nor they are hygienically or physically compatible to store all the grain.
Under current Egyptian production levels, the country will need to build proper grain storage
capacity to accommodate four million tons of the locally produced wheat that are consumed at
the rate of 350,000 tons per month, in addition to a one million ton storage capacity for imported
wheat; therefore total capacity inside the country should be around five million tons of wheat to
store the 8 million tons needed for the subsidized bread. A three year plan to expand the storage
capacity is under way and 25% of the plan is already in place.
The same is true for maize as there are no drying facilities in which the maize could be dried fast
enough to reach 14% moisture and guarantee good and hygienic storage that is fit for animal
consumption and food consumption if mixed with wheat to make bread. Currently there are no
maize storage centers that have dryers or silos to store the locally produced grain. Available
silos are only used for the imported corn with low moisture content; while the local product is
sold as fast as possible to avoid deterioration during storage.
Lack of proper storage facilities for grain and pulses contributes to losses that currently cannot
be quantified due to a lack of data from MENA countries. More research on postharvest losses
of grain and pulses must be performed in the region in order to be well informed regarding the
magnitude of the losses.
As noted before complete drying of grain and pulses to reach 14% moisture or below is key to
saving the crop. It was always noted that countries like Egypt have enough sunshine to warrant
any investment in drying facilities but since the market does not put any trading specifications,
putting up a drying facility was not a priority. It is well known that the faster the grain is dried
the better the storability and the lower the losses. The growth of the poultry sector in Egypt is
putting pressure on the local suppliers to conform to certain grain standards that will be very hard
to meet unless the grains are properly dried, handled and stored. Having grain laying in the sun
for a long period of time give the fungi an opportunity to attack and aflatoxin contamination
becomes a serious issue in the poultry industry. Grain processors and feed millers realize this
matter and would prefer importing grain from abroad than using the locally grown grain to avoid
the aflatoxin risk. Apart from a few private sector individuals who realize the importance of this
process in selling or using the grain drying facilities for grain, drying facilities are very
inadequate in Egypt.
27
In general the damage caused by insects is much higher than those caused by other agents like
rodents and micro-organisms. Twiddy (1994) reported that fungi are the major microorganisms
causing spoilage in stored grains and seeds, resulting in significant losses to farmers, traders and
food and feed manufacturers, and the major storage fungi are Aspergillus, Fusarium and
Penicillium spp.
2.3.3. Processing
According to a study by the World Food Program and TNT (personal communication, 2010),
Egypt has about 158 wheat flour mills processing over 13 million tons and about 17,000 bakeries
processing "Baladi" bread from approximately 9 million tons.
Processing of rice in the MENA region is mainly done in Egypt and, Egypt has over 600
registered rice millers that process over 2 million tons of paddy rice. When approached to
discuss the subject of rice losses during the milling operation, most millers attribute the losses to
quality of rice, moisture percent and the type of milling machine used. Some machines yield low
quality rice with lots of breakage and other modern mills can achieve high quality rice with
minimal losses. Mills vary in size and capabilities according to the amount of investment made.
Losses due to milling could be lower if new machines and well trained personnel are available.
The main causes of losses during milling operations can be attributed to poor technical
performance of the milling machines or low capabilities of the operator that results in yield
conversion losses. For example some rice milling machines are notorious for breaking the grain
in the milling process and yielding only 53% milled rice compared to the desired 67%. It is
sometime difficult to distinguish losses during the milling operation that are caused by the drying
process and those due to the milling process itself, it would be important to differentiate to avoid
double recording of the losses.
Regarding the processing of corn in Egypt there are only two processing companies that perform
wet milling to extract glucose, starch and corn syrup. They mainly use imported yellow corn
which has better conversion characteristics than the locally produced white corn, according to an
industry expert. The rest of the corn is used by feed mills either directly or mixed as
concentrated feed. Egypt imports close to 5 million tons of corn annually. A few companies
import de-germed corn grits for snack purposes and it is estimated that 10,000 tons are used for
that purpose (personal communication). Losses during corn processing used to be due to the
unavailability of proper storing capacities at the ports of arrival, where the corn would be
dumped on the ground in the open air until the processor picked it up, and losses due to the
weather, birds, insects and rodents were high. However in the past years many modern grain
storage facilities were established at the ports and the corn is currently being handled properly
and losses are estimated to be between 1 to 1.5% according to the leading corn
importer/processer.
Information on losses occurring inside the factories is limited. The following are data collected
through the Egyptian Chamber of Food Industries (CFI) regarding a count of the companies
working with cereal grains in Egypt. A total of 216 companies process wheat, 362 companies
process corn mainly as feed, snacks, oil starch and sugars and 86 companies are processing and
milling rice. All companies process in excess of 30 million tons from wheat, rice and corn.
According to industry interview losses from imported grains are less than those from the locally
produced crop due to better product handling at source and at port of destination, however no
figures are available to document this statement.
28
2.4. Recommend Actions for Loss Reduction
1. Harvesting at the proper grain moisture; low moisture ( 8 to 13%, depending on the
commodity) reduces significant loss of product due to deterioration in the quality of the product.
2. Drying facilities are considered particularly important in light of climate change that has
sometimes caused wet spells just before harvest resulting in inadequately dried grain leading to
mycotoxin formation and poor quality.
3. Encouraging the development of an on-farm, low-cost drying process that is able to bring
down the moisture content of grains to 13% as fast as possible to reduce losses.
4. Encouraging the establishment of grain collection centers where farmers can outsource the
drying operation to a third party service provider, be it a farmer's cooperative or a totally private
enterprise.
5. Governments should have installed in their silo storage facilities dryers capable of drying
large quantities of grain at the municipality, governorate or region level.
6. With adequate investment and training, food losses could be drastically reduced. Good
practices include proper drying and storage to avoid rotting and contamination of the grains with
mycotoxins for example. Heated-air dryers are means of achieving less grain losses both
quantitatively and qualitatively and reducing the risks inherent in the sun-drying process where
the product is subject to the weather conditions that are not stable. Low cost hermetic storage
systems can protect grains, beans and pulses from moisture, insects and oxygen during storage,
greatly reducing postharvest losses while extending the storage period.
7. Encouraging the collaboration between the private and public sector to jointly reduce food
waste and share responsibility (Hodges et al 2010).
8. Providing true estimates of the national grain waste and information on where to target
resources to reduce the losses (Hodges et al 2010)
9. Developing a realistic cost-benefit analysis for postharvest interventions, in order to guide
policy making and the efficient use of resources (Hodges et al 2010).
10. Educating farmers on the causes of postharvest losses and the economical benefits of
addressing those issues leading to the losses.
These recommendations are very challenging to achieve in developing countries, and any
improvement in storage will only be attractive to farmers, traders or governments if the
perceived benefits substantially outweigh the costs. Technical superiority is generally
insufficient and farmers and traders are likely to tolerate quite higher storage losses before
undertaking complex or expensive changes to their storage systems. Given the current and
future pressure on availing more food to a growing population in our regions, governments must
educate, train and avail financial and technical incentives to all the parties involved in the supply
chain to invest in methods of better handling of grains to save on losses that could be crucial for
evading hunger.
29
3. Estimates and causes of losses during postharvest handling, processing,
storage, and distribution of locally produced and imported horticultural food
crops (fruits and vegetables)
3.1 Introduction
Available data and accumulated experience of many authorities and authors indicate that one-
third of food produced for human consumption is lost and wasted globally which amounts to 1.3
billion tons per year. Other sources report that worldwide food losses that up to 50% of food
grown and produced for human consumption is lost and wasted along the value chain “from farm
to fork”. More of the losses occur between production and retail sites in developing countries
while in the developed countries more of the losses occur at the retail, food services, and
consumer sites (Gustavsson et al, 2011). Losses of foods reflect also loss of water, land and
energy used to produce them, along with wasted calories as a significant contribution to global
greenhouse gas emissions.
Given the limited availability of natural resources, it is more effective to reduce food losses than
to increase food production in order to feed the growing world population. Consumer behavior,
food storage, distribution infrastructure, packaging, and transport practices are factors to be
considered when planning for food losses reduction. It is also worth mentioning that a sixth of
the world's population is undernourished and therefore losing food at this high rate should be
unacceptable.
Fresh fruit and vegetables plus roots and tubers should receive greater attention since these crops
experience the highest wastage rates of any food. From a review of the available data and
consultation with local and international experts regarding the postharvest losses of fresh fruit
and vegetables in MENA countries, it can be concluded that a common array of problems lead to
such losses, and these are shared by most of the countries in most cases.
There are no exact figures to report of how much is lost each year in the MENA region due to the
fact that the causes and magnitude of losses differ according to the commodity, production
region, year, weather and other circumstances. Our approach in this report is to present the
available data and follow the flow of the commodities from the production phase, harvesting, and
postharvest handling system until it is consumed by humans. Indication of the problems at each
stage which are contributing to the losses will be discussed across the MENA region.
Constructing a database and map for the magnitude of losses in perishable commodities from
production to consumption in developing countries is the first step toward reducing the severe
losses in fresh produce. It is extremely necessary to identify the key factors leading to losses
across all production steps as well as at harvesting and during postharvest handling in order to
conduct zonal management for each challenge according to crop type, environmental factors, and
socioeconomics conditions.
3.2. Magnitude of losses in fresh fruit and vegetables: Although postharvest losses range from 20 to 50% in perishable commodities, only 5 percent of
the total funds for international horticultural development projects was allocated to postharvest
projects (FAO, 1981; Kader, 2003 & 2005; Kitinoja et al., 2011; and National Academy of
Sciences, 1978). In Egypt it was estimated that the average postharvest losses in fresh fruit was
20 percent while it was 30 percent of fresh vegetables (Blond, 1984). In Oman losses in fresh
produce were reported to be 3 to 19 percent (Opara, 2003), and in Jordan losses in tomato,
30
eggplant, pepper, and squash are 18, 19.4, 23, and 21.9 percent, respectively (El-Assi, 2002 &
2004).
Table 3.1. Examples of reported postharvest losses of fresh fruit and vegetables in selected
MENA countries
A study funded by IFAD and conducted by ICARDA on pomegranate and winter onion in Upper
Egypt (Tolba et.al., 2009) indicated that percentages of unmarketable fruits in pomegranate for
early, mid and late season harvests averaged 23%, and the accumulated percentage of
unmarketable bulbs in onion was 18.8% calculated at three levels (at harvest, after 15 day field
curing, and a windrow storage period of 30 days). The results of this study reconfirmed the
findings of the ADS study in the 1980s (Blond, 1984). Official estimates of losses in some
commodities in Iran are six-fold the world‟s mean (table 3.1), and the non-official estimates of
losses ranges from 35 to 70 percent from the 44 million ton of produced commodities, which if
saved can be used to feed approximately 20 million humans (Jowkar et al., 2005). In Saudi
Arabia, the postharvest losses during marketing of tomato, cucumber, figs, grapes and some date
varieties were 17%, 21.3%, 19.8%, 15.9 % to 22.8%, and 15% respectively (Al-Kahtani and
Kaleefah, 2011).
Prigojin et al., (2005) reported that fruit quality and postharvest losses in tomato and table grapes
produced in several Middle Eastern countries differed across the postharvest handling chain in
each country depending on the available commercial postharvest technology as well as on the
experience and education level of producers.
3.3. Pre-harvest factors affecting losses in fresh commodities
A broad spectrum of pre-harvest and postharvest factors such as cultural practices, climatic
conditions, plant material and other on-farm factors, harvesting systems, and postharvest
handling procedures each play a role in determining crop yield and nutritional and flavor
qualities, as well as the postharvest-shelf life of fresh produce (de Jager and de Putter, 1999;
Ferguson et al., 1999; Lee and Kader, 2000; Sams, 1999; Sió et al., 1999; Tomala, 1999).
31
In most MENA countries, the agricultural sector is the major user of water with a share of up to
85% of the total demand of water. The per capita share of water in 2006 was 850 m3/capita/year
which is expected to drop to 600 m3/capita/year in 2025-- a figure that according to international
standards is below the water poverty limit for a country. It is estimated that by the year 2017
Egypt needs to reclaim more desert lands of approximately 3.5 million acres using the same
available water resources in order to reduce the gap between food production and consumption
and to be able to meet the socio–economic and environmental needs of the country (El-Beltagy
and Abu-Hadid, 2007). This goal can be partially achieved when using the on-farm modern
principles of controlled irrigation management, improving the water use efficiency in
horticulture, and obtaining high quantity and quality production per unit of water applied and
unit of water consumed (El-Ansary and Okamoto, 2007a&b; El-Ansary et al., 2005). An
environmental and health concern is rising up in developing countries such as Egypt due to the
use of untreated wastewater to produce fruit and vegetables which contain high levels of heavy
metals above the maximum allowed daily intake by humans (Mahdy et al., 2009).
Optimizing organic and/or mineral fertilization programs under local environmental and cultural
conditions is crucial to increase productivity and quality of fresh produce (Abul-Soud et al.,
2010a&b). Research conducted in Egypt on sweet potatoes indicated clear effects and
interactions of pre-harvest fertilization program, harvest time (early and late), and curing were
observed on total sugar content, dry matter, weight loss, crude fibers and decay incidence during
storage. Balanced fertilization programs as well as good curing after harvest increased the
marketable sweet potatoes (Feleafel et.al., 2004a, 2004b, 2005).
Sometimes tomatoes are left un-harvested in the field during summer due to low market price
and high harvest and transportation cost. We have evaluated the sun drying of newly introduced
processing tomato varieties in Egypt as a useful tool to reduce losses in tomatoes and can provide
recommendations regarding the profitable varieties (Hussein, unpublished data, 2009-2010).
3.4. Harvesting and postharvest factors affecting losses in fresh commodities
In most MENA countries you can observe that there are examples of modern and well managed
postharvest handling facilities and technologies (with very good sanitation, temperature
management, quality sorting, quality and safety awareness and assurance, and adhering to quality
requirements and market regulations) but it is always the case for export markets (El-Saedy et
al., 2011). On the contrary, you can observe very poor examples of handling which lead to many
possible causes of losses and lack of produce safety (fig 3.1 and 3.2). As indicated in table 3.2, it
is clear that quantitative and qualitative losses occur in horticultural corps between harvest and
consumption. In order to reduce such losses we must understand the causes and apply the proper
postharvest technologies to maintain their quality and safety after harvest (Hussein, 2005).
Qualitative losses such as loss of edibility, nutritional quality, caloric value and consumer
acceptability of the products are much more difficult to assess than quantitative losses. Standards
of quality, consumer acceptability of the products and purchasing power (affordability) vary
greatly among countries and cultures. Elimination of defects from a given commodity before
marketing is much less rigorous in developing countries than in developed countries. It may be a
good approach to introduce some applied standards of the horticulture crops to each country with
the emphasis on food safety first i.e., to classify any commodity into safe and unsafe categories
and eliminate of the unsafe food from marketing and use only the safe food for consumption.
32
Figure 3.1 Over-loading of transport vehicles is a common cause of postharvest damage in Egypt
(photo credits Awad Hussein)
Figure 3.2. Wholesale market in Tunis, Tunisia (photo credit Soad Kader)
Table 3.2. Causes of losses in fresh produce occurring from production until consumption in
developing countries
Operation Causes of losses
Relative
contribution to
total losses (%)
Pre-harvest
1- Unsuitable site and variety selection
2- Poor crop management (irrigation, fertilization, Pest
management, etc.)
Unknown
Harvesting
1- Immature or over-mature harvesting
2- Direct exposure of commodity to sunlight
3- Inadequate field containers
4- Mechanical damage due to improper picking and packing
5- Delays before delivery to packinghouse or transporting
to market or to processor plant
4 – 12 %
Preparation for market
(in the field or at the
packaging house)
1- Failure to pre-sort defected and decayed commodities and
inadequate cleaning
2- Inappropriate handling, and inadequate ventilation and
cooling
3- Lake of precooling prior to shipment
4- Lake of sanitation
5 - 15
Transport
1- Rough handling leading to increased mechanical damage
2- Improper management of temperature, relative humidity,
and ventilation during transit
3- Mixing non-compatible commodities in the transit
vehicle (different types of containers, commodities with
2 - 8
33
different temperature requirements and ethylene
production rates)
4- Delays during transport
Handling at destination
1- Rough handling during loading and unloading
2- Exposure to undesirable environmental conditions
3- Delays in getting the commodity to the consumer
4- Improper ripening and storage practices
5- Over packing in unsuitable containers
6- Contamination due to lack of sanitation
3 - 10
Handling at home 1- Delay before consumption
2- Improper storage 1 - 5
Total Most causes of losses are additive 15 – 50
Adapted from Kader (1979)
Cosmetic quality factors as shape, color, size etc. should be given less value as quality standards
in developing countries. Cosmetic defects may be allowed to get in the marketing channels from
developed counties to developing countries packed in reasonable good packaging but less fancy
(economical consumer package). It may be suggested to direct cosmetic rejects to find its way to
food industries whenever possible to be processed either at the origin or in the receiving
countries.
Lack of knowledge regarding the optimum safe temperature for cold storage of fruit and
vegetables grown under local micro-climatic conditions can lead to appearance of several
profound postharvest physiological disorders such as chilling injury during cold storage,
shipping or marketing (Hussein et al., 2002).
3.5. Biological and environmental factors affecting fresh produce
Losses in fresh fruit and vegetables could be due to biological and environmental factors. The
biological factors (internal) causes of deterioration of fresh produce are known (respiration,
ethylene production, water loss, and growth) which are affected by environmental factors
(external) under which the produce is handled. Temperature outside the optimum range during
postharvest handling can cause rapid deterioration due to the following disorders freezing,
chilling injury, and high temperature injury (sunburn and sun scald). Relative humidity can
influence water loss, decay development, incidence of some physiological disorders and
uniformity of fruit ripening, condensation of moisture (sweating). Fruit require 85 to 95% RH,
most vegetables 90 to 98%, dry onion and pumpkin 70 to 75%, carrot and radish 95-100%. RH
can be modified by providing air movement and ventilation, adding moisture (water mist, spray,
or steam), humidification, dehumidification, maintaining temperature within about 1°C of air
temperature, provide moisture barriers (storage walls and transit vehicles), use of polyethylene
liners in containers, wetting the floor, adding crushed ice (for commodities not injured by the
practice), sprinkling.
Safety of produce, especially in terms of avoiding microbial contamination, should be given high
priority. Human pathogens represent a safety risk if animal and/or human wastes are used as
fertilizer for fresh fruit and vegetables or water containing such waste is used for irrigation.
Chicken manures should be sterilized before use in fruit and vegetable growing to avoid the risk
of contamination with Salmonella and other pathogens.
34
3.6. Common sources leading to losses in fresh fruit and vegetables in MENA region
General causes of losses include financial, managerial and technical limitations in production
practices, harvesting techniques, and postharvest handling technologies (Hussein, 2005). Based
on our experience in Egypt as well as other experiences in several developing countries and on
our personal communication with several research institutes in MENA region, we can conclude
that there are some common causes shared among MENA countries leading to losses in fresh
fruit and vegetables from production to consumption which can be summarized as follows:
3.6.1. Pre-harvest causes of losses:
(1) Small-scale farmers represent the majority of fresh produce suppliers to the supply chain and
market channels which causes improper planning for suitable continuous production to cover the
whole fresh or processing seasons, large variations in production practices as well as productivity
and quality, and a difficulty in using machinery for planting, crop management or harvesting.
Small farmers usually have limited resources, and lack needed infrastructure and marketing
channels for distribution.
(2) Production site is remote from market or processing plants leading to higher transport costs
and increased chances to quantitative and qualitative losses especially when transporting the
fresh produce on unpaved roads, in unsuitable containers and/or trucks, and under high
temperature and low relative humidity conditions.
(3) Choice of crop type is usually based on personal opinion for expected profitability without
conducting market study or contracting with a buyer to ensure profitability which may lead to
reduced crop price or loss of whole crop at farm gate due to high harvest costs during peak
production time.
(4) Lack of education, training and access to good agricultural practices in production.
(5) Growers are vulnerable to unexpected climate changes due to lack of suitable equipment for
weather prediction and early warning system.
(6) Decisions on production practices are made in most cases by guesswork and site-specific
experience due to lack of science-based extension services.
(7) Planting genotypes in unfavorable environmental conditions and/or using unhealthy plant
material leading to death of plant material, germination problems, weak growth or poor quality.
(8) Over or under irrigation regimes resulting in increased disease or pest level, decreased
productivity, quality and postharvest shelf life.
(9) Unbalanced nutrition program, fertilization scheduling, or use of uncertified fertilizers
leading to unbalanced crop load, poor crop quality, and short postharvest shelf life of produce.
(10) Ineffective pest control programs causing increased pest damage to produce.
(11) Incorrect or poor management for planting time, grafting, pruning, thinning, pollination or
application of growth regulators which is a main source for decreased productivity, quality, and
shelf life of produce.
3.6.2 Harvest causes of losses:
(1) Harvest produce at improper stage of development
(2) Mechanical damage
(3) Presence of disorders (sunburn, cracking, pest damage, sap damage, and frost damage)
(4) Spray residues or spray damage
(5) High crop temperature and high water loss resulting in reduced crop quality and shelf life.
3.6.3 Postharvest causes of losses:
(1) Mechanical damage and high water loss during transporting of fresh produce contributing to
a reduced crop quality and shelf life
(2) Disease development
35
(3) Irregular ripening or over-ripening
(4) Chilling injury due to over-cooling chilling sensitive crops
(5) Storage disorders due to growth and tropism (e.g. rooting, sprouting, curvature)
(6) Weight loss due to high water loss and respiration rate during cold storage which negatively
affects marketable quality and shelf life
(7) Lack of proper cooling and storage facilities (fig 3.3)
(8) Lack of infrastructure for packing
(9) Poor transport practices, including use of bulk unrefrigerated loads
(10) Lack of adequate transport and distribution systems, especially in difficult climatic
conditions (e.g. hot, dry climates).
Figure 3.3. Poor storage conditions for onions in Kuwait lead to high loses due to sprouting
(photo credit Adel Kader)
3.7. Opportunities to reduce pre-harvest, harvesting and postharvest losses in fruit and
vegetables grown in MENA region
Postharvest technology is an inter-disciplinary science and includes techniques applied to
agricultural produce after harvesting for its protection, conservation, processing, packaging,
distribution, marketing and utilization to meet the food and nutritional requirements of the people
in relation to their needs. Increasing production, preventing postharvest losses, improving
nutrition and adding value to the product will generate jobs, reduce poverty and enhance food
security and the growth of economy by improving the livelihoods of people.
1. Demonstration studies with producers and processors to apply integrated crop
management (ICM) approaches: good agriculture practices (GAP) during production
phase, and good postharvest management (GPM) and good hygienic practices (GHP)
during postharvest handling to maintain quality and safety of products, as well as good
manufacturing practices (GMP) during processing.
2. Inspection and enforcement of quality standards to reduce pre-harvest, harvesting, and
postharvest losses.
3. Field packing and immobilizing the produce in protective containers during transport to
reduce severe mechanical damage in soft commodities. Packing and packaging methods
should enable proper air flow rate around the packed commodity which is an important
factor in management of temperature and relative humidity.
4. Developing portable forced-air cooling units by adapting to local conditions to improve
temperature management.
5. Encouraging the use of returnable plastic containers: several empty folded containers
occupy the space taken by one full container.
36
4. Estimates and causes of losses during postharvest handling, processing,
storage, and distribution of locally produced and imported animal source
foods (dairy, meat, poultry, fish)
4.1. Introduction
The aim of this section is to assess the magnitude of postharvest losses of animal source foods
(ASFs). Estimates are complicated because of the varied origins of the ASFs. For example,
because livestock is normally not included when discussing agriculture, assessment of
postharvest losses along the feed supply chain (processing to consumption by livestock) are dealt
with separately from the losses that take place along the ASF supply chain (processing and
consumption by humans), a factor which influences the valuation of the magnitude of loss.
Furthermore, assessment of loss along the food supply chains of fish and seafood is seldom
presented in connection with other ASFs. On the other hand, to pass the food safety and hygiene
tests all ASFs must comply with the international requirements and measurements (e.g. SPS,
tractability) ratified by agreements (e.g. GATT) involving the coordination and support of
agencies such as OIE, WHO, WTO, FAO, etc.
This section addresses the following broad issues: a) the importance of the livestock sector in the
economy of the 19 MENA countries; (b) the points along the commodity value chain (CVC)
where post harvest losses occur; (c) analysis of causes of losses; and (d) suggested strategies and
actions for reduction of losses in the MENA region.
The terms Food Supply Chain (FSC) and Post-Harvest Systems are interchangeably used in
literature (Parfitt et al, 2010). For the purpose of this review postharvest losses (PHL) occur after
Production (Pre-harvest and Harvest). Commodity Value Chain (figure 4.1) is a range of
activities required to bring a product or service from conception to final disposal after use; and a
connected string of players working together to satisfy market demand for a product /products
(as applied for livestock by Sidahmed (2010).
Figure 4.1. The Commodity Value Chain(CVC) and the food supply chain (FSC)
4.2. The context and the problem
The last few decades witnessed sharp increases in livestock populations driven by rapid growth
in human population, income, urbanization, globalization, trade liberalization and the dramatic
changes in consumers‟ eating choices, especially for animal source foods (Livestock Revolution
, 2004; Livestock long shadow, 2006; and FAO, Livestock in the Balance 2009; OECD-FAO
2008). The trend is particularly applicable to the MENA region which featured an increase in per
capita GDP in most oil and none oil producing countries (except Yemen, Mauritania; and Iraq),
some of the highest population growth rates in the world (range 3 – 18%; average 6%), an
increase in urbanization (urban population 60% of total population, annual growth rate of urban
population 3.7%) and changes in eating habits. The above mentioned trends have influenced
demand for ASFs which, in part, was reflected in the steady annual growth rates between 1995
37
and 2007 in the production of ASFs (table D.1 in Appendix D). The region also witnessed a
sharp increase in poultry meat;-from 2.4 billion tonnes to 4.3 billion tonnes compared to
ruminants (table D.2 in Appendix D).
Total fish (capture and aquaculture production) continued to increase globally and in the MENA
region. At the global level marine catch reached 142 million tonnes in 2008, while aquiculture
production increased from 90 million tonnes in 2003 to 38.9 million tonnes in 2008 (FAOSTAT
Fisheries – ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/STAT, 2011). In 2008, about 81% of the total fishery production
(115.1 million tonnes) was used for direct human consumption. Of this amount 48% was
consumed in live and fresh form. The balance (19%) was used for the production of fish meal
and fish oil (non-food commodities). This amount processed into fish meal and oil was re-
estimated by FAO in 2009 as being 25% of the catch.
Overall fish accounts for 16.1% of the global intake of animal protein. The NENA region
witnessed a rapid growth in aquaculture; from about 96 700 tonnes in 1994 to approximately 566
250 tonnes in 2003 (FAO, Fisheries, 2005). Based on FAOSTAT Fisheries estimations for 2009,
the total fish production in the MENA region is 3.8 million tonnes. During the same period
contribution of aquaculture to the global fisheries production (capture and aquiculture) increased
from 4.5 % to 18.7 % in 2005 and 24% in 2009. The demand for fish and seafood has increased
in several NENA countries in response to high population growth, urbanization, tourism and
increasing public awareness of the health benefits of eating fish (FAO Fisheries, 2005) – Box
4.1.
There are private or semi‐private fisheries enterprises of various sizes operating Oman, UAE,
Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Tunisia; and Iran. Most have high standard vertically integrated
cold chain infrastructure well equipped with fishing vessels, fish farms, ice plants, refrigerated
cold stores, fish processing plants, refrigerated inland distribution trucks to wholesalers and
retailers. Many of these companies meet the international quality and food safety standards and
export to EU countries, US, Japan and others. These activities of the fisheries subsector are
supported with fisheries associations in Tunisia, Yemen and Morocco. The most affluent
country based industries hold international promotion shows (e.g. Dubai Seafood Expo).
Globally livestock sub-sector (excluding Land-based, Coastal and Marine aquatic production)
accounts for 40% of the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) and employs 1.3 billion
people and creates livelihoods for one billion of the world‟s poor (FAO-LEAD, 2006). The
Box 4.1. Fish consumption in NENA region
Consumption is increasing in Algeria, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, Saudi Arabia,
Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, and remains stable in Bahrain. In Algeria,
consumption has increased from 3 kg/person/year in 1993 to 5.1 kg/person/year in 2003. In Egypt, consumption has
increased from 5.5 kg/person/year in 1982 to 14.9 kg/person/year in 2003. In the Islamic Republic of Iran
consumption has increased from <1 g/person/year in 1980, to 6.1 kg/person/year in 2004, and is expected to reach
10 kg/person/year in 2009. In addition to population growth and urbanization, fish consumption is increasing in
response to the increased public awareness of the health benefits of eating fish (Islamic Republic of Iran, Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya and Yemen), increased tourism (Tunisia), establishment of inland aquaculture facilities (Islamic
Republic of Iran), improved facilities for refrigerated long distance transportation (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and
Yemen), and improved handling (Yemen). Improved transportation of the aquaculture products is a driving force in
the increased fish consumption in rural areas of such countries as Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Yemen. The
expansion in aquaculture activities, at a rate exceeding that of the population growth, resulted in an increase in fish
consumption in the Syrian Arab Republic (1980–1998). This increase became more obvious following the lifting of
fish import banning for canned fish (1999) and frozen/fresh fish (2004).
Quotation from: FAO Fisheries, 2005
38
contribution in the MENA region ranges from very low in the oil dependent countries to as high
as 40% of the total agricultural GDP in the agriculture dependent counties. Overall the sector is
very important for food security of the none-oil producing countries and for some of the oil
producing countries. (E.g. Iraq, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Libya).
The small ruminants (sheep and goats) contribute to the largest amounts of meat production after
poultry in the region (see table D.2 in Appendix D for full details). The animals are mostly fed
on crop residues, barley grain and rangeland vegetation. Two antagonist driving forces affect
small ruminant production in the region: (i) increasing demand for small ruminant products, as a
result of the expansion of markets, which opens opportunities for farmers to improve their
livelihood (Delgado et al, 1999); and (ii) the progressive degradation of rangelands due to
continued overgrazing that combined with water scarcity and limited arable land restricts fodder
production (Sidahmed, 1996). This situation is expected to further deteriorate due to the climate
change leading to dominance of extreme temperatures and to the rapid depletion of already
scarce water resources (Sidahmed et al 2008).
In addition, poor animal health and exposure to cross-border disease outbreaks are major
obstacles to the competitiveness of the various types of livestock commodities, especially
considering the risks of transmitting Transboundary Animal Diseases (TADs) and zoonotic
diseases through imported live animals. Other constraints include poor hygiene and food safety
measures reflected in poor compliance with SPS measures, poor market information and market
access, unfavorable prices, poor processing, packaging and distribution systems.
The meat and dairy production systems are mostly traditional. The small ruminants are raised
mostly in semi extensive traditional systems where animals are subject to feed shortages,
diseases, economic losses caused by ineffective cross-border controls and regulation of animal
movement. Milk production from traditional systems (cattle, goats and sheep) is below the
potential and is subject to infections (e.g. mastitis) caused by poor handling of the product. The
poultry systems are mostly traditional backyard systems (figure 4.2) with both quality and
hygiene problems, and low adoption of biosecurity (cleaning and disinfection) leading to
significant public health problems (e.g. salmonella infections). Traditional fish folks face
constraints of uncertainly, lack of fishing gears, weather information and quality standards. The
traditional systems are resilient but in most situations are not competitive.
39
Figure 4.2. The Poultry Food Supply Chain (supply is mainly for the rural and the low-income
consumers) Source Taylor, 2007 ( in Rota, 2010)
The meat and dairy commercial systems are emerging, whereas commercial poultry is more
advanced and enjoys a significant share of the local and the regional markets. Large scale deep
shore seafood and fish catching is operated by large companies which enjoy significant
capacities to adopt food safety regulatory mechanisms. On the other hand, local and off-shore
commercial fish industry mainly depends on aquaculture that requires competitive and
sustainable value chain development in order to contribute effectively to the economic growth of
the rural communities.
The constraints to the production of ASFs are mostly technical and economic. Although the
livestock producers are the most skilled, they are in need of training to enhance and sustain
production in competitive trade-liberalized markets. Livestock extension does not receive similar
attention as food crops and high value crop systems. Also the systems need breed improvement,
quality enhancement husbandry measures, and adequate feeding and watering resources.
Agricultural unemployment is generally high in the region (Table D.7). Recurring droughts and
high feed grain prices have driven large numbers of the small livestock holders out of their
traditional business without alternative means of livelihoods, thus adding to insecurity of the
agricultural labor force (IFAD 2011- Jordan Project Performance Assessment June 2011- report
in preparation). This trend has been mitigated, to a very limited extent, by donor supported
programs that help livestock keepers de-stock in cases of emergences (disease outbreaks,
droughts) and re-stock when the environment is suitable (IFAD, Livestock and Rangeland
Knowledgebase http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm; IFAD Livestock Services and the Poor,
2006 ).
40
Women and the young are very important players along the livestock value chains. Women are
the major labour force and the most skilled in raising small ruminants, back-yard poultry,
milking and processing of dairy products. However, there are no effective gender sensitive
polices or special provisions that expose women to training, extension, access to markets, access
to rural financing as compared to men (IFAD. Livestock Services and the Poor, 2006), and it is
not always that women control the sale of milk and milk products (Rota, A. IFAD 2010; Rota,
A., 2011).
Sheep and, to a lesser extent, goats are the meat of preference in most MENA countries. Most of
the species are superior quality breeds that enjoy high market demand. The producers of these
animals are very skilled and competitive. In addition, other local type breeds include Buffaloes -
high milk producing and beast of burden, the Baladi poultry in Egypt, the fresh water fish in
Egypt and the shrimps and other highly marketable sea foods in the coasts of Yemen and Oman.
Some of the livestock products are in high demand and are highly priced such as the Awasi
sheep and Shami goats in ME, Desert and Berberi sheep and Nubian goats in NA. The animals
are sold and slaughtered at very young age with limited pre- harvest loss potential. These are
sold to the well off regional countries (e.g. from Syria to Gulf States).
However, with the spread of supermarkets, the local fresh meats of preference in the MENA
countries have given way to the cheaper and quality enhanced packaged frozen imported meats
and dairy (FAO-LEAD, 2006). Paradoxically, in as much as there is a growing and vibrant cross
border (inter-regional) and local demand for the high quality local meat resources, there is a
growing demand for packaged, cheaper imported meat and dairy (see Appendix D for table D.3).
This trend reflects the demographic and cultural changes in the region where the middle and low
income urban dwellers are increasingly consuming imported meat and dairy products. Although
backyard and local poultry maintain the largest share of the meat produced in most countries, the
growth in intensive poultry production has been remarkably fast, responding to the high demand
for ASFs. Currently poultry meat contributes to over 60% of the total meat produced in the
MENA region, fish excluded (refer to table D.2). The contribution of pig and pork products are
negligible in the 19 countries (in the range of 0 -1,000 tonnes/year) and therefore are not
included in these discussions.
There is a segment of the livestock industry that is progressively moving from the smallholder
traditional stakeholders to the large scale commercial stakeholders. A typical example is the
barley grain/crop residue based sheep and goats systems in most of the countries in the MENA
region. This segment will be subject to different pre and postharvest loss challenges as opposed
to the traditional systems.
4.3. Posharvest Losses along the Food Supply Chain
4.3.1 Nature and magnitude of losses
Postharvest losses of ASFs vary depending on the commodity, the values chain (developed
versus developing, traditional versus commercial, vertically integrated into supermarkets versus
small scale retail, certified butchery meat versus bushmeat and roadside stalls), market linkages,
social and cultural eating habits, the competitiveness of the industry and its responsiveness to
local, regional and global markets; and many other factors. In most developing countries
postharvest losses of livestock products and fish are mainly caused by biological spoilage
(Hodges et al 2010). Although poor quality foods may lead to significant health costs, the
magnitude of postharvest loss in influenced by several factors and not only by the availability of
cold chains or compliance with food safety and other SPS requirements. Postharvest costs of
41
handling and storage have been substantially reduced in Western Europe and USA because of the
availability of reliable equipment and facilities, application of traceability laws, decrees and SPS
requirements, and modern health inspection capabilities.
The rapid and continuing increase in consumption of ASFs and trade (local, regional and global)
is associated with safety concerns regarding human and animal diseases. Safety standards as well
as controls on cross border animal movement have been given wide attention by governments,
regional and international institutions. However, there is concern that such regulatory (e.g. WTO
and SPS measures) might marginalize the small-scale livestock producers (Hall et al, 2004). In
any case, interestingly losses in postharvest ASFs along the consumption stage of the FSC are
higher in the developed countries (e.g. USA) than in the developing countries.
The types of loss and waste in ASFs were reported recently by Gustavsson et al , 2011. Types of
waste and loss in ASFs were categorized as follows: Production (animal death during breeding,
discarding fish during fishing, decreased milk production because of cow sickness (mastitis);
Handling and storage: Ruminants: death transport to slaughter and condemnation at
slaughterhouse. Fish: spillage and degradation during icing, packaging, storage and land
transportation. Milk: spillage and degradation during transportation between farms and cooling
centers, factories and distribution centers.: Processing: trimming spillage during slaughtering and
other industrial processing ( e.g. sausage making).Fish: industrial processing such as canning and
smoking; for traditional such as sun drying and packaging; Distribution: Losses and waste in the
market system e.g. at retailers, wholesalers and supermarkets; Consumption: losses and waste at
household level, restaurants, hotels, street vendors.
The loss of ASFs during handling, storage, processing, packaging, distribution and consumption
is significantly higher than the loss during production e.g. 18% versus 6% in MENA and CA
region (Gustavsson et al,2011) as detailed in table 4.4. The loss (or waste) at consumption stage
is much higher in Europe and USA compared to the developing and the less wealthy regions.
Actually, consumption loss is very low in the poorest regions (e.g. SSA), an indication of severe
food shortage to the extent that the poor may eat dead and unhealthy animals. According to
personal observations postharvest loss in the backyard traditional poultry is negligible (Antonio
Rota, IFAD personal communication; Rota, 2010) because most of the product have very short
shelf life. Normally the rural and the low-income consumers purchase poultry of eggs to
consume them in the same day (Figure 4.3). In this system loss is pre-harvest caused by disease
outbreaks (e.g. Newcastle disease) which wipe out the whole stock. They purchase very limited
amounts that could hardly be sorted out for quality or removed.
42
Figure 4.3. Marketing of traditional poultry ( source: A. Rota ,2011)
Table 4.4 Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the
FSC
=============Industry Value Chain(VC)=============
==========Food Supply Chain (FSC)=======
Pre-harvest Post Harvest Loss MENA & Central Asia. Total Post Harvest lost for
Production Handling
& storage
Processing &
packaging
Distributi
on
Consumption MENA
&CA
N. America
& Oceania
Europe SSA S/SE
Asia
LAC
Meat 6.6 0.2 5 5 8 13.2 12 20.7 14.7 16.3 17.
1 Fish&
Seafood 6.6 5 9 10 4 28 48 26.5 32 32 28
Milk 3.5 6 2 8 2 18 16.5 9.2 21.2 19 20
Source: Gustavsson et al,2011.
Overall the magnitude of loss in AFS in the MENA region is significant; 13.2 % for meat
(ruminants and poultry), 28% for fish and sea food and 18% for milk. The loss is encountered all
along the postharvest food supply chain, from pre-slaughter transport and fattening, slaughtering,
handling, storage, packaging, distribution to retails markets - small butcheries or super markets -
to consumption.
4.3.2 Loss in each type of ASF
Meat losses: Meat losses include elimination of sick animals from the FSC, destruction carcass
or parts of carcass, loss and spoilage during transport ( mostly due to absence of cooling
facilities), and losses during processing and wholesaling (removal of inedible portions – bones,
blood, offal), shrinkage during freezing, poor handling and packaging failure and transport
losses)-(Kantor, 1997). Especially in the developed countries high proportions of the retail meat
is thrown away uncooked or in the form of leftovers1. Poor compliance with SPS measures and
poor coordination between the public and animal health inspectors at the slaughtering slaps are
major causes of contamination of all or part of the carcass (Figure 4.4). Where the food safety
43
measures are applied, the losses are highest among the traditionally raised cattle and small
ruminants which are not carefully inspected and quarantined before entry into fattening or
slaughtering lines. These problems are typical in the MENA region, especially the poorest
countries that lack effective national veterinary service capable of detecting disease outbreaks.
The impact of postharvest loss, under the circumstances goes beyond the stakeholders engaged in
the FSCs, but to the producers as they lose access to markets, to the local municipalities as they
lose market revenue, to the service providers, etc.
Figure 4.4: Meat loss at processing is high under poor SPS and slaughtering conditions ( source:
Ahmed Sidahmed, 2010)
Poultry losses: As mentioned above postharvest losses from traditional backyard poultry systems
are minimal. The resilient chicks are captured, slaughtered and eaten within a few hours without
the need for further processing or storage. Furthermore, and because this category of meat
consumers are poor, it is seldom that there is a significant loss other than the feathers and minor
offal. On the other hand, the widely emerging industrial poultry is being confronted by several,
mostly salmonella and feed related, challenges that could wipe out the profits or the assets of the
poultry enterprises and the poultry meat dispensaries. The impact is normally catastrophic
leading to losses of jobs at all stages of poultry value chain. Keeping the poultry breeding flocks
salmonella free is not a production (pre-harvest) challenge only (Poultry MENA D LINES,
2011http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/2041/strategies-to-control-salmonella-in-poultry).
_________________________ 1 The consumer level loss in USA remains the highest in the world: 94 % of loss in dairy, meat, poultry, fish and
eggs were reported in 1995 (30%, 15 %, 15%, 15%, and 29%, respectively (Kantor et al. Food Review, 1997). This
high level was maintained in 2010 as reported by Hodges et al (2010): Meat 26%, Dairy products 28%, Poultry
26%, seafood and fish 33% and eggs 25%.
Measures to reduce postharvest loss in poultry starts at production (pre-harvest) and transport
harvest). In order to avoid massive postharvest losses it is important to raise the chicks in
salmonella free environments by assuring: cleanliness and disinfection of poultry housing, clean
water and feed, regularly monitoring the production chain and reporting for immediate action.
44
Furthermore, it is rather important to observe control of salmonella during transport and during
the slaughter and processing (post harvest) stages. Poor packaging and lengthily storage (above 6
months) of frozen poultry is a major cause of loss.
The loss of eggs is high along the FSC of the developed countries with almost equal percentage
of loss estimated during retail (10%) and Consumption (15%) stages (Hodges et al, 2010). No
estimate of loss in the developing countries is available, specially noting that a significant
amount of the consumed eggs in the developing countries is from backyard traditional systems.
Milk and dairy losses: Loss of milk and milk products in MENA is influenced by the source of
production (pre-harvest) before milk is processed along the FSC, and by the effectiveness of the
supply chain (transport, refrigeration, storage, processing and distribution), and the extent of
producers‟ knowledge of food safety and hygiene measures for handling and processing milk
and dairy products ( Figure 4.5. and 4.6). A major share of milk in MENA region is produced
traditionally from sheep and goats, and in some countries (e.g. Egypt) from local buffalo breeds;
and also from local cattle breeds in many rural areas of Morocco, Tunisia, Syria and Iran. The
intensive production is limited to dairy farms where, mostly improved or exotic dairy cattle
breeds are kept. The intensive dairy operations are typically commercial operations supported by
vertical value chain that links the product to the market (retail, supermarkets, hotels and tourist
resorts). This model is common in all MENA countries but with proportion from the total milk
produced and with varied degree of market share. e.g. from very high in the Gulf states and
Jordan to modest in Egypt, Morocco etc.
Figure 4.5: Training women in Syria on hygienic goat milk handling and processing reduces
PHL and increase marketability of the products (Source: ICARDA, 2005)
45
Figure 4.6. Home-made cheese (Source: ICARDA, 2005)
Fish and sea food losses: Detailed “Statistical data concerning pisciculture in the Near East are,
unfortunately, very meagre. However, with progressive improvements in the amount of attention
to fishery development bestowed by the Governments of the Near East, especially in land-locked
areas, with the public's appreciation of the production potential of the valuable cultivable waters
distributed in the different countries of the region and with the strengthening of the technical
manpower in fisheries organizations, pisciculture is expected to play a significant role as an ASF
and non-food product in the Near East region.” (FAO/RNE Office Status of Fish Culture in the
Near East http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/61036T/61036T05.htm )
Production (e.g. harvesting: catching from rivers and seas, and cultivating in bonds and prankish
water) should accurately be included as part of the food supply chain of this commodity and in
the estimation of postharvest losses. This is because the loss starts from fish catching, where
improved technology and gears assure lower loss. Overall food losses and waste in this
commodity is the largest of all other ASFs (28% in MENA region, 48% in North America and
Oceania and 26.5 in Europe and Russia (table 4.4). Based on a recent FAO report 6.6, 5, 9, 10
and 4 % are lost in MENA region during production, handling and storage, processing and
packaging, distribution and consumption, respectively (Gustavsson et al , 2011). Most of the
postharvest losses in the traditional artisanal system caused by processing and post marketing
losses( Figure 4.7).
46
Figure 4.7: Fishermen selling fish at the market in Gaza. They are able to obtain credit to acquire fishing
gear and to repair boats and engines. Approximately 480 Hasaka boat owners have received credit from the programme. (Source: IFAD Gaza and the West Bank1998)
4.3.3 Causes of losses Reducing losses in ASFs is a means of improving food supply, enhancing income and assuring
food security, especially in the developing countries where acute shortage of ASFs prevails
(Hodges el al 2010). As indicated above section, most of the MENA countries are ASF deficit
(table 4.2) with countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE importing livestock in at the cost of
between US$ 1 and 2 billion each year.
Absence of vertically integrated FSC in the traditional system: As in all developing countries
ASFs are produced in the MENA region from three production systems: Traditional, Emergent
(from tradition to commercial) and Commercial. The traditional systems in the MENA region are
mostly based on stubble, feed residue and grain feeding, and grazing. The contribution of the
rangelands resources to animal feeding have declined sharply from about 85% in the 1950s to
less than 10% in present time (Sidahmed, 1996 and Box 4.2), forcing a large number of the
traditional producers to leave herding. Under the traditional systems poorly fed animals
especially during droughts and feed gap months produce poorly graded meat a majority of which
is lost as a result of untimely (e.g. poor body condition) slaughtering during emergencies. The
pre-harvest constraints facing the traditional and the emergent systems also include high
incidents of sick animals taken to slaughter, unsuitable slaughter age (too young or too old), and
poor understanding of the producers of the food safety measures. On the other hand, the decline
in the number of smallholders, urbanization, market demand as a result of increased income of
the city dwellers and changes in eating habits are moving a significant number of animals to
commercialized enterprises. On the other hand, postharvest losses and waste are lower in the
Commercial systems which normally operate vertically integrated value chains featuring
advanced food supply chain processes (vaccination, compliance with SPS, well established cold
chains), and accordingly measures that reduce postharvest losses.
47
Meat and poultry losses depend on the pre-harvest and harvest environments: Post harvest losses
of meat and poultry in the region are mainly caused by poor husbandry practices (pre-harvest)
and lack of compliance with food safety measures that lead to rejection and destruction of large
quantities of the whole or part of the carcass. On the other hand, several losses take place along
the food supply chain (mainly postharvest). A key challenge in the MENA region is the extreme
and lengthily hot dry months, now being aggravated by Climate Change. Under such conditions,
lack of adequate chilling needed to reduce microbial growth is a major cause of spoilage for meat
and poultry. A number of MENA countries (e.g. Gulf States) enjoy modern and state of the art
cold chain facilities. However, many other countries lack efficient or sufficient cold chain
facilities (pre-cooling facilities, cold storages and refrigerator carriers, and packaging
warehouses, etc).
Also, in spite of existing national laws, decrees and strategies needed to observe food safety
regulations (e.g. traceability decrees and laws), there are flaws with implementation. For
example, although there are a number of laws and decrees in Morocco that could directly impact
on traceability and enhance product safety and consumers‟ protection, the weakest part in the
livestock value chain is inability of the producers to understand and follow the recommended
practices (FAO, 2010 and Appendix E). Poor understanding of the importance of healthy and
clean foods is a major problem leading to foodborne diseases and considerable wastage specially
during transport and consumption,
Box4.2 Transfer of livestock system from extensive rangebased to intensive grain/stubble reside based in MENA region
Trends in human and livestock population and permanent pastures in 19 arid and semi-arid Arabic-speaking
countries (Source: Sidahmed 1993 - compiled from FAOSTAT)
In Jordan and many neighbouring countries the range supplied 85% of the livestock feed in the 1950-60s. This was
reduced to only 40% in the 1990s, a sharp increase in animal numbers following a sharp rise in imported and
subsidized feed grain has led to the consumption of very large proportions of the standing vegetation (75-90%). At
present the rangeland may contribute about one month of animal feed each year (less than 10% of requirements),
may be up to 3 months in some parts in very good years and zero during drought
Source: Sidahmed 1996
48
Milk and dairy PHL: The magnitude and causes of loss differ between the traditional, emergent
(semi-commercial) and commercial systems. The milk produced through the traditional village
and pastoral operations are mostly consumed by households when fresh on a daily basis, or sold
raw to nearby shops and neighbors who do not own milking livestock. The remaining is
processed into sour milk (rouba or labna), yogurt, cheese and ghee. The magnitude of health
risks (mastitis infected and milk contaminated as a result of poor hygiene) in this type of
operations in much higher than the magnitude of loss.
The emergent semi-commercial systems which are run by local cooperatives and farmer
organizations depend on cold storage at the milk collection sites used by the small farmers who
own between five and ten milking cows. The small dairy farmers in several MENA countries
transport milk to the cooling centers by pickups, carts, motorcycles or bicycles. More well-off
farmers who could produce up to 500 kg of milk in three days have their own farm based cooling
tanks (e.g. 10% of Tunisia‟s 112,000 dairy farmers). The farmers and cooperatives could also
transport milk to nearby plants well equipped with cooling and freezing chambers. In most of
these operations, the milk is transported to the cooling centers without being refrigerated, which
is a major cause of loss when discarded at the collection centers due to contamination or
infection. This type of loss is common in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and all of the North African
countries (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia). In Egypt and other countries, the
small village dairy plants lack cooling and freezing chambers. However, there are also some
entrepreneurs along the value chain who operate cold transportation tanks. On the other hand,
farmers in the Gulf States use highly advanced cooling vehicles for transport of milk to the
processing plants.
Causes of loss in Fish and Seafood: Generally the fishing industry is based on three system; the
traditional artisanal system, the small-scale commercial /semi-industrial in the coastal areas, and
the industrial high sea operations.
Losses in fish and seafood are the highest for all of the ASFs in all regions; SSA, MENA, LAC,
S/SEA, North America and Europe (range 26 – 48%) compared to milk (range 9 – 20%) and
meat (range 12 – 21%). Whereas postharvest losses in the developed countries are caused by
extravagant and careless retailing (display more than what is to be sold), and consumption
practices (buy more than needed, and throw away leftovers and uneaten on a daily basis).
Globally postharvest losses are highest in the Artisanal and the small –scale commercial systems.
Based on FAO estimates 10% of the world fish production was lost in 2009 because of spoilage.
The PHLs are mainly caused by inappropriate use of preservatives, inability of the distribution
systems to cope with market fluctuations, physical loss of discarded fish, and lack or poorly
functioning cold storage facilities.
Detailed information about the causes of losses and the status of the Food Supply Chain in
MENA region is lacking in most countries to allow for a detailed assessment of the situation.
The losses in the MENA region are mostly caused by lack or poor status of the cold chain
infrastructure and lack of basic hygiene and home level refrigeration facilities. Processing,
packaging and distribution are the most important causes of loss (69%) of fish along the FSC in
the MENA region (Gustavsson, J et al ,2011). The cold chains is a temperature controlled Food
Supply Chain used to extend the shelf-life of perishable fresh, chilled, frozen and processed fish
and fish products, and vary depending on the three systems. The Cold Chains are supported by
international instruments such as FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (IAASTD Vol
1 CWANA, 2009); FAO/GLOBEFISH International Fish Marketing Information Network Three
49
serving NENA region (INFOSAMAK, INFOFISH, INFOPECHE); EU and USA Fish Trade
Regulations; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP).
The artisanal systems: For example, the low priced fish caught on a daily basis by the artisanal
fishermen in Morocco is sold in the local markets for immediate consumption. This system lacks
cooling and advanced fishing gear, operates mostly in remote areas away from the main roads
and lacks market and price information, and rarely use ice on board the fishing boats. Ice is the
most important FSC input in the country and it is sometimes used when transporting the artisanal
fish to the local markets. Also, some of the artisanal fish is salted and sun dried for human and
cattle and poultry feeding (e.g. coasts of south Yemen, and Oman). Poor cold chain in this
system is caused by lack of capital, lack of technical knowledge, poor quality of harvested fish
low prices and high likelihood for spoilage.
The small-scale commercial/semi-industrial system: Mostly, the FSC of this system is vertically
integrated with operational fishing fleets (vessels), cold stores, freezers on board and on the
shores; land fleets of refrigerated trucks, and processing plants. The systems are not uniform in
capacity and resources. While the small-scale commercial is not fully vertically integrated (e.g.
some smaller coastal fisheries use ice in the fishing vessels during transport), the larger (semi-
industrial) are vertically integrated and comply fully with the international food safety standards.
Causes of loss in this system vary according to the size and resources of the enterprises,
availability of government supported or owned internal fish transport cold vehicles; conditions at
retail and consumption.
The (industrial) high sea fisheries are very well equipped with modern gears and cold chain
capacities and the catch is normally destined for the export markets in full compliance with the
international standards of food safety and quality measures. The high sea operations are mostly
contracted to international companies such as the Japanese high see operations off the coast of
Yemen. Loss in this system is mainly at the retail and consumption level, in addition to culling
and sorting losses.
4.4. Strategies and actions for reduction of losses in the MENA region
The strategic thrust for reducing PHL in the MENA region must be based on a comprehensive
review of the economic, social, technical and biophysical environment of the region. Limited
natural resources and advancing climate change threats are compounding factors leading to food
deficit, which necessitates collective actions to achieve food security and self reliance through
reduction of food loss and food imports. The recent outbreak of the Avian Influenza in many
parts of the world and the present endemic situation in Egypt alerted about the extent of
weakness in the public sector and lack of awareness of the livestock producers. Poor gender
insensitive polices in most MENA countries ignore the role of women and miss the opportunity
of benefiting from their traditional knowledge and skills in raising livestock (especially small
ruminants, and poultry), manufacturing dairy products, storage and processing of animal source
food for daily consumption. Weak coordination of activities between the public health, the
veterinary services and the private entrepreneurs and local businesses are among the main
reasons for passage of poorly inspected and untreated animals to the abattoirs, slaughter slaps
and the retailer shelves.
The followings are highlights of general and commodity specific actions and strategies that could
assist in the reduction of waste and loss of animal source foods:
50
4.4.1 General (all ASFs)
Promote the development of effective value adding steps on the commodity value chain
(input, breeding, feeding, health improvement, technology adoption, market information,
micro-finance) that provide sufficient incentives to the producers through enhanced
competitiveness and access to markets;
Adopt better technologies to enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the FSC (processing,
transport, distribution and consumption);
Support growth in organized retail, which is the strongest driver for cold chain development;
Assure public/private sector collaboration and sharing of investment costs and risks along the
FSC. For example, the risk of spoilage could be mitigated by government owned cold
transport systems, private sector supported improved road infrastructure, micro credit, inputs
and market linkages;
Support the integration of the public (service providers) and private sectors in reducing food
loss as means of improving food availability, and thus reducing food insecurity;
Support research on how to build the capacity of the private sector to support the needs of the
small sector;
Raise the awareness of the traditional producers (smallholders, artisanal fishfolks, women
groups of backyard poultry producers, micro-credit based small dairy producers) about the
causes of PHLs, and enhance their capacity and knowledge about the best practices to reduce
loss;
Develop food loss information systems in each country. The system should be able to provide
national estimates of food waste and resources that could be used in order to reduce loss;
Study and monitor the implications of climate change specially on the smallholders ( e.g.
effect of water depletion in aquiculture) and develop options for mitigation and coping;
Provide micro-finance to assist the smallholders develop the infrastructure and resources
needed to reduce PHLs. Examples: weather forecast messages to fishfolks and pastoralists;
community supported rural roads, cold chains and other kinds of appropriate infrastructure
linking producer to markets;
Develop effective markets:
o develop the infrastructure needed to connect the producers to the markets
o develop market information and market linkages through ( e.g. cell-phone text
messages system);
o establish appropriate commodity grading;
o develop and enforce traceability laws, regulations and decrees ;
o ensure access of the ASF producers in the MENA region to certification of
products e.g. Cattle Certification Standards (RainForest Alliance - Sustainable
Agriculture Network –SAN- http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/de/node/506 that
assure and promote products that are environmentally friendly, assuring
compliance with food hygiene, observant to animal welfare, and observant to
FSC labour forces to humane treatment and reasonable wages;
Assure consumer health and food safety through:
o compliance with public health, food safety and other SPS requirements;
o policies and resources for control and prevention of transboundary animal
diseases (cross border control and certification and zoonotic. One novel policy
area is the adoption of the One Health approach (OH) that calls for intersectoral
cooperation between public and animal health institutions in order to assure
timely detection, prevention and control of zoonotic diseases emerging from the
contact between animals and humans;
51
o training and awareness building of the producers, FSC stakeholders about food
hygiene, handling and safety measures;
o animal feed improvement ( quality, safety e.g. dry fish feeding for cattle in
southern Yemen and the coast of Oman, preparation of fishmeal for poultry
feeding)
o Creation of salmonella free environments for the poultry sector; and mastitis free
environment for the dairy sector.
Develop and conduct education and awareness campaigns to enhance the knowledge of
the populations of the oil rich countries in MENA region of measures to reduce loss at
consumption stage e.g. appropriate portions and sizes, food purchasing skills, meal planning, use
of leftover, what is safe to eat, food discarding behavior, etc.
4.4.2 Commodity specific recommendations
Meats
Ensure the economic viability of the production phase and the delivery of reasonably priced
animals to the feedlots and abattoirs
Enhance the vertical integration of the FSC for animals entering from the traditional and
semi-commercial systems;
Assure the implementation of cross border legislations, border control regulations and pre
FSC quarantine procedures;
Advocate the One Health Concept of integrating and coordinating animal and human health
related activities at the fattening , abattoirs, transport and packaging faculties;
Develop strict and effective regulations that control the shelf life of meat in the local
butcheries and road side meat retailers;
Enhance awareness of quality and food safety of meat and the importance of veterinary
checkup, treatment of sick and proper destruction of dead animals.
Dairy
Increase the economic viability of the dairy production by assuring a cost-effective
competitive industry thorough value chain development, linkage to markets and quality
assurance of milk and milk products
Provide reliable and suitably priced cooling equipments and encourage of cooperatives and o
community based enterprises;
Maintain high levels of hygiene ;
Expand the development of vertically integrated FSC in the milk industry to achieve safe and
technically valid milk processing and distribution operations;
Assure quality and avoid mixing products (cooked with uncooked, chilled with frozen) in
storage and retail display cabinets.
Enhance awareness of the stakeholders in the Value Chain (from producers to consumers)
about appropriate handling and storage of chilled and frozen foods, and develop relevant training
materials and media campaign programmes.
Poultry
Assure salmonella free poultry production environment;
Raise awareness and build capacity of food quality control;
The shift from live to chilled poultry must be supported by the development of cold
storage systems within the FSC in each country. This is an important strategy to avoid pandemics
such as the Avian Flu (HPAI). This activity needs close collaboration between the private and
the public sectors;
52
Fish
Raise awareness among the fish industry stakeholders of the need to support to the
traditional (artisanal) and small fishing enterprises in order to assure the economic growth of the
rural communities, specially the poor, in many MENA countries ;
Enhance the capacity of the artisanal fishfolks to the need for improved fish handling,
processing, preservation and transportation;
Support the establishment of fishfolks community managed vertically integrated cold
chain as means of ensuring quality and safety of fish and fishery products;
Enhance the awareness of the traditional and small-scale fish producers with the various
steps in the FSC and the technical and logistical measures needed to assure food safety and
reduce PHLs;
Ensure coordination between fisheries enterprises, local nongovernmental organizations
and regional and international community
53
5. Socioeconomic factors affecting postharvest losses and food waste and
strategies for overcoming these factors
5.1. Introduction
Strategies for reducing postharvest losses and food waste include technical changes in practices
as well as policy development in the agro-industrial sector in the MENA region. Recommended
strategies will differ depending on the level of current development of institutional supports and
infrastructure, as well as scale of the operations and the type of food product. It is important to
consider all aspects of the agricultural value chain, from on-farm handling, processing and
storage practices, to transportation, food processing businesses, cold storage, food safety and
quality assurance, policies and education regarding value chain development, marketing, finance
and the business environment in order to identify the many factors affecting postharvest losses
and food waste. This section will outline the key socio-economic factors that affect adoption of
scale-appropriate improved practices for reducing postharvest losses and food waste, and
recommend strategies for overcoming them.
5.2 Agronomic crops
Strategies for reducing losses and waste of agronomic food crops include the following technical
practices: (1) drying to reduce moisture content to below 8 to 14%, depending on the product ;
(2) effective insect dis-infestation and protection against re-infestation; (3) storage temperature
management (storage potential doubles for every 5 ºC reduction in temperature); (4) maintaining
storage relative humidity in equilibrium with moisture content of the product to prevent growth
of molds; and (5) proper sanitation procedures to minimize microbial contamination and avoid
mycotoxin formation.
In the policy arena, international development organizations and governments should give
highest priority to improving storage facilities of agronomic food crops at the national, regional,
village, and household levels in all MENA countries.
5.3 Perishable foods
Losses of fruits, vegetables, dairy foods, meats and fish can be greatly reduce with application of
appropriate scale cold chain technologies and cold chain management strategies. Availability and
efficient use of the cold chain is much more evident in developed countries than in developing
countries, including MENA countries, but even in the USA, the initial use of refrigeration after
its introduction in the 1940s and 50s was hampered by its perceived high costs. Even when
people are convinced of the importance and cost effectiveness of the cold chain (which may take
education and capacity building efforts in the MENA region as a first step), a general lack of
modern infrastructure can hamper adoption and efficient utilization.
Unreliability of the power supply, lack of proper maintenance, and inefficiency of utilization of
cold storage and refrigerated transport facilities (leaving facilities underutilized for most of the
year) are among the reasons for failure of the cold chain in developing countries. Smaller scale
cooling solutions, such as the use of evaporatively cooled vehicles or cool storage chambers, and
the new CoolBot ™ unit for small-scale cold rooms (www.storeitcold.com) can help fill the gap
between ambient food handling and the development of a fully functional cold chain in the
MENA region. The cost of providing the cold chain per ton of produce depends on energy costs
54
plus utilization efficiency of the facilities throughout the year. So as food handlers involved in
agro-industry continue to improve their planning, processing, transport and storage systems in
order to establish year round production and processing operations, the cold chain will become
more and more practical and cost effective.
Strategies for reducing postharvest losses and waste of perishable foods in the MENA region
and other developing countries include: (1) application of current knowledge to improve the food
handling systems and assure food quality and safety; (2) removing the socioeconomic
constraints, such as inadequacies of infrastructure, poor storage facilities and marketing systems,
and weak research and development capacity; and (3) overcoming the limitations of small-scale
operations by encouraging consolidation and vertical integration among producers and marketers
of each commodity or group of commodities.
5.4. Costs and benefits of reducing postharvest losses and food waste
The following are eight examples of topics in which the application of current knowledge can
improve the food handling systems and assure food quality and safety. Each provides technical
and available financial details on highly recommended loss reduction interventions for food
crops.
5.4.1 Improved containers for postharvest handling and storage Cost effective hermetic storage methods for grains, legumes, dried nuts and seeds are available in
a wide range of sizes and shapes from 100 kg to 1000 MT. The technology is organic, pesticide
free and made of heavyweight PVC. The material used for the bag is completely waterproof/gas
tight and provides complete protection to the grain both from rain while preventing absorption of
moisture from the atmosphere"
Figure 5.1. GrainPro storage system for 1 MT of dried food product.
Source: http://www.grainpro.com/grainpro-grainsafe.php
The Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) bag is made from two inner high-density
polyethylene plastic bags and an outer nylon sack. Sold for about $2 each, the rugged bags can
be triple-tied, providing an airtight seal for long-term, pest-free storage." (Profiles of Progress,
Oct 2010)
55
Figure 5.2. Purdue University's improved cowpea storage system (PICS)
Source: http://purdueimprovedcowpeastorage.blogspot.com/
Many packages and containers commonly in use for handling perishable crops do not provide
any protection from crushing, bruising or water loss. Containers such as sacks and rough baskets
when used during transport or storage often leave produce damaged and subject to rapid
deterioration. Improved packages such as wooden crates or plastic crates will better protect
produce from damage and greatly reduce postharvest losses. In Afghanistan in 2006, plastic
crates when used for tomato transport and temporary cool storage, contributed to reducing
postharvest losses from 50% (when handled in cheap plastic sacks) to 5% (CNFA e-Newsletter
Issue No. 2 July 2006).
During the AERI-EL SHAMS USAID project in Egypt the benefits of using plastic crates for
French beans were calculated as compared to using sacks. Postharvest losses were reduced from
20% to 5%, wholesale market value was increased due to improved quality from 0.75 LE to 1
LE/kg, and relative profits increased by 325 LE per MT (Kitinoja, 2005). If plastic crates cost 25
LE each, the initial investment made in improved containers cost can be recovered in just a few
loads.
The recommendation for future agro-industrial projects is to identify an existing local container
with appropriate design characteristics or to design a new container that will be universally
acceptable, that can be readily manufactured at a reasonable price and be extended to all areas of
the MENA region. It is important to assess local interest in and capacity regarding the setting up
of systems for the efficient use of returnable crates – key issues remain to be resolved regarding
ownership, responsibility for cleaning between uses and choices of an exchange system or
deposit based system of shared use. A complete system will need to be developed to fit each
local situation and cultural preferences.
Liners for existing containers cost very little and provide protection from bruising, abrasions
and cuts. This practice has been successfully implemented in Egypt and Morocco, and was field
tested in India (Kitinoja, 2010).
56
Figure 5.3. Liner in palm rib crate in Egypt (illustration by Lisa Kitinoja)
Figure 5.4. Liner in wooden crate in Morocco (photo credit Lisa Kitinoja)
Fiberboard liners field tested in India in 2009 cost less than 20 US cents per set (separate cut-
outs were made to fit into the bottom and along the sides), and their use resulted in an immediate
positive return on investment. Oval shaped vents are better than round holes, since they are not
as likely to be plugged up and closed off by the produce. Bruising in guavas during transport was
reduced from 12.5% in unlined plastic crates to near 0% in plastic crates with liners (Kitinoja,
2010).
5.4.2 Providing shade to reduce temperature and provide a natural source of cooling
Shade can greatly reduce the temperature of any fresh produce that is being handled outdoors.
Early postharvest studies demonstrated the positive effect of shade on fresh produce, keeping it
cooler and reducing the rate of water loss. Rickard and Coursey (1979) measured pulp
temperatures in horticultural produce exposed to the sun of 3° to 10°C higher than that of the
ambient air temperature. Tomatoes and eggplant left in the sun for 1 hour after harvest will be at
least 15°C (25°F) hotter than fruit held in the shade (Thompson et al 2008).
Shading via market umbrellas is low cost and can easily be carried around and set up wherever
the wholesaler or farmer or retailer moves. The unit cost of an umbrella (about $15) is much
lower than using erected sheds or covers at various sites. In a field trail undertaken during the dry
season in Africa (Kitinoja, 2010), shade resulted in 50% reduction in weight loss for tomatoes.
There was greater decline in un-shaded fruits (8%) than shaded fruits (4%) during a 6 hour
57
exposure at market conditions. In the MENA regions' hot, dry climate, shade would have an
even greater influence on reducing losses.
Figure 5.6. Shade in the wholesale produce market in Irbil, Iraq (photo credit Hala Chahine)
5.4.3 Improved curing of root and tuber crops Curing root and tuber crops such as sweet potatoes and potatoes is an important practice if these
crops are to be stored for any length of time. Curing is accomplished by holding the produce at
high temperature and high relative humidity for several days during which harvesting wounds
heal and a new, protective layer of cells form. While curing can be initially time consuming and
requires energy for heating if field conditions do not permit natural curing, the long extension of
storage life makes the practice economically worthwhile.
5.4.4 Sanitation practices
Use of water disinfection methods and other sanitation procedures are essential for maintenance
of food safety. Any efforts to increase and/or improve food storage, food processing or food
exports to global markets require attention to achieving international standards of food safety
(GAPS, GMPs, HACCP).
5.4.5 Use of cost-effective cooling methods
Evaporative cooling is inexpensive and especially effective during the dry weather in the MENA
region. Evaporative cooling units, sometimes called “swamp coolers,” or “desert coolers”, use
the evaporation of water to produce cool air. Evaporative coolers have a low initial cost, and use
much less electricity than mechanical refrigeration systems. For desert or semi-arid climates, an
evaporative cooling unit can be substituted for a mechanical refrigeration unit, requiring only 12
volt or 24 volt power to run a small water pump and a fan. Cooling to a few degrees above the
wet bulb temperature is possible. Evaporative cooling is more energy efficient at lower fan
speeds and colder air temperatures at lower ambient relative humidity levels (Thompson 2008;
Winrock 2009; Kitinoja and Thompson 2010).
During the CEDARS-Plus USAID project in Lebanon the costs of cooling cucumbers were
calculated to be approximately US$2 per metric ton. Postharvest losses were reduced from 7% to
58
3%, wholesale market value was US$0.33/kg, and relative profits increased by US$10.80 per
MT (Kitinoja, 2005).
5.4.6 Effective insect control
Insect control requires dis-infestation and protection against re-infestation. Typically this
requires the use of pesticides as sprays, powders or fumigants. Hot water treatments can also be
used for postharvest treatments of some crops such as mangoes (for fruit fly control). Simple,
easy to make, low cost gadgets have been developed for trapping insects in grain storage silos
and bins (http://www.ciphet.in/upload/file/Gadgets[1].pdf) .
5.4.7 Low cost storage methods
Refrigerated storage structures are relatively expensive to build and operate, and most small
famers do not have access to these facilities. There are a few low energy methods that can be
used to help reduce the temperature in storage and keep produce in better condition for a longer
period of time than typically encountered in the MENA region.
Evaporatively cooled storage
The low cost cooling chamber illustrated below is constructed from locally made clay bricks.
The cavity between the walls is filled with clean sand and the bricks and sand are kept saturated
with water. Fruits and vegetables are loaded inside, and the entire chamber is covered with a rush
mat, which is also kept moist. During the hot summer months, this chamber can maintain an
inside temperature between 15 and 18 °C (59 and 65 °F) and a relative humidity of about 95%.
The original developers of this technology in at IARI in India called it a "Zero-Energy Cool
Chamber" (ZECC) because it uses no external energy. The cost for construction of the small unit
in India was $200, the cost for a large walk-along unit was $1000 and the cost of the commercial
sized unit is estimated to be $8,000. Results are best when the relative humidity conditions
outside the ZECC are low, as during the dry season or in semi-arid regions.
Figure 5.7. Design for a walk-along ZECC unit of 1MT capacity (Kitinoja, 2010)
59
CoolBot tm
equipped cold room
Recently a US company has developed an easily installed controller that prevents ice build-up
but does not require modifying the control system of the air conditioner (Cool-bot tm
, Store It
Cold, LLC, http://storeitcold.com). A room air conditioner and Cool-bot tm
control system
currently costs about 90% less than a commercial refrigeration system. The control system is
designed so that any moisture condensed on the refrigeration coils is returned to the cold room
air and the system will therefore cause less product moisture loss than the commercial
refrigeration system. Total construction and operating costs will vary widely depending on local
labor costs and cost of electricity. Postharvest losses can be greatly reduced with the use of cold
storage, but the ROI for any specific operation will depend largely upon the market value of the
commodities being stored.
5.4.8 Improved small scale food processing methods
Small scale food processing can be carried out on or near the farm or in rural villages, and can be
a great source of jobs while helping to reduce food losses. The UNFAO has published many food
processing manuals and the Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division (AGS) provides
online access to a library of documents on food processing methods, including solar drying,
combined methods for canning/bottling and more (http://www.fao.org/inpho) in English, French
and Spanish.
Solar drying of horticultural crops
Direct solar drying can result in quality problems and damage when produce overheats, gets wet
or is contaminated by insects or other common pests. Simple improvements such as raising the
produce up off the ground and putting trays or mats on a platform, and using thin cloth to cover
the trays or mats will have positive results at low cost.
The indirect nature of the improved drying process illustrated below is less likely to cause
problems due to overheating, and protects the produce from dust, insects and unexpected rain.
There are many such units in use around the world, but most are poorly designed and result in
new problems due to their size (too large or too small), interior design (poor air flow, high static
pressures), cheap materials (plastic sheeting break down and quickly becomes opaque) and lack
of temperature control (too slow drying can allow fungi to attack exposed surfaces). Simple
modifications of existing indirect and semi-direct solar drier designs can provide a uniform,
efficient, low cost design that is sturdy and appropriate for the MENA region.
Figure 5.8. Cross section of an indirect solar drier cabinet.
60
5.5. General socio-economic factors affecting food losses/food waste
There are a wide range of cultural, economic and educational demographics or characteristics
that fall into the wider category of socio-economic factors that can affect whether or not
postharvest technical solutions can be applied by the intended audiences after training and
development efforts.
Factors include:
Small farm versus large scale enterprise
Farm type – subsistence versus market oriented
Land ownership versus land lease or share-cropper status
Educational level (includes literacy, basic math skills)
Gender related roles and workload
Occupation (skilled versus unskilled)
Standard of living (related to household size, general wealth, general health)
Social rank, prestige, social linkages, social network, exposure, autonomy (often related
to ethnicity, religion, and educational level)
Each of these factors can be inter-related with the others, for example, as when lower literacy
limits access entry into skilled occupations, or when lack of land ownership limits the ability to
increase farm size in response to market demand for food. In general, smaller farm size,
subsistence oriented farms, share-cropper status, lower levels of education and female gender
status each will be positively related to tendencies toward holding unskilled jobs, having lower
standard of living, lower household income and lower social rank or prestige (European
Commission, 2001). By assisting agricultural producers to move toward market-oriented
farming or ranching, and to develop improved reading and numeracy skills, producers will gain
the opportunity to improve their incomes, standard of living, social status, general wealth and
health.
Socio-economic factors can play a major role for determining the proper approach that each
country should follow to reduce the losses in fresh fruit and vegetables (Table 5.1). Latest
studies revealed that although MENA countries are net importers of food, they have a high future
potential in the global agribusiness (Galvez, 2010). As indicated in table 5.2, there are several
different business regulations in MENA countries which may affect the quantity and quality of
food exports, and which may have implications on postharvest losses during export or import. As
examples, Egypt reduced the cost and time to start a business and made trading easier by
introducing an electronic system for submitting export and import documents. Jordan enhanced
its credit system and abolished certain taxes and made it possible to file income and sales tax
returns electronically. Tunisia introduced the use of electronic systems for tax payment and
upgraded its electronic data system for imports and exports, speeding up the assembly of import
documents.
61
Table 5.1. Examples of socio-economic statistics in Middle East & North Africa (MENA) MENA Egypt Jordan Tunisia
Total Population, 2009 330,892,543 82,999,393 5,951,000 10,432,500
Urban population (% of total), 2009 58 43 78 67
Land area (sq. km) --- 995,450 88,240 155,360
GDP (US$), 2009 1,062,418,867,027 188,412,876,658 25,092,339,119 39,560,912,390
GDP per capita (US$), 2009
3,211
2,070
4,216
3,792
Exports of goods and services (% of
GDP), 2009
38.2 (in 2007) 25 43.5 52
Agriculture, value added (% of
GDP), 2009
10.6 (in 2007) 13.7 2.9 7.8
Agricultural land (% of land area),
2008
23 3.6 11 63.6
Crop production index (1999-2001 =
100), 2009
127.3 136 --- 119
Food production index (1999-2001 =
100), 2009
131.6 139 156 115
Employment in agriculture (% of
total employment)
--- 31.2 (2008) 3.6 (2003) 25.8 (1989)
Agriculture value added per worker
(constant 2000 US$), 2009
2896.2 (2007) 3024.2 3024.2
3602.4
Source: The World Bank (2011)
Table 5.2. Examples for business regulations in Middle East & North Africa (MENA)
MENA Egypt Jordan Tunisia
Ease of doing business (Score from 1 - 183, with first place
being the highest) --- 94 111 55
Time to start a business (Score from 1 - 77 days)
20
7
13
11
Procedures to start a business (Score from 1 - 14, fewest is
a benchmark)
8.1 6 8 10
Cost to start a business (% of income per capita)
38
6.3
44.6
5
Total tax rate (% of profit), lowest tax rate is
a benchmark
32.8
42.6
31.2
62.8
Number of Documents required to export, fewest is a
benchmark
6.4 6 7 4
Number of days required before an entrepreneur can
20.4
12
14
13
62
export, least time is a benchmark
Cost to export (US$ per container), lowest is a benchmark
1048.9
613 825 773
Number of Documents required to import, fewest is a
benchmark 7.5 6 7 7
Number of days required before an entrepreneur can
import, least time is a benchmark 24.2 12 18
17
Cost to import (US$ per container), lowest is a benchmark 1229.3 698 1335 858
Source: Doing Business (2011)
Despite recent improvement, there are still a lot of reported drags on the food system and gaps in
the development of agricultural value chains. Table 5.3 summarizes some of these, which include
a variety of governmental, professional, financial, community and private sector factors.
Table 5.3. Self-reported socio-economic issues, drags and gaps faced by selected MENA
countries in the agro-industrial sector
Syria Algeria Jordan Morocco Lebanon
Governmental monopolies in sector x
Limited infrastructure x x x x
Lack of needed skills x x x
Lack of strong professional orgs,
marketing orgs
x x x
Need more investment in agro R&D x x x x
Need to remove blocking factors x x x x x
Need better coordination of efforts x x x x x
Need to focus on gender issues x
Need to adopt community based
approaches
x x x
Need to take a value chain approach x x
Need to focus on food safety x x
Need to provide finance policy reforms x x x x
Need improved market information
systems
x x
Source: FAO country reports on Agribusiness & Agro-Industries. Syria (2009); Algeria
(2009); Jordan (2009); Morocco (no date); Lebanon (2009)
In Egypt and most of the MENA region, there is a cultural bias against women working after
marriage, existing primarily at rural lower socio-economic levels (Jabarin, 2002). Targeting
young women in agricultural education and training programs will allow them to break out of
their traditional gender roles if they so desire, and allow them to move into entrepreneurial roles,
including occupations involving improved postharvest handling, food processing, warehousing
and distribution logistics as well as marketing.
63
A summary of the many socio-economic and cultural factors affecting implementation of
changes in postharvest technology aimed at reducing food waste along the value chain is
provided in table 5.4. How best to address these factors while taking into account the social and
cultural norms of the MENA region is a key element in any agro-industrial development plan.
Specifics will vary by country and by food product, so a first step will be to characterize the local
food sector development needs on a case by case basis.
Table 5.4. Socio-economic and cultural factors affecting implementation of changes in
postharvest technology aimed at reducing food waste along the value chain
Category Related Factors
Identifying scale
appropriate technology
(potential solutions)
Availability of scale-appropriate technical solutions to food loss
problems
Profitability of the postharvest technology (costs versus benefits)
Understanding the value chain and its actors and decision makers
Technology fit with local skills of handlers
Technology fit with existing commodity system (i.e., handling
methods, distribution system, infrastructure, intended markets)
Governmental regulation
Price supports or controls, incentives or disincentives
Existing fee structures for common packages, transport, or storage
services
Social or cultural
norms that can restrict
adoption
Cultural barriers (gender, religion, local customs, traditions, beliefs)
Competing responsibilities (i.e., political or community service,
social obligations, water bearing, child care, home-based tasks)
Consumer demands and preferences (definitions of food quality vary
by culture)
Utilization of food “losses” for other purposes (i.e., animal feed,
poverty relief programs, composting)
Environmental concerns (Is the technology reusable/recyclable? or
will it be a source of pollution?)
Effects on jobs (the technology may displace workers)
Access to business networks (farmer organizations or trade
associations)
Appropriate training,
education and/or
instruction
Availability of local postharvest educational and training programs
Effectiveness of extension services (public or private), linkages with
research centers
Extension workers‟ level of knowledge and skills in postharvest
technology and/or food processing
Differences in access to existing services (women vs. men, small- vs.
large-scale enterprises, subsistence vs. market oriented, farmers‟
marketing cash crops vs. food crops)
Availability of and access to market information (reliability,
timeliness, cost, literacy rates, mobile phone access)
Labor/workforce (who
will implement the
change?)
Seasonal changes in labor supply, labor shortages
Availability of trained personnel for harvesting, packing, processing
and other skilled jobs
64
Category Related Factors
Motivation and loyalty of the workforce - do workers care about food
waste?
Incentives for using improved technologies
Postharvest equipment,
supplies, fuel
Local availability of supplies, spare parts, tools, and equipment.
Costs and availability of materials, fuel, maintenance.
Reliability of supply of raw materials (for packing or processing).
Reliability of supply of electricity.
Supporting
infrastructure
Existence and condition of roads.
Availability of cooling, storage, transportation, and marketing
facilities.
Location and size of existing facilities.
Access to existing facilities.
Institutional linkages (i.e., communication between research and
extension).
Government investment priorities in facilitating services.
Budget for maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Availability of staff with management skills for running facilities.
Condition of communications systems (telephone, mail, FAX, e-mail
services).
Marketing system Availability of marketing options and alternative outlets.
Existence of grades and standards
Direct sales vs. consignment (Who is responsible for losses? Who
suffers financially?).
Degree of cooperation and coordination among buyers and/or sellers
along the value chain.
Establishment and viability of marketing cooperatives.
Reliability of recordkeeping to help trace problems back to sources.
Market information Availability of resources for collecting and analyzing data.
Reliability of information.
Timeliness of information.
Financial factors Availability of credit for various socio-economic groups.
Collateral requirements for loans
Prevailing interest rates
Existence, fairness and enforcement of contracts
Availability of and access to insurance (for crop loss, business
liability, marketing losses)
Source: Kitinoja and Kasmire (2002) Modified from Table 3.
5.6. Strategies for overcoming socio-economic drags and gaps
5.6.1. Policy focus
Despite the established facts regarding measured postharvest losses and recent reports on high
levels of global food waste, still very little mention is made of "post-harvest" aspects of
agriculture in major new reports on farming or small and medium scale enterprise (SME) policy
65
coming from international donors and grant-makers. Recent examples include the FAO's State
of Food and Agriculture 2010-11 and IFPRI's Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to
2050: Scenarios, results and policy options, which when searched provide no references to
postharvest problems, issues, opportunities or policy options.
Whenever policies are specified, there appears to be a recurring bias against small-scale farmers
and enterprises. While the vast majority of food producers, traders and marketers are small-
scale, the evidence demonstrates biases toward pro-urban poor and pro-larger scale agri-
businesses. One example from the USAID/ATUT project was the decision to work with large
horticultural growers in the Horticultural Export Improvement Association (HEIA) in Egypt in
the early 2000s (Taylor et al 2002), perhaps because it was easier to get measurable results when
working with a few large scale farmers. According to the Final Evaluation Report, "The Ronco
team, which was responsible for bringing in much of the project technology, under a direct
contract with USAID, worked primarily with larger growers and grower-exporters, since these
growers were best positioned to immediately apply the new technologies in order to expand
exports." (Taylor, 2002; p. 5)
Recently the focus in the MENA region has moved toward establishment of food-parks or food
processor clusters which "consists of developing competitive food hotspots by promoting
technopoles and other mechanisms of concentration of agricultural/agro-industrial activity"
(Galvez (2010). These efforts require consolidation of smaller scale enterprises into large
"clusters" where costs of needed infrastructure can be shared and mutually desired benefits such
as improved linkages for export marketing can be pursued jointly. Galvez (2010, p. 64), when
recommending best practices, writes "Governments should promote the inclusion of SMEs in
agropoles and should be able to forge alliances with large firms without compromising support
for small agro-industries. This principle is of great importance, because global food firms do not
necessarily foster and support the SME upgrading process (World Bank, 2005)."
5.6.2. Institutional strengthening
Universities and research centers in the MENA region deal with mainly with agricultural
production and basic research. Young professionals have limited exposure to existing
practical/field based knowledge, networks of scientists, conferences, journals due to the high
costs of participation. National and regional networks should be encouraged, and young
agricultural professionals should be invited to join global professional networking groups such as
those found on LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com ) or ResearchGate (www.researchgate.net ).
Participation on most of these social media sites is free of charge, and requires only occasional
internet access.
Extension services and private sector NGOs working at the farm level in the MENA region are
not well connected to the research/university establishment. These extension education
programs are still mostly focused on production issues (such as fertilizers, water use, pest mgmt
for increasing yields, etc) and rarely take on postharvest topics. ICARDA in Syria considered
adding a horticultural focus to their existing mandate in 2005, and with it a postharvest
component, and while response from their scientists and target audiences was positive, the idea
was nor pursued after the change of Director Generals. Kitinoja et al (2011) recommended that
"Establishing a Postharvest Working Group in each country can be very useful in providing a
66
forum for communications among all those concerned with postharvest biology and technology
research and extension. The next step is to establish a link among the various Postharvest
Working Groups in each region to facilitate exchange of information and regional collaboration
on training and other areas of mutual interest." (p. 601.)
Within the institutional strengthening theme, there is a sub-topic that is very important in the
MENA region. Gender issues confound agricultural development efforts, as many small
producers, farm workers and food processing laborers are women, while most extension workers
are men. Cultural taboos can make it difficult for men to work directly with the women who
need to learn about improved practices and technologies. It is recommended therefore that
MENA countries try to increase women's access to undergraduate and advanced degree
education, post-docs, scholarships, fellowships, and other professional training programs, in
order to develop a large cadre of women agricultural extension workers. Especially important for
the future is the strategy of encouraging more women in the MENA region to become
postharvest specialists, food processing specialists and cold chain management specialists.
5.6.3. Market development
A recent study for ICARDA (Abou-Hadid et al, 2005) identified a set of 19 marketing
constraints which affect agro-industrial development for plant foods in the CWANA region.
Many of these same problems and constraints are in evidence in the MENA regions for all types
of foods today.
" Absence of a sound marketing strategy;
Lack of enthusiasm of private investors to invest in marketing development related
projects. This is mainly due to the risk involved in this kind of business and the lack of
vertical integration among producers, processors and exports combined with high risk in
marketing and distribution system;
The low income of producers is a result of the unclear identification of the opportunities
offered by many of high value products to promote development;
Absence of regulations relating to grading, standards, and packaging materials for local
and export markets;
Inadequate extension and training services at both production and marketing levels;
Lack of effective market research and market information system;
Lack of experience in pre and post harvest technologies;
Irregularity of supply of plant products, in quantity and quality;
Absence of any sort of market organization such associations or cooperatives resulting in
a very limited lobbying ability to develop the industry.
Absence of product development opportunities as a result of limited access to sufficient
plant stocks;
Limited skills in the sustainable use of medicinal plant resources,
Limited production initiatives in the region;
Inadequate extension and training services at the production level;
There is little knowledge of the financial opportunities in cultivating and managing high
value crops for export markets;
Lack of detailed technical and economic information on products demanded, timing,
quality, forms…etc, both in local and export markets;
Lack of coordination among the market players;
67
Insufficient information available to producers and exporters on issues related to
international agreements such as EU-MED partnership agreements, WTO, the intellectual
property rights and other bilateral trade agreements;
Poorly developed business skills in international trade creating limitations for developing
the export industry; and
Strong competition in terms of price and quality with other suppliers in the importing
markets." (Hadid et al, 2005; p. 30)
A SWOT analyses conducted between the ATUT and AERI projects in Egypt provided a few
more examples of socio-economic issues related to market development, where one of the
weaknesses was described as "Imbalance in the relative influence between small farmers and
traders over costs, prices and marketing decisions." (Jabarin, 2002).
5.6.3.1. Exports versus domestic markets: When developing new markets, socio-economic
issues arise when deciding whether to target exports versus domestic markets. When focusing on
exports, small farmers or producers can lack access due to food safety issues in fields/packing
houses/abattoirs/ processing facilities. Small-scale producers also may have an inability to meet
grades/standards, and have relatively high costs for packaging, cooling and transport. In general
they lack contact with key buyers, and lack knowledge of contracting, insurance, customs
procedures, etc.
Since grades and standards for most export markets are set high, there is a major problem with
what happens to culls (products below export grade). If these sub-standard products are dumped
on the local market, prices for the other suppliers can plunge to levels that lead to financial
losses.
When focusing on domestic market development, there are more opportunities for small scale
grower/shippers. If they are willing to take on more responsibilities of packing, processing,
transport and/or marketing to a variety of customers they can reap more of the benefits. Potential
customers include wholesale markets in different cities, hotels, restaurants, food service industry,
processors, etc. Established grades and standards, while often lacking in MENA countries, would
enhance communication across cultures and locales, making it possible to speak on the telephone
to carry out business transactions for an agreed upon price and quality. International standards
exist and could be adopted in the MENA region, but these were developed mostly for the USA
and EU, and may not suit domestic MENA markets.
5.6.3.2. Producer, marketing or trade associations: Many have called for development of
farmers associations (or similar associations of for producers, traders, cold chain operators,
processors, marketers, etc) as these types of organizations can help improve access to markets
(Kitinoja et al., 2011). But an important socio-economic issue involves whether smallholder
growers/SME agri-businesses will have access to these associations. Access and participation
rates may depend upon literacy rates of target groups, their access to credit, lack of management
skills, etc. A recent assessment undertaken by WFLO (Kitinoja, 2010) reported that most of the
100 small-holder farmer organizations formed during the USAID AERI project in Upper Egypt
during 2004-07 are currently non-functional due to poor management and the lack of access to
technical support after the project ended.
68
Ton (2008, p.1) summarized the many issues and dilemmas for smallholder organizations when
they attempt to enter the commercial sector. There are many examples of technical solutions that
are economically feasible but are not being used to reduce losses. "Postharvest research has
traditionally focused on factors related to production, handling and storage that influence the
quality or quantity of the product in the downstream market. Many factors that define product
quality are in the realm of individual household production, but a whole range of postharvest
technologies have been developed to fit collective marketing arrangements including: procedures
for quality assurance, delaying quality deterioration during storage or improving processing
technologies. However, these technologies do not work independent of the social context: they
are used in a specific division of labour between chain actors, with specific rules for contracting
and control of these tasks, and in a context of (perceived) risks, costs and benefits." Mansfield
(2005) wrote, "Informal and formal rules influence the possibilities of finding workable
arrangements around these technologies, so farmers may decide to make use of or to refrain from
using these technologies. Many postharvest technologies and collective processing facilities have
been abandoned because the institutional arrangement proved not to be resilient enough to cope
with tensions in local cultures, changing donor support or the lack of trust within the group."
5.6.3.3. Value chain approach: Value chain development including the determination of roles
and responsibilities of all the players in the chain is currently a popular concept. Using a value
chain approach can help identify key actors and issues, especially those related to cultural and
socio-economics, policy and finance. Using this approach takes a trained leader, and someone
who can help the value chain participants determine the potential for shared costs and shared
benefits. Historically, however, it has been difficult to convince people to share costs (such as
for improved packaging or cooling) if only one player in the value chain reaps the benefits (such
as the retail marketer or final buyer). The value chain approach was considered a necessary tool
for assessing postharvest losses, since while at any one point along the supply chain losses may
appear small, the cumulative figure across the entire value chain could be quite significant (FAO,
2010). Training focused on the value chain can also help build trust among the actors along the
chain, as they begin to better understand one another's roles.
5.6.3.4. Business development services (BDS): BDS should be developed to provide support
for market development. These services should include training and exposure to formal
contracts, and communication practices for improving marketing linkages. Access may depend
upon literacy rates of target groups so special considerations should be given to how small
producers and SMEs can participate in BDS programs. Legislative support may also need to be
advocated for BDS to succeed, for example, it may be necessary to remove existing marketing
disincentives.
5.6.4. Market information
The objective for developing and utilizing market information systems (MIS) is to provide
increased transparency of prices in different markets. If all the players, large and small, have
access to the same information at the same time, then it will level the playing field.
Socio-economic issues can affect smallholder access, for example, when the high cost of
information makes access more difficult. There are also issues of whether MIS systems are
based upon public or private sources of information, and whether these are reliable, accurate and
69
timely. Private sources of MIS tend to score well on these factors, but can be very costly, while
public sector generated MIS can be less expensive but may be inaccurate or published too late to
be useful to the marketer.
The Future of Food and Farming report (Foresight, 2011) recommends a set of related
infrastructure, financial and market reforms to reduce waste. "The use of information and
communication technology (mobile phones in particular) could help improve market information
and allow producers to make better decisions about timely supply to markets to achieve best
prices, avoiding or at least reducing seasonal gluts and product waste, particularly during months
of peak production. Better financial support for smallholder farmers would allow them to store
produce rather than sell when prices are at their lowest. Better information about fisheries stocks,
fishing activities, surveillance and market prices could improve value, reduce or improve usage
of by-catch, and reduce gluts by allowing stocks to be fished more steadily over longer time
periods." (Foresight, 2011)
5.6.5. Infrastructure
5.6.5.1. Basic: Regarding basic infrastructure (roads, power, water, etc), the scale of need is
often too large for individual investors, and so requires public sector investment. Because it is
difficult if not impossible to process staple foods or store perishable foods without reliable power
and water, government assistance in these key areas is a prerequisite to further agro-industrial
development. Since it is difficult to market perishable foods without paved roads suitable for
large vehicles connecting production areas with ports or domestic city centers, roads are the third
major investment required for the public sector.
Processing facilities are the purview of the private sector, although agro-technodes or food parks
can be promoted or supported by the public sector. The general lack of these facilities is often
cited as a cause of high food losses in developing countries. In many situations the local food
processing industry simply does not have the capacity to process and preserve enough foods to
be able to meet consumer demand. According to Gustavsson et al (2011, p. 12), "…part of the
problem stems from the seasonality of production and the cost of investing in processing
facilities that will not be used year-round." Their recommendation for preventing the problem is
to "develop contract farming linkages between processors and farmer. Governments should
create a better „enabling environment‟ and investment climate, to stimulate the private sector to
invest in the food industry and to work more closely with farmers to address supply issues."
5.6.5.2. Markets and marketing facilities: Gustavsson et al (2011) FAO report on global food
losses also mentions inadequate market systems. Kader (2005) and others have indicated that
poor marketing systems are a major cause of high food losses in developing countries as a major
factor in food losses. To minimize losses, the commodities produced by farmers need to reach
the consumers in an efficient way. There are too few wholesale, supermarket and retail facilities
providing suitable storage and sales conditions for food products. Wholesale and retail markets
in developing countries are often small, overcrowded, unsanitary and lacking cooling equipment
(Kader, 2005). The recommendations provided by Gustavsson et al (2011, p. 13) for preventing
these problems are "Marketing cooperatives and improved market facilities. Marketing
cooperatives are organizations providing a central point for assembling produce from small
farmers and preparing commodities for transportation to markets and other distribution channels.
70
The marketing cooperatives should be able to reduce food losses by increasing the efficiency of
these activities. Although the development of wholesale and retail markets should preferably be
done by the private sector, local governments and marketing cooperatives can be instrumental in
establishing and improving market facilities (Kader, 2005)."
5.6.5.3. Cold chain development: The cold chain is a well-known method for reducing food
losses and food waste, and has long been promoted by established organizations such as The
International Institute of Refrigeration (www.iifiir.org), The World Food Logistics Organization
(www.wflo.org) and the Global Cold Chain Alliance (www.gcca.org). The required
investments, however, are generally lacking in the MENA region. HEIA in Egypt has made
large scale investments in pre-cooling facilities for strawberries and a perishables handling cargo
facility at the Cairo airport, but plans for similar facilities in Luxor have stalled because of a lack
of an integrated cold chain between Upper Egyptian farms and the proposed airport facilities.
There is always a question regarding the feasibility and timing of large versus small scale cold
chain development. Small producers have little hope of significant participation in the value
chain if they lack access to the most basic cold chain practices, such as cooling, cold storage or
cold transport. If investments are made in cold chain development, it is important to consider the
costs and benefits, as well as issues of ownership. If small producers, traders and marketers
cannot get access to credit at a reasonable interest rate they will have little or no chance of
investing in the cold chain or sharing in any potential benefits. Without financial services and
policy support, small scale food producers and processors will continue to struggle with their
efforts to make the many investments needed to complete the cold chain:
On the farm or ranch (where a cooler or cold store would provide more time for
marketing after the harvest)
Cold transportation from the production area to the processor or markets
Temporary or long term cold storage
Processing (freezing to preserve perishable foods)
Cold transport to markets
During marketing at retail
Major investments in cold chain equipment and practices, usually made by large companies or
governmental agencies to support export marketing, can later be used for domestic marketing.
Smallholders may be able to rent the use of cold chain facilities or transport vehicles on an as
needed basis.
5.6.6. Financial factors
The major financial factors affecting adoption of improved postharvest practices or technologies
involve contracts and access to credit. Legal contracts are a minefield of issues, starting with
whether or not legal contracts are in use, and if they exist, many issues of fairness, transparency
and enforcement can arise. Traditional contracts may be of the "handshake" variety, so business
development efforts need to promote more standardized and enforceable practices.
Credit is another complex issue, beginning with whether credit is available for rural enterprises
at all, and if so, what the prevailing terms, interest rates, and collateral needs may be. When
71
credit at reasonable interest rates is not available to small farmers food may be lost due to
premature harvesting (Gustavsson et al 2011). "Poor farmers sometimes harvest crops too early
due to food deficiency or the desperate need for cash during the second half of the agricultural
season. In this way, the food incurs a loss in nutritional and economic value, and may get wasted
if it is not suitable for consumption." Their recommendation for preventing this problem is
"Organizing small farmers and diversifying and up-scaling their production and marketing.
Small resource-poor farmers can be organized in groups to produce a variety of significant
quantities of cash crops or animals. In this way they can receive credit from agricultural financial
institutions or advance payments from buyers of the produce." (Gustavsson et al 2011, p.10)
Collateral requirements may push small producers out of the value chain, since what is accepted
as collateral may mean only land owners are accepted into loan programs. The exclusion of
smallholders can also be an issue in crop insurance schemes, since they may not have title to the
land, or may not have a long history on one plot.
Finally, business planning and financial planning (including taxes and inheritance issues) are
often out of the realm of the smaller-holder, with the efforts of one generation fading away upon
their retirement or death, while large scale business enterprises can incorporate, and pass the
business and any accumulated wealth more easily to the next generation.
5.6.7. R&D for technology upgrading
Both basic and applied research studies on improved postharvest technologies for agro-industrial
development are needed, but applied research has better chances for quicker utilization to solve
current problems. Applied or adaptive research should focus upon new applications of existing
technologies used to reduce food waste, and seek new locales for successful technologies
currently being used elsewhere.
There is a need to resolve priorities regarding large scale versus small-scale. It can be argued
that large scale commercial enterprises can afford to pay their own way, hire consultants, and run
in-house R&D departments. Small-scale producers, processors and marketers, however, are
typically in need of public sector support. The goal when upgrading R&D is for technologies to
be gender neutral (although current global push is for increased focus on women) and scale
appropriate. Different strategies and technologies therefore may be needed for subsistence
producers versus market oriented target groups.
5.6.8. Capacity building and training
In much of the published literature on postharvest problems and solutions, there seems to be a
professional bias towards technical solutions and the dissemination of expert knowledge, while
the overall complexity of the transfer and adaptation of technologies by target audiences is
ignored (Yahia 2005). Vellema and Danse (2007) stated that "the pattern of development in
agri-food chains reinforces a unidirectional technology transfer model that has been seriously
questioned."
Any and all efforts to promote specific postharvest practices or potential innovations for
reducing food losses also requires training to make sure the potential users have a solid starting
point. Clark et al (2003) promote the concept of postharvest innovation systems, in which the
72
more iterative research process itself is used for capacity building. Rather than a top-down
educational program where learners are meant to listen to and absorb prepared packages of "best
practices", an innovation systems approach allows them to learn about potential solutions, try
these out on a small scale, assess the results of their efforts, and then use these results to make
changes and further adaptations or innovations.
There are many potential levels of information use – from awareness, knowledge, to application,
and adaption – and there are many potential innovation strategies that learners can use to solve
new postharvest handling problems as they arise. Starting with young people (in vocational
education programs), and especially targeting at-risk youth and the rural poor, can help provide
job skills that will be important in the future when the MENA region has begun to promote
efforts to reduce food losses and food waste. Capacity building efforts that target women can
assist them to improve their socio-economic status as well as their educational level, according to
a recent "Women in Agriculture Programme" impact assessment (Sabo, 2006).
A review of cold chain development points out that "Even in many regions or sites where
adequate infrastructure is available, overall knowledge of proper cold chain practices,
maintenance (including availability of spare parts), and applications are weak in most of the
developing world, and it is generally worst in facilities owned or operated by government than in
facilities owned or operated privately" (Yahia, 2010). Yahia (2010) also reports, "There has
been reasonable growth in cold chain infrastructure in Morocco, Egypt, and lately in Libya, but
in all [developing countries] there is still major room for growth and much great efforts to
improve capacity training to form better technicians and to improve applications."
A recent review article on research, extension and advocacy needs in postharvest technology in
developing countries states: "Extension efforts and training needs differ by target group, and
there are often difficulties in reaching smallholder farmers, women, youth, middlemen/traders
and processors. Traders and middlemen have been generally ignored although they have a large
impact on the final quality of fresh produce and its potential market value. Future extension
efforts should seek to include this group of men and women in programs aimed at reducing
postharvest handling losses. Reaching women may be easier if training workshops were offered
in or near the markets where they sell produce and/or shop for food. Extension programs should
be planned around their free time and provide child care to allow them to better focus on the
information and participate more actively" (Kitinoja et al 2011, p. 599).
Topics of priority focus should include:
Basic practices for reducing food losses
Technical subjects (postharvest handling, refrigeration/cold storage, transport, food
processing, food safety, etc)
Value chain development (processes and practices)
Management topics (managing labor, equipment, finances, risk, marketing, etc)
Logistics (interactive complexities of managing a system)
Engineering (including design, modifications, repairs, maintenance)
Education and awareness campaigns are also needed to enhance the knowledge of the
populations of the oil rich countries in MENA region of measures to reduce loss at the
73
consumption stage. Topics such as appropriate portions and sizes, food purchasing skills, meal
planning, use of leftover foods, what is safe to eat, use-by dates on packaged foods, food
discarding behavior, etc. can all be targeted in order to decrease behaviors associated with food
waste.
An FAO (2005) workshop summarized some of the training needs for grain crops: (1) Provide
training to farmers and storage system operators in post harvest handling and pre-conditioning of
products (i.e. threshing, drying, sorting); and (2) Provide training to farmer organizations, NGOs
and private companies in manufacturing, maintenance and management of storage facilities.
Similar lists can be made for every other food product, whether fresh, processed or frozen.
Capacity building efforts need to consider many of the socio-economic issues and factors known
to affect the readiness and ability to adopt improved handling and agro-processing practices.
These include:
Educational levels (literacy, numeracy)
Scale appropriateness (expected cost: benefit ratio and ROI for users)
Gender neutral programs (and/or those targeting women specifically)
Training needs of both skilled and/or unskilled labor
A variety of capacity building efforts in postharvest technology have been undertaken recently in
the MENA region, including FAORNE's training of 25 postharvest specialists (2002-03), AERI-
EL SHAMS study tours for Egyptian extension workers and leaders of farmers organizations
(2004-07), training of 12 postharvest trainers (ToT) programs in Lebanon under CEDARS-PLUS
(2006-07) and USTDA sponsored study tours for MENA participants (WFLO 2009-10), plus
several new capacity building programs under development by FAORNE. These efforts,
however, have been piecemeal at best, and to date lack any follow-up after the completion of
training.
Figure 5.9. Demonstration of the effects of simple packaging on reducing water loss during
CEDARS-Plus study tour visit to UC Davis postharvest laboratories (photo credit Lisa Kitinoja)
74
Capacity-building efforts undertaken in postharvest technology in MENA countries must be
more comprehensive, and include technical knowledge on handling practices, research skills,
access to tools and supplies, cost/benefit information, extension skill development (training
needs assessment, teaching methods, advocacy), internet/web access, and provision of follow-up
mentoring for young scientists and extension workers after formal training programs have been
completed (Kitinoja et al 2011). And since training and capacity building needs will shift over
time as changes occur in the food value chains, continual formative evaluation to improve
programs is needed to ensure capacity building efforts continue to meet the needs of MENA
target audiences.
Kader (2010) provided a set of recommendations regarding postharvest handling for horticultural
crops, and these same recommendations summarize the needs regarding agro-industrial
development in the MENA region: Strategies for improving handling of food crops include: (1)
Application of current knowledge to improve the handling systems of food crops and assure their
quality and safety; (2) Removing the socioeconomic constraints, such as inadequacies of
infrastructure, poor marketing systems, and weak research and development capacity; and (3)
Overcoming the limitations of small-scale operations by encouraging consolidation and vertical
integration among producers and marketers of each commodity or group of commodities. To
succeed in reducing food losses and food waste, a recent World Bank/ FAO (World Bank 2011)
report on grain losses pointed out " interventions must be sensitive to local conditions and
practices, be viewed within a value chain lens, and ensure that appropriate economic incentives
are in place" (FAO Media online http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/79444/icode/).
5.7 National, Regional and International Support Required for Reduction of Food losses The agro industrial sector in the MENA region plays a key role in reducing food losses,
improving food availability, and thus reducing food insecurity. International and regional
programs can serve to promote the prevention of food losses by increasing awareness of the
severity of the problem, provide educational opportunities for MENA citizens and technical
assistance to existing organizations involved in production, postharvest handling, processing and
marketing of food products.
A current example is the SALASEL Pro-Poor Horticulture Value Chains in Upper Egypt joint
project, implemented by a number of specialized agencies and entities of the United Nations
working in collaboration with national stakeholders and funded by the Millennium Development
Goal Fund (MDG-F) from Spain. According to the program's leaders, its purpose is to support
pro-poor horticulture value chains in Upper Egypt with a view to improving their position in
export and domestic markets. "This will be done by promoting and supporting viable equitable
partnerships between small farmers and private sector investors in efficient pro-poor horticulture
value chains in the poorest Upper Egyptian Governorates. It includes integrated programmes that
help investors and entrepreneurs deal with technical regulations, standards, codes of good
practices and conformity assessment required by destination markets (UNIDO). In parallel,
operators and entrepreneurs will be supported on business development and advisory services
(UNDP), entrepreneurship development (ILO), gender equity (UN WOMEN) and marketing
activities (all UN agencies). In addition, the programme will also help in developing agro-
industrial value-adding activities based on local crops" (RFP SALASEL feasibility studies
2011). One company is being created based upon local feasibility studies and financial and
75
institutional assistance provided to the farmers by the program experts. SALASEL has also
established three agro-business offices in three different governorates staffed with expert
agronomists and marketing officers to provide the farmers with technical and marketing services.
The plan for these field offices is to integrate them in the farmer's owned companies by the end
of the two year long program, to make sure that these new economic entities can continue their
successes. "The market oriented approach is mixed with solid expertise in extension services to
help farmers plant and grow quality crops with added value throughout the chain" (personal
communication).
National programs can provide an improved business climate by reducing excessive regulations
and taxes, promoting business development services, providing grants for feasibility studies and
credit for appropriate agro-industrial projects. The UNFAORNE works with a wide variety of
national governmental agencies in the MENA region to provide technical assistance and
educational programs.
Many of the problems and issues being faced in the MENA region are similar to those being
encountered in other regions of the world. The UN FAO offices in West Africa, Southeast Asia
and other regions can all contribute to promoting improved agro-industrial development via
shared programs in policy formulation, adaptive research, education, training and capacity
building. The UN FAORNE should actively collaborate with existing organizations in order to
better share limited resources and plan more joint projects. Regional organizations and
development agencies are active in this field and would welcome the assistance of the UNFAO.
Global organizations such as the World Bank, AVRDC, BMGF and AGRA, and national
development organizations such as DFID, CIDA, JICA and USAID are all involved in this area
in one way or another.
5.8 Conclusions and Recommendations
In order for any of these efforts to be successful in reducing food losses, effective collaboration
is required between the academic, industry, public and private sectors. Promoting better linkages
and improved communication among the many actors in the agro-industrial sector would serve to
reduce duplication of efforts and increase the adoption of cost effective food loss prevention
practices. Effective communication, coordination and collaboration among research, extension,
and industry personnel involved in postharvest system are the keys to solve the problem of food
losses. In most cases the solutions to the existing postharvest losses problem require the use of
already available information and the application of available proper technologies rather than
conducting new research or developing new technologies.
Recommended steps include:
Establish a postharvest working group in each of the MENA countries, which should
adopt and disseminate science-based information about postharvest technologies to the
end users.
Calculating the cost benefit ratio or return on investments (ROI) for the various
postharvest technologies before dissemination of the technology.
Formation of marketing associations. These organization could provide services for a fee,
information centers (ask the expert or question and answer on a timely manner),
establishing a for-profit company to sell postharvest tools, equipment, and supplies
76
providing a one-stop shopping for members (at a discount), and supply of packaging
materials. Collaboration among marketing associations in different countries in the region
should be encouraged i.e., JEPA (Jordan) and HEIA (Egypt), regarding the development
of cold storage facilities in airport, and use of refrigerated trucks.
Training on quality and safety assurance, producers for agriculture extension agents
(village level workers), and private sector personnel concerned with quality and safety
producers/assurance of fresh produce.
Publishing and distribution of postharvest handling and storage "best practices" guides
for each food product.
Assessing and overcoming the socioeconomic constraints to achieving the goal of
reducing postharvest food losses.
Five baseline activities can help move the stakeholders of the MENA region into the directions
outlined and discussed in this report. These activities need to be implemented as soon as possible
via the collaborative efforts of the public and private sectors in order to reduce postharvest food
losses in MENA region and promote local agro-industrial development, enhance food security
and reduce reliance on food imports.
1. Survey the magnitude and causes of losses in quality and quantity during harvesting and
postharvest handling of major commodities and food products in each country in the region
(establish baseline data).
2. Assess locally available tools and facilities in each MENA country for harvesting, packaging,
transport, storage, processing and marketing of each commodity.
3. Determine return on investment of application of improved scale-appropriate technologies
intended to reduce losses, maintain quality and food safety.
4. Disseminate information on scale appropriate postharvest practices and technologies for fresh
and processed food products to a wide variety of target audiences and end users.
5. Identify problems in the agro-industrial sector which will need further problem solving
research.
77
6.0. References
Abdel-Bary, A.A, A.E.Aly, and El-Asdoudi, 1981. A National Survey of Rice Harvest Losses.
Rice Technology Training center. Alexadria, Egypt.
Abou-Hadid, Ayman, Kamal H. Batanouny, Amer S. Jabarine, and Adel A. Kader. 2005.
Proposal for Expanding the Crop Mandate for ICARDA to Include Horticultural Crops.
ICARDA: Aleppo, Syria
Abrahim, T. and E. Firdissa. 1991. Insect pests of farm-stored maize and their management
practices in Ethiopia. International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of
Noxious Animals and Plants/West Palaearctic. 23, pp.45-57.
Abul-Soud, M., D. O. El-Ansary and A. M. Hussein. 2010a. Effects of different cattle manure
rates and mulching on weed control and growth and yield of squash. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 6: 1379-
1386.
Abul-Soud, M., D. O. El-Ansary and A. M. Hussein. 2010b. Effect of agricultural residues and
mulching on growth and yield of cucumber plants under unheated plastic house. J. Biol. Chem.
Environ. Sci. 5: 459-478.
AGS/World Bank, 2010. Reducing Post-Harvest Losses. Lessons learned and practical
guidelines to address post-harvest losses in grain supply chains in Africa. Rome.
Ahmad. 2003. Food losses in Iran. FAO Report. FAO-RNE, Cairo, Egypt.
Al-Kahtani, S. H. and A. M. Kaleefah. 2011. Postharvest Technology impact on marketing loss
and economic resources losses for important vegetables and fruit crops in Saudi Arabia. A
technical project summary funded by King Abdul-Aziz city for science and technology, titled:
Agricultural marketing in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current situation, challenges, and solutions.
Al-Mahasneh, M. A., 2009. Jordan Agro-Industries Country Study Report.
Appiah, G. and P.K.A. Dartey. 2011. Post harvest losses of rice from harvesting to milling in
Ghana, Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest.2:64–71.
Asadi, A., M. Akbari, Y. Mohammadi, and G.Hossaininia. 2010.Agricultural Wheat Waste
Management in Iran. Basic and Applied Sciences, 4:421-428.
Badawi, A.T., 2003. A proposal on the assessment of rice post-harvest losses. CIHEAM –
Options Mediteraneennes. Conference Paper Document. Workshop on rice technology
Alexandria (Egypt), pp. 10-13.Available at:
<http://ressources.ciheam.org/om/pdf/c58/03400069.pdf> [Accessed on 15 May 2011].
Basappa, G., J.B. Deshmanya, and B.L. Patil. 2007. Post-Harvest Losses of Maize Crop, in
Karnataka-An Economic Analysis. Karnataka J. Agricultural Science, 20:69-71.
78
Bejiga, G., et al. 1998. Managing Wilt and Root Rots of Food Legumes in the Nile Valley
Countries, ICARDA Publication.
BenBelhassen, B., 2005. Global pulse markets: situation and outlook. CICILS-IPTIC, World
Convention, Cairo, Egypt. 1-2 June.
Blond, R. D. 1984. The agricultural development systems project in Egypt. Univ. Calif., Davis.
p.42-48 & 190-194.
Bonnie, Mc., 2000. Ensuring Food Security in Egypt: Food Subsidy, Income Generation and
Market Reform. Cairo Egypt, 25-26 May, 1999. Food policy 25:219-224.
Boeke, S.J., 2002. Traditional African plant products to protect stored cowpeas against insect
damage: the battle against the beetle. Wageningen, Netherlands.
Booker, R.H.,1967. Storage Losses in Legumes, 3(1). International Institute of tropical
Agriculture (IITA), September, 1992.
Brooks, J, E. and L. A. Fiedler.1994?.Vertebrate Pests: Damage on stored foods – USDA.
Clark N, A. Hall, R. Sulaiman and G. Naik. 2003. Research as capacity building: the case of an
NGO facilitated post-harvest innovation system for the Hymalayan hills. World Development
31:1845–1863.
de Jager, A. and H. de Putter. 1999. Preharvest factors and postharvest quality decline of apples.
Acta Hort. 485:103-110.
Delgado, C, Rosegrant, M., Seinfeld H., Ehui S. and Courbois C. (1999). Livestock to 2020: The
Next Food Revolution. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 28.
IFPRI/FAO/ILRI (International Food Policy Research Institute/Food and Agriculture
Organization/International Livestock Research Institute), Washington, DC
De Padua, D., 1978. Rice Post-Production and Processing: Its significance to agricultural
development. In Accelerated Agricultural Development. J.D. Drillon and D.F. Sangit, eds.
Laguna, Philippines: SERCA College.
De Padua, D., 1998. Rice Post-Harvest e-mail conference draft summary. Food and Agriculture
Organization-FAO. 1,2.
Dobie, P., 1982. Storage Losses in Legumes. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.
Doing business. 2011. Middle East & North Africa (MENA). A co-publication of The World
Bank and the International Finance Corporation. [Online]. Available: http://doingbusiness.org
Easter, Martin. 2011. Why and how to monitor hygiene and cleaning. International Meat Topics.
2 (2): 7-9.
79
Eid, M., 2009. Country Report – Lebanon. FAO-RNE, Cairo, Egypt.
El-Ansary, D. O. and G. Okamoto. 2007a. Effects of deficit irrigation strategies on vine water
status, canopy and cluster temperatures, fruit total phenolics, and the color of Muscat of
Alexandria table grapes. Sci. Rep. Fac. Agric. Okayama Univ. 96: 29-35.
El-Ansary, D. O. and G. Okamoto. 2007b. Vine water relations and quality of „Muscat of
Alexandria‟ table grapes subjected to partial root-zone drying and regulated deficit irrigation. J.
Japan. Soc. Hort. Sci. 76: 13-19.
El-Ansary, D. O., S. Nakayama, K. Hirano and G. Okamoto. 2005. Response of Muscat of
Alexandria table grapes to post-veraison regulated deficit irrigation in Japan. Vitis 44: 5-9.
El-Assi, N. 2002. Postharvest losses of peppers and squashes produced for local markets in
Jordan. Mutah Lil-Buhuth Wad-Dirasat 17:35-45 (in Arabic).
EL-Assi, N. 2004. Postharvest losses of tomatoes and eggplants produced for local markets in
Jordan. J. King Saud Univ. Agric. Sci. 17:37-46.
El-Beltagy, A. and A. Abu-Hadid. 2007. Main principles for the national program to maximize
the benefit of water in the old lands. Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, February,
Cairo, Egypt. (In Arabic).
El Hissewy, A.A., 1999. A study on the Yield Losses of Rice due to the use of traditional rice
mills and their effect on the national rice production in Egypt. Agriculture Research Center and
Academy of Science and Technology.
El-Lakwah, F.,1984. Situation of storage and protection of stored commodities against storage
pests especially at farmer‟s level in Egypt. 17th
International Congress of Entomology. Hamburg,
20-26 August, Abstract volume and report prepared for the GTZ.
El-Lakwah,F., 1995. Post harvest system of cereal grains in Egypt. Food and Agriculture
Organization-FAO.
El-Lakwah,F. and Laborius,A., 1995. Determination of weight losses of wheat stored in shounas
of the Principal Bank of Development and Agricultural Credit in various governorates in Egypt.
Annals of Agriculture Science, Moshtohor, Zagazig University.
El-Saedy, R. M., D. O. El-Ansary, N. I. El-Naggar and A. M. Hussein. 2011. Postharvest ozone
and hot water treatments increase storage life of Kent mango fruits at two maturity stages. Alex.
J. Agric. Res. 56: 97-108.
Elshazly, F.A. et al. 2009. A study of losses in some important agricultural crops. Unpublished
report of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Land
Reclamation, Giza, Egypt, 177 pp. (in Arabic).
80
European Commission. 2001. A Framework for Indicators for the Economic and Social
Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. Accessed online May 30, 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/sustain/index_en.pdf
FAO. 1981. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. U.N. Food Agr. Org. Agr. Serv. Bul. 43.
FAO. 2005. Regional Review on Aquaculture development.2.Near East and North Africa
FAO.2009. The State of Food and Agriculture – Livestock in the Balance
FAO. 2010. FAO/World Bank workshop on reducing post-harvest losses in grain supply chains
in Africa: Lessons learned and practical guidelines. FAO: Rome
FAO. 2011.The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11
FAO LEAD, 2006 Henning Seinfeld et al. 2006: Livestock Long Shadow. Also available at
www.FAO.ORG.http://www.virtualcentre.org
FAO/RNE (2010) Proceedings Regional Training Workshop on Implementation and Application
of Traceability systems for Food Supply Chains, Amman Jordan January 2009
FAOSTAT, Fisheries 2011 ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/STAT
Feleafel M. N., A. M. Hussein, A. H. Abd El-Razik and N. A. El-Shihy. 2004a. Effects of
nitrogen and potassium fertilizers rates and harvesting dates on the growth, productivity and
quality of sweet potato. I. Growth, productivity and tuberous roots character. Alex. J. Agric. Res.
49: 61-72.
Feleafel M. N., A. M. Hussein, A. H. Abd El-Razik and N. A. El-Shihy. 2004b. Effects of
nitrogen and potassium fertilizers rates and harvesting dates on the growth, productivity and
quality of sweet potato. II. Some chemical constituents of tuberous roots. Alex. J. Agric. Res. 49
:73-81.
Feleafel M. N., A. M. Hussein, A. H. Abd El-Razik and N. A. El-Shihy. 2005. Effects of harvest
date, NK fertilization and curing on storability and chemical constituents of sweet potato
tuberous roots during storage. Alex. J. Agric. Res. 50: 145-159.
Ferguson, I. B., W. Snelgar, J. H. Bowen and A. B. Woolf. 1999. Preharvest field heat and
postharvest fruit response. Acta Hort. 485:149-154.
Foresight. 2011.The Future of Food and Farming. Final Project Report. The Government Office
for Science, London. p. 94-95.
Gálvez, Eva. 2010.The rise of agrifood technopoles in the Middle East and North Africa region.
Papeles de Europa 21: 42-75
81
Gross, K., C.Y. Wang, and M.E. Saltveit (editors). 2004. The commercial storage of fruits,
vegetables, and florist and nursery stocks. USDA Agricultural Handbook 66.
(http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/hb66/index.html)
Grolleaud, M., 2002. Post-Harvest losses discovering the full story. Food and Agriculture
Organization-FAO. Harvesting Loss assessment.
Available at: <http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/rkb/index.php/measurements-in-
harvesting/harvesting-loss-assessment>.
Gustavsson, Jenny, Cederberg ,C., Ulf Sonesson , van Otterdijk,R. And Meybeck, A., 2011.
Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. FAO of the UN: Rome
(www.fao.org/ag/ags)
Hall, D. C. ,S. Ehui and C. Delgado.2004. The livestock revolution, food safety, and small-scale
farmers: why they matter to us all. J. Agric.& Environ. Ethic ,17:425-444, DOI: 10.1007/s10806-
004-5183-6
Harris, K. L. and C.J. Lindblad. 1978. Post-Harvest Grain Loss Assessment Methods: A Manual
of Methods for the Evaluation of Postharvest Losses. Minnesota: American Association of
Cereal Chemists.
Hashem, M.Y., 1999. Role of bruchid beetle Callosobruchus maculates (F) in faba bean yield
losses during storage and its control using inert gases. Integrated Protection in stored products.
23 (10), pp. 271-279.
Hassanein,M.S., 2000. Response of faba bean to phosphorus fertilizer. Annals of Agric. Sci.,
Moshtohor, vol.33: 987-997.
Hodges R.J., J.C. Buzby and B. Bennet . 2010. Postharvest losses and waste in developed and
less developed countries: opportunities to improve resource use. J. Agric. Sci. 149:37-45.
Hussein, A. M. 2005. Postharvest losses in fresh fruits and vegetables in the developing
countries. In: Crops: Growth, quality and biotechnology, III. Quality management of food crops
for processing technology. (R. Dris, ed.). WFL Publisher, Meri-Rastilan tie 3 C, 00980 Helsinki,
Finland.
Hussein, A. M., A. A. Ettman, M. M. Attia and D. O. El-Ansary. 2002. Postharvest chilling
sensitivity of Mabrouka, Mesk, and Keitt mango cultivars grown in Egypt. 2nd
Inter. Conf. Hort.
Sci. 10-12 Sept. Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta Univ., Egypt.
IAASTD. 2008. Agriculture at Cross Roads Volume 1: Central and West Asia and North Africa
(CWANA) Report Intergovernmental Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology
http://www.agassessment.org/
82
ICARDA 2005. Review of agriculture in the dry areas Caravan Issue No. 22, June 2005.
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dryland Areas Aleppo Syria
IFAD. 2002 Livestock and Rangeland Knowledgebase (LRKB). An interactive Internet sub-site
of IFAD's experience and lessons learned in supporting livestock development activities (animal
health, husbandry, breed improvement and management, and feed resources).
http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm.
IFAD. 2004. Livestock Services and the Poor. A Global Initiative. pp 132. A publication based
on a Multidonor effort (IFAD, DANIDA and the WB). http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/book/english.pdf
IFAD, 2011- Jordan -Project Performance Assessment (PPA) of the National Programme for
Rangeland Rehabilitation and Development–NRPP- June 2011). The report is still under the
finalization process by IFAD. The final version will be posted along with IFAD IOE reports in
IFAD website (www.ifad.org)
International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2011. Bread and Protests, the return of high food
prices.
International Rice Commission?The International Rice Commission 20th
Session (2002), Food
and Agriculture Organization- FAO. Bangkok, Thailand 23-26 July.
International Year of Rice, 2004. Food and Agriculture Organization – FAO.
International wheat production statistics, Available at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production_statistics>.
IFPRI (2011) Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, results and
policy options
IFPRI, 2010. Food Security and Economic Development in the Middle East and North Africa.
IRRI, (2009) as on website, Paddy Rice. Available at:
<http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/ericeproduction/pdf & Docs/Training Manual Paddy
Drying.pdf>
IRRI, 2009. Rice Policy – World Rice Statistics. Available at:
<http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat>. [Accessed 19 May 2011].
Jabarin (2002) SWOT analysis exercise carried out by HEIA
Jowkar, M. M., H. Mohammadpour, Z. Farshadfar and A. Jowkar. 2005. A look at postharvest in
Iran. Acta Hort. 682:2177-2182.
Jrad, S., 2009. Agribusiness & Agro-Industries in Syria – Damascus.
83
Kader, A. A. 1979. FAO consultancy report on postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables in
the Middle East. 133 pp.
Kader, A.A., ed. 2002. Postharvest technology of horticultural crops. Oakland: University of
California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3311, 535pp.
Kader, A. A. 2003. A perspective on postharvest horticulture (1978-2003). HortScience,
38:1004-1008.
Kader, A.A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce.
Acta Hort. 682:2168-2175.
Kader, A.A. 2006. The return on investment in postharvest technology for assuring
quality and safety of horticultural crops. J. Agric. Invest. 4:45-52.
Kader, A.A. 2010. Handling of horticultural perishables in developing vs. developed countries.
Acta Hort. 877:121-126.
Kamel, A., 1977. Stored products pests and byproducts as well as their methods, Agriculture
Research Center, Plant Protection Research Institute, Cairo.
Kantor, L.S. et al . 1997. Estimating and Addressing American Food Losses. FoodReview
January –April 1997
Kitinoja, L. 2003. Presentation: “Training in Postharvest Technology: Economic Opportunities
for Small-scale Horticultural Producers, Handlers and Marketers” Ministerial Conference and
Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology, Sacramento, CA. June 2003.
Kitinoja, L. 2005. Costs and benefits of changes in horticultural practices. Extension Systems
International, Woodland, CA.
Kitinoja, L. 2010. Identification of Appropriate Postharvest Technologies for Improving Market
Access and Incomes for Small Horticultural Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
WFLO Grant Final Report to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, March 2010. 318 pp.
Kitinoja, L. and S. Holben. 2010. Identification of appropriate postharvest technologies for
improving market access and incomes for small horticultural farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia. A presentation by WFLO to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on July 13, 2010
in Seattle, WA. [Online]. Available: http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-1848.pdf
Kitinoja, L. and A.A. Kader. 2002. Small-scale postharvest handling practices: A manual for
horticultural crops. Fourth edition. Davis: University of California, Postharvest Horticulture
Series 8E, 260pp.
84
Kitinoja, L. and R.F. Kasmire, R.F.2002. Making the Link: Extension of Postharvest
Technology, Chapter 38 in Kader, A.A. (ed), Postharvest Technology for Horticultural Crops
(3rd Edition), UC DANR Publication 3311. pp. 481-509.
Kitinoja, L., S. Saran, S.K. Roy, and A.A. Kader. 2011. Postharvest technology for developing
countries: challenges and opportunities in research, outreach and advocacy. J. Sci. Food Agric.
91:597-603. http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-1922.pdf
Kitinoja, L. and J.F. Thompson. 2010. Pre-cooling systems for small-scale producers. Stewart
Postharvest Review, 2010, 2:2, 14p.
Lee, S. K. and A. A. Kader. 2000. Preharvest and postharvest factors influencing vitamin C
content of horticultural crops. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 20: 207–220.
Mahdy, A. M., D. O. El-Ansary and A. M. Hussein. 2009. Effects of irrigation with wastewater
on levels of macro elements and heavy metals in Valencia orange trees grown in desert soil: I -
Uptake and partitioning during fruit development. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 34: 10245-
10261.
Mansfield F. 2005. Discipline, internal motivations, and cooperation in a rural production
cooperative. Environments 33:61–80.
Mansour, S. and C. Iglesias.2011. Egypt Grain and Feed Annual Black Sea Indundates Egypt,
Gain Report, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
Mejia, D.J. 2002. An overview of rice post-harvest technology: use of small metallic silos for
minimizing losses, Bangkok, Thailand, 23-26 July. Food and Agriculture Organization-FAO.
Mejia, D. 2003. Maize Overall Losses. Post-Harvest Operation, Food and Agriculture
Organisation-FAO.
Mejia, D. 2004. The International year of Rice. Food and Agriculture Organization-FAO.
Mitchell G. 1992. In: Postharvest technology of horticultural crops, Kader AA (Ed). University
of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 3311. 296 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 1978. Postharvest food losses in developing countries. Natl.
Acad. Sci., Wash., D.C.
Nukenine, E.N.,2010. Stored product protection in Africa: Past, present and future. 10th
International working conference on Stored Product Protection.
OECD-FAO. 2008. Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017. OECD and FAO secretariat. ISBN 978-64-
045590
85
Opara, L. U. 2003. Postharvest losses at the fresh produce retail chain in the Sultanate of Oman.
Australian-postharvest-horticulture-conference,-Brisbane,-Australia,-1-3-October,-2003, pp 248-
249 (abstract).
Parfitt J. et al. 2010 Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for
change to 2050 Philosophical Transactions: The Royal Society Phil.Trans. R. Soc. B 365
http://www.royalsocietypublishing.org
Philips, T.W.and J.E.Throne, J.E.2010. Biorational approaches to manage stored-product insects.
Annual review of Entomology. 55:375-397.
Poultry Middle East & North Africa .2011. ID LINES Strategies to control Salmonella in
Poultry. vol. 32 no. 215 http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/2041/strategies-to-control-
salmonella-in-poultry
Prigojin, I., E. Fallik, Y. Qat, L. Ajalin, H. Allam, M. Ezzat, M. Al Masri and M. Bader. 2005.
Middle East regional agricultural program – survey on postharvest losses of tomato fruit
(Lycopersicon esculentum) and table grapes (Vitis vinifera). Acta Hort. 682:1049-1056.
Proctor, D.L., 1994. Improvement to storage on the farm. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization-FAO.
RainForest Alliance .2010 Cattle Certification Standards (RainForest Alliance - Sustainable
Agriculture Network –SAN- http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/de/node/506
Ramos, B.M. 1982. Assessment of rice post-harvest losses in Egypt. Rice technology Training
Center, Alexandria, Egypt.
Rickard J E and D.G. Coursey.1979. The value of shading perishable produce after harvest.
Appropriate Technology 6(2):18–19.
Rota, A. 2010. Value chains, linking producers to markets. IFAD Rome Italy http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/factsheet/Valuechains.pdf
Rota, A. 2011. Family Poultry development towards the achievement of the UN Millennium
Development Goals 7th International Poultry Show and Seminar Dhaka, 25-27 March, 2011 A.
Rota Senior technical Adviser IFAD Rome Italy http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/22273/dhaka-hosts-international-poultry-show
Roy, S.K., 1989. Postharvest technology of vegetable crops in India. Indian Horticulture. Jan-
June: 76-78.
Rudolf, J.C.2011.One-Third of World‟s Food Wasted Report, The New York Times, Available at:
<http://green.blogs.nytimes.com>. [Accessed 13 May 2011].
Sabo, E. 2006. Participatory assessment of the impact of Women in Agriculture Programme of
Borno State, Nigeria. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 44: 52-56.
86
Sams, C. E. 1999. Preharvest factors affecting postharvest texture. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 15:
249–254.
Seevink, J. and Njie, D. (FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION/World Bank), 2010.
Cooperation on Post-harvest Losses Reduction in sub-Saharn Africa. Rome, Italy 18-19 March
2010.
Sere, C. 2011. More milk, meat and fish by and for the poor. Research proposal presented at the
CGIAT Fund Council Montpellier France April 2011
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilri/5695744303/
Sidahmed, A.E.2010. Utilization of Value Chain Analysis (VCA) in livestock development sector.
Presented at the 6th Interagency Livestock Development Group Meeting 4- 6 May 2010 IFAD,
Rome Italy, http://www.cop-ppld.net/cop_newsroom/detail/?uid=2930
Sidahmed, A.E.; A. Nefzaoui and M. El-Mourid. 2008 Livestock and climate change: coping and
risk management strategies for a sustainable future. pp. 27-28. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Livestock and Global Climate Change. 17-20 May 2008. Hammamet. Tunisia.
(En). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. . www.bsas.org.uk/downloads/LGCC_procdings.pdf
Sidahmed, A.E.1996. The rangelands of the arid/semi-arid areas: Challenges and hopes for the
2000s. Keynote address paper to Symposium D: Rangelands (inventory, monitoring, management
and improvement). The International Conference on Desert development in the Arab Gulf
Countries; Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR), Kuwait 23-26 March 1996. Published in
the Proceedings (www.kisr.edu.kw/data/site1/images/kisr_publications/9054104570.JPG)
Sió, J., J. Boixadera and J. Rosera. 1999. Effect of orchard factors and mineral nutrition on bitter
pit in „Golden Delicious‟ apples. Acta Hort. 485:331-334.
Spate Irrigation Network, Pakistan, 2010. Improving Local Grain Storage.
Taylor, D. M et al.2002. Final Report: Evaluation of Agriculture Technology Utilization and
Transfer Activity. Checchi/Louis Berger Joint Venture August 2002.
Taylor, N. 2007. Practical use of value chain mapping in improving efficiency of disease
surveillance and control. Vietnam: Veterinary, Epidemiology and Economic research Unit
University of Reading, http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/factsheet/valuechains.pdf
Thompson J. F., F.G. Mitchell, and R.F. Kasmire.2002. Cooling horticultural commodities. In
Postharvest technology of horticultural crops, Third edition, Kader AA (Tech. Ed). University of
California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 3311,pp. 97– 112.
Thompson J. F., F.G.Mitchell , T.R.Rumsey, R.F. Kasmire, and C.C. Crisosto.2008. Commercial
cooling of fruits, vegetables, and flowers. University of California, DANR Publication 21567.
87
Tolba, A., H. Allam, and H. Serghini. 2009. Commodity chain analysis of pomegranate and
winter onion in Egypt. A final technical report to ICARDA on August 29, 2009. (IFAD funded
project titled: Commodity chain analysis for selected horticultural exports in the MENA region,
Project coordinator: A. Aw-Hassan).
Tomala, K. 1999. Orchard factors affecting fruit storage quality and prediction of harvest date of
apples. Acta Hort. 485:373-382.
Ton, G (2008) Challenges for smallholder market access: a review of literature on institutional
arrangements in collective marketing. Stewart Postharvest Review 2008, 5:1. Published online
01 October 2008
Twiddy, D.R., 1994. Volatiles as indicators of fungal growth on cereal grains. Tropical Science,
34: 416-428.
UNDP, 2009. Development Challenges for the Arab Region: Food Security and Agriculture.
USAID 2010. Feed the Future (FTF) Research Strategy www.feedthefuture.gov
Vellema S and M. Danse.2007. Innovation and Development: Institutional perspectives on
technological change in agri-food chains. Markets, Chains and Sustainable Development
Strategy and Policy Papers [serial online] Available from:
http://www.boci.wur.nl/UK/Publications/
Winrock International.2009. Empowering agriculture: energy solutions for horticulture. USAID
Office of Infrastructure and Engineering and the Office of Agriculture; 79p. Available online:
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-1386.pdf
World Bank, 2001. Missing Food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa,
Report No. 60371-AFR.
World Bank.2009. Firm‟s productive performance and the investment climate in developing
economies: an application to MENA manufacturing, the World Bank, Washington.
World Bank. 2011a. Country & Region Statistics. [Online]. Available:
http://www.worldbank.org
World Bank.2011b.Missing Food: the case of postharvest grain losses in Sub-Saharan Africa.
REPORT No. 60371-AFR April 2011
World Resources Institute, 1998. Disappearing food; How big are the postharvest losses.
Available at: < http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8386>.
Yahia EM. 2005.Postharvest research and reality in developing countries. Acta Hort. 682:1655–
1666.
88
Yahia, E.M. 2010. Cold Chain Development and Challenges in the Developing World. Acta
Hort. 877:127-132.
Youdeowi, A.and M.W.Service. 1986. Pest and Vector management in the tropics. English
Language book Society/Longman, Singapore.
89
APPENDIX A: Biographical Statements of Authors
OMAR ABDIN is an assistant professor of Crop Science in the Department of Crop Science,
Alexandria University, Egypt. In 1997 Dr. Abdin was awarded a Ph.D. degree in Plant Science
from McGill University in Canada. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Abdin was closely
involved with the food processing industry in Egypt where he served for about three years as a
technical assistant to the industry through a USAID funded project aimed at assisting the food
industry in improving their agricultural raw material conversion efficiencies in terms of yield and
losses from its current state to be at par with world standards. He was then appointed by one of
the leading food processing companies in Egypt, Middle East and North Africa to serve for five
years as their Assistant Managing Director for Agricultural Projects, where in his close affiliation
with the private sector he handled both technical and commercial issues across the globe. In
2010 he was asked to work as an advisor to the Egyptian Ministry of Finance and to the Ministry
of Agriculture and Land Reclamation on Agricultural Policies where his main duties were to
initiate and manage inter-ministerial agricultural projects in the fields of dairy improvement,
grain handling and loss reduction, improving water use efficiency and a plan to add value to field
crops such as corn and wheat in an attempt to reduce the financial burden of food subsidies,
improve farmer incomes and produce safer food.
AWAD M. HUSSEIN is Professor Emeritus of Postharvest Physiology in the Department of
Pomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. Dr. Hussein‟s
activities included teaching of undergraduate and graduate courses on postharvest physiology
and technology of horticulture crops. Dr. Hussein is involved in extension and training activities
for small scale growers, handlers and marketers as well as consultant for large scale producing
and exporting companies of fresh produce in Egypt and other Arab countries (KSA & Yemen) as
well as TOT programs. Dr. Hussein is the founder and supervisor of the Alexandria Postharvest
Center (APHC) which offers research and training in postharvest physiology and technology of
horticultural crops. He produced several extension publications in postharvest technology in
Arabic. He is member of Egyptian Packaging Development Association (EPDA), ISHS, ASHS
and others. He was the Principle Investigator of postharvest activities for several USAID
supported projects in Egypt (ADS, NARP, ATUT) and In-country Representative of UCD for the
AERI-El-Shams project. Currently Dr. Hussein is the Executive Director of West Noubaria Rural
Development Project (WNRDP), an IFAD supported project in Egypt.
AMER JABARIN is an Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics. He is a senior
economist with over 20 years of experience in international development, in Jordan and
throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, in particular in socioeconomic assessments and
surveys, policy analyses, agribusiness development and marketing, environmental outreach,
strategic action planning and implementation, water users associations, and monitoring and
evaluation. Through this experience, Dr. Jabarin has gained a keen understanding of the unique
economic and water challenges facing the MENA region, honed and proven his skills to
collaborate with a wide range of decision-makers and to build coalitions and consensus, and
earned a reputation as a team builder who delivers sustainable results under the most strenuous
circumstances. Dr. Jabarin has investigated the marketing constraints facing some of the vital
sectors in the MENA countries. He has also examined the export opportunities of agricultural
products through estimating the marketing windows in potential export markets. Dr. Jabarin
90
prepared specialized training material and delivered training for more than 25 regional training
events in areas related to freeing trade, lobbying, advocacy and policy reform. He has also
prepared many business plans for potential export horticultural crops in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan,
Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan and Syria. Dr. Jabarin has completed several work missions in
all parts of Iraq with USAID and USTDA. He recently completed two assignments for US Trade
Development Agency in Morocco and Kurdish Regional Government for identifying investment
opportunities in large scale development projects. Dr. Jabarin has worked in several countries
including Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, USA, Yemen, Sudan,
Morocco, Uzbekistan, Qatar and Turkey. Since September 2009, Dr. Jabarin joined ECODIT
LLC, a US based firm as the Chief of Party for the USAID-funded Public Action for Water,
Energy and Environment project in Jordan, and he manages operations of this public education
and behavior change communication program. He has written over 120 major assessments,
studies, reports, and analyses.
ADEL A. KADER is Professor Emeritus of Postharvest Physiology in the Department of Plant
Sciences, University of California at Davis. Dr. Kader's activities included mentoring graduate
students and postdoctoral researchers, participation in teaching several courses on postharvest
physiology and technology of horticultural crops and extension of information to producers,
handlers, and consumers. He published more than 230 technical publications and edited and co-
authored a book on Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. In 1998, he initiated and
since then has edited the UCDavis Postharvest Internet Site (http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu). He
has served as a consultant on strategies for maintaining quality and reducing postharvest losses of
horticultural perishables both within the U.S. and in many other countries, including Chile,
China, Egypt, Ghana, India, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Thailand, and the Philippines.
He served as a member of the Editorial Boards of several scientific journals, the Scientific
Advisory Council of the World Food Logistics Organization, the Research Advisory Board of the
Produce for Better Health Foundation, and the California Citrus Quality Council. Dr. Kader
received awards for outstanding teaching in 1989 and for distinguished graduate mentoring in
2003 from the University of California at Davis and for best research publications in 1978 and
1980 from the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS). He was elected a fellow of
ASHS in 1986, President-elect in 1995, President in 1996, and Chairman of the Board of
Directors in 1997. He was selected as the Outstanding Horticulturist of 1997 by the Horticultural
Research Center at Laval University, Quebec, Canada. In October, 2000 Dr. Kader received the
“Award of Distinction” from the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and the
“Alumni Citation for Excellence” from the Cal Aggie Alumni Association at UCDavis. In April,
2010 he received an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Cartagena in Spain.
LISA KITINOJA has been involved as a private consultant in international horticultural
development work since the 1980s as owner of the firm Extension Systems International (ESI),
and has been specializing in postharvest technology, food loss reduction and the extension of
information on small-scale postharvest handling practices since 1992. She is currently serving as
Senior Technical Advisor for the World Food Logistics Organization, where she led the 2009-10
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded Appropriate Postharvest Technology Planning Project.
Also with WFLO she was involved in designing and implementing a series of USTDA funded
Cold Chain Management Workshops for India (2007-08) and is currently co-leading a USAID
funded HORT CRSP pilot project for development of a Postharvest Training and Services Center
91
in Rwanda (2010-13). Dr. Kitinoja is currently the owner of the consulting firm Cooperative
Ventures (CV), and the Founder of The Postharvest Education Foundation, a non-profit
corporation in the state of Oregon. She currently works with extension workers, scientists,
postharvest professionals and graduate students in the USA, Zambia, Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria,
Tanzania, India and Nepal and offers online mentoring for young postharvest professionals via
the website http://www.postharvest.org and the micro-blog http://postharvest.tumblr.com. As
Principal Consultant of ESI and CV, she worked on UNFAO and USAID funded projects in
Morocco, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, and has recently consulted on horticultural projects for
Agland Investments, DAI and Winrock International where she designed small scale
packinghouses for fruits and vegetable crops in Indonesia, Cape Verde and Pakistan, and
contributed on topics of postharvest technology for the USAID publication "Empowering
Agriculture: Energy Options for Horticulture". She served as a member of the Capacity Building
Virtual Working Group for the Global Horticulture Initiative (2007-08), and participated in the
Global Horticultural Assessment (2004-05). Dr. Kitinoja was the leader of strategic planning for
the development of several new horticultural research and educational programs at universities,
including the first of the UC RICS, the Vegetable Research and Information Center (VRIC) at
UC Davis in the USA, Punjab Agricultural University in India, and ICARDA in Syria. She has
written a wide variety of postharvest extension and training materials, including manuals with
colleagues at the University of California, Davis and served as a technical reviewer for the
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD/CWANA region). She developed and implemented “Train the Trainer” educational
programs in postharvest handling for public and private sector trainers working with fruit and
vegetable growers, handlers and marketers in the fore-mentioned countries as well as in Senegal,
Benin, the Philippines, Kenya and Chad.
AHMED E. SIDAHMED is Associate Director for Development and Partnership International
Program Office College of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences University of California
Davis. He holds a B.Sc. from the University of Khartoum, MSc & PhD from the University of
California at Davis (UCD) in agriculture, animal sciences, ecology- range livestock systems, and
a post doc in systems analysis and mathematical simulation of animal-plant interface. Dr.
Sidahmed has extensive experience in agriculture & rural development acquired through career
employment with Winrock International (USAID), FAO, IFAD, CGIAR (ICARDA) and UCD;
and consultations with the World Bank, African Union-IBAR, USAID and IFAD‟s External
Evaluation Office. Areas of expertise/ professional responsibilities: research, research
coordination, research director, senior technical adviser, program design, review, implementation
and evaluation. He worked extensively and lead programs in issues such as livestock-rangeland
management, knowledge management, climate change, biofuels, value chain analysis, animal
health (transboundary animal diseases and zoonoses), global livestock issues, agricultural
sustainability and risk management, and certification of agriculture and livestock commodity
standards. He led, managed advised, evaluated, reviewed, assessed development, research and
emergency programs; coordinated strategies, work plans, negotiated, raised funds, organized
consultations on global and regional livestock and rural poverty issues. He is founding member
of the Interagency Livestock Group (IADG), and is member of the International Standard
Committee Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) Rainforest Alliance. He was member/Chair
of the External Program Advisory Council (EPAC) for the Global Livestock-CRSP
USAID/UCD; was IFAD Representative at the OECD/DAC Poverty Network (POVNET) on
92
Pro-poor Agricultural Growth; was member of the Steering Committee - Programme against
African Trypanosomiasis (PAAT); was Focal Point for the Central Asia and West Asia
(CWANA) Sub-global Assessment of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD) ; was member of the Steering Committee for the
Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative; and was member: Rockefeller
Foundation‟s Strategic Planning Task Force for the preparation of the Strategic Plan for the
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) which was formed as a result of merging ILCA
and ILRAD. Dr Sidahmed is a member of review bodies of some periodical and professional
journals. He has resided and worked in Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle East and the USA.
93
APPENDIX B: Statistical Background on the MENA Region
Table B.1. Total area of MENA region countries in 1000 hectares
Country 2008
Algeria 238174
Bahrain 76
Egypt 99545
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 162855
Iraq 43737
Jordan 8824
Kuwait 1782
Lebanon 1023
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 175954
Mauritania 103070
Morocco 44630
Occupied Palestinian Territory 602
Oman 30950
Qatar 1159
Saudi Arabia 214969
Syrian Arab Republic 18364
Tunisia 15536
United Arab Emirates 8360
Yemen 52797
Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
94
Table B. 2. Area (in 1000 hectares) of agricultural land in the MENA region 1990-2008
Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008
Algeria 38676 39649 40021 41211 41309
Bahrain 8 9 9.2 8.7 8.4
Egypt 2648 3283 3291 3523 3542
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 61500 64208 62884 47631 48294
Iraq 10090 9690 9300 9750 9450
Jordan 1040 1114 1069 1013 973.5
Kuwait 141 142 148 151 151
Lebanon 605 609 595 653 686
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 15455 15515 15450 15585 15550
Mauritania 39656 39760 39750 39661 39661
Morocco 30343 30749 30652 29989 29981
Occupied Palestinian Territory 375 376 372 370.8 368.2
Oman 1080 1078 1080 1797 1794
Qatar 61 65 66 66 66
Saudi Arabia 123481 173785 173785 173717 173676
Syrian Arab Republic 13495 13789 13711 13828 13898
Tunisia 8644 9348 9551 9824 9881
United Arab Emirates 285 383 552 558 570
Yemen 23626 23736 23669 23523 23606
Total agricultural land 371,209 427,288 425,955 412,860 413,465
Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
95
Table B.3. Distribution of arable land (in 100 hectares) in the MENA region 1990-2008
Country 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008
Algeria 7081 7519 7662 7511 7489
Bahrain 2 2 2 1.5 1.4
Egypt 2284 2817 2801 2839 2773
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 15190 17388 14924 16533 17037
Iraq 5800 5350 5000 5500 5200
Jordan 179.2 252 190 185 149.5
Kuwait 4 5 10 12 11.4
Lebanon 183 180 129 141.7 144
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1805 1870 1815 1750 1750
Mauritania 400 498 488 400 400
Morocco 8707 8921 8767 8122 8055
Occupied Palestinian
Territory 109 111 102 106 101
Oman 35 35 38 60 55
Qatar 10 13 13 13 13
Saudi Arabia 3390 3655 3592 3500 3446
Syrian Arab Republic 4885 4799 4542 4675 4699
Tunisia 2909 2842 2864 2730 2835
United Arab Emirates 35 43 60 64 65
Yemen 1523 1633 1545 1287 1279
Total Arable Land 54,531 57,933 54,544 55,430 55,503
Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
96
Table B.4. Actual and projected population by country in the MENA region 1995-2008
(1000)
Country 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030
Algeria 28265 30506 32855 35423 40630 44726
Bahrain 578 650 728 807 953 1085
Egypt 63858 70174 77154 84474 98638 110907
Iran (Islamic Republic
of) 62205 66903 70765 75078 83740 89936
Iraq 20971 24652 28238 31467 40228 48909
Jordan 4304 4853 5566 6472 7519 8616
Kuwait 1725 2228 2700 3051 3690 4273
Lebanon 3491 3772 4082 4255 4587 4858
Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya 4834 5346 5923 6546 7699 8519
Mauritania 2270 2604 2985 3366 4091 4791
Morocco 26951 28827 30495 32381 36200 39259
Occupied Palestinian
Territory 2617 3149 3762 4409 5806 7320
Oman 2172 2402 2618 2905 3495 4048
Qatar 526 617 885 1508 1740 1951
Saudi Arabia 18255 20808 23613 26246 31608 36545
Syrian Arab Republic 14610 16511 19121 22505 26475 30560
Tunisia 8935 9452 9878 10374 11366 12127
United Arab Emirates 2432 3238 4089 4707 5660 6555
Yemen 15523 18182 21024 24256 31635 37013
Total 284522 314874 346481 380230 445760 501998
Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
97
Table B.5. Actual and projected agricultural population by country in the MENA region
1995-2008 (1000)
Country 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020
Algeria 7208 7369 7399 7393 6911
Bahrain 9 7 6 5 3
Egypt 24529 24315 24200 23592 21271
Iran (Islamic Republic
of) 18211 17734 16880 16160 14786
Iraq 2497 2275 2015 1722 1252
Jordan 485 445 428 409 313
Kuwait 20 25 29 31 35
Lebanon 179 137 105 77 41
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 369 305 243 196 119
Mauritania 1222 1370 1535 1690 1968
Morocco 10128 9711 9016 8367 7180
Occupied Palestinian
Territory 387 374 365 350 302
Oman 881 871 843 829 769
Qatar 10 8 9 11 7
Saudi Arabia 2575 2114 1708 1335 785
Syrian Arab Republic 4171 3934 4165 4506 4274
Tunisia 2267 2250 2193 2131 1979
United Arab Emirates 152 161 159 144 109
Yemen 8130 8694 9213 9409 9047
Total 83430 82099 80511 78357 71151
Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
98
Table B.6. Actual and projected total economically active population by country in the
MENA region 1995-2008 (1000)
Country 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020
Algeria 9018 11071 13093 14950 17813
Bahrain 263 305 346 384 442
Egypt 18531 20935 24160 27492 33162
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 18288 22193 26623 30746 35830
Iraq 5018 6001 6929 7918 11138
Jordan 1160 1301 1559 1882 2269
Kuwait 823 1137 1383 1541 1731
Lebanon 1190 1318 1456 1563 1754
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1517 1844 2152 2425 2774
Mauritania 913 1066 1249 1441 1870
Morocco 9015 10144 11027 11963 13649
Occupied Palestinian
Territory 866 1038 1271 1508 2017
Oman 778 884 967 1123 1385
Qatar 284 334 559 976 1112
Saudi Arabia 5752 6906 8370 9570 11876
Syrian Arab Republic 4240 4838 6003 7365 9151
Tunisia 2829 3181 3510 3886 4447
United Arab Emirates 1309 1878 2547 2914 3454
Yemen 3370 4062 4991 6022 8407
Total 85164 100436 118195 135669 164281
Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
99
Table B.7. Unemployment rates in the MENA region (%)
2005 2006 2007 2008
Algeria 15.3 12.3 13.8 11.3
Bahrain
Egypt 11.2 10.6 8.9 8.7
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 11.5 11.3 10.5 10.4
Iraq 18.0 17.5 15.3
Jordan 14.2
Kuwait 1.5 1.3
Lebanon 9.0
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Mauritania
Morocco 11.0 9.7 9.6 9.4
Occupied Palestinian Territory 30.1 31.0 30.0 37.9
Oman
Qatar 0.9 0.5 0.3
Saudi Arabia 6.3 5.7 5.1
Syrian Arab Republic
Tunisia 14.2 14.3 14.1 14.2
United Arab Emirates
Yemen 16.1 15.7 15.4 15.0
Source: Online FAOSTAT, 2011
100
APPENDIX C: The Gini Index
The Gini index is usually used in economic and social research to measure income inequalities
within a country and to compare income inequality between countries and between separate
geographical regions of a country. The coefficient is defined based on the Lorenz curve, which
plots the proportion of the total income of the population on the vertical axis (cumulative share
of income earned) and plots on the horizontal axis the cumulative share of people from lowest to
highest as indicated by figure 1.6. The line at 45 degrees thus represents perfect equality of
incomes. The Gini coefficient can then be thought of as the ratio of the area that lies between the
line of equality and the Lorenz curve (marked 'A' in the diagram) over the total area under the
line of equality (marked 'A' and 'B' in the diagram); i.e., G=A/(A+B). In other words, the Gini
Index is calculated by shaping the difference between existing conditions of a certain country or
district and perfect income equality.
A score of 100 indicates perfect income inequality. A score of zero indicates perfect income
equality. According to Wikipedia, the Gini coefficient can range from 0 to 1; it is sometimes
multiplied by 100 to range between 0 and 100. A low Gini coefficient indicates a more equal
distribution, with 0 corresponding to complete equality, while higher Gini coefficients indicate
more unequal distribution, with 1 corresponding to complete inequality. The more nearly equal a
country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its
Gini index. The most recent estimate of the Gini index shows that Namibia ranks the highest at
74.3 while Denmark is at the bottom of the list at 24.7. This means, income is highly equally
distributed in Denmark while in Namibia income is most unequally distributed.
Figure 1.6. Determining Gini coefficients for a selected country or district
Source: Courtesy of Wikipedia. WWW.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
101
APPENDIX D: Production and trade of animal source foods in the MENA region
Table D.1 Production of ASFs in MENA region
Meat
Milk Egg
1000 tonnes Annual
GR%
1000 tonnes Annual
GR%
1000 tonnes Annual
GR %
1995 2007 1995-2007 1995 2007 1995-2007 1995 2007 1995-2007
Country
Algeria 497 588 1.4 1168 1647 2.9 132 170 2.1
Bahrain 16 14 -1.2 16 11 -3.4 3 2 -1.5
Egypt 991 1428 3.1 2732 4608 4.5 162 240 3.3
Iran 1330 2323 4.8 4540 7596 4.4 466 880 5.4
Iraq 111 179 4.1 341 630 5.2 21 50 7.6
Jordan 124 144 1.3 148 313 6.4 44 45 0.1
Kuwait 66 75 1.0 35 45 2.1 11 22 5.7
Lebanon 91 201 6.9 208 241 1.3 26 47 5.1
Libya 168 148 -1.3 159 203 2.1 44 60 2.6
Mauritania 54 90 4.4 284 355 1.9 5 5 1.2
Morocco 494 745 3.5 920 1565 4.5 195 168 -1.2
O Palestine T 92 204 38
Oman 29 51 5.0 94 136 3.2 6 9 3.2
Qatar
Saudi Arabia 472 723 3.6 662 1242 5.4 132 174 2.4
Syria 264 396 3.4 1414 1977 2.8 103 170 4.3
Tunisia 183 249 2.6 591 1012 4.6 62 82 2.4
United Arab Emirates 93 91 -0.2 59 100 4.4 12 17 3
Yemen 128 259 6.0 207 318 3.7 18 52 8.9
MENA Total 5111 7796 2.9 13578 22203 3.3 1442 2231 3.2
GR = Growth Rate
102
Table D.2 Sources of Meat in MENA region
Country
Poultry
1000 tonnes
Cattle
1000 tonnes
Sheep
1000 tonnes
1995 2007 1995 2007 1995
2007
Algeria 208 260 101 121 178 196
Bahrain 5 5 1 1 10 7
Egypt 407 666 215 320 91 61
Iran 660 1444 255 354 377 496
Iraq 37 97 40 50 31 28
Jordan 108 133 4 4 12 7
Kuwait 26 42 2 2 38 31
Lebanon 58 130 18 53 11 17
Libya 103 100 22 6 36 34
Mauritania 4 4 10 23 21 39
Morocco 197 410 122 160 132 137
O Palestine T 69 5 18
Oman 4 6 3 4 17 35
Qatar
Saudi Arabia 310 560 26 24 88 99
Syria 93 133 34 57 137 205
Tunisia 68 124 50 58 54 66
United Arab
Emirates
22 36 11 10 51 30
Yemen 47 123 41 73 38 60
MENA TOTAL 2357 4342 955 1325 1322 1566
103
Table D.3 Trade in livestock products in MENA Region
Country
Livestock Import Livestock Export
1000 tonnes
Annual GR% 1000 tonnes Annual GR%
1995 2006 1995-2006 1995 2006 1995-2006
Algeria 541.4 873.2 4.4 1.8 4.2 8.1
Bahrain 82.5 137.8 4.8 0.2 6.6 40.3
Egypt 352.4 558.3 4.3 6.4 36.2 17
Iran 210 203.6 -0.3 0.4 99.6 64.1
Iraq 38.5 245.7 18.4
Jordan 144.3 241.4 4.8 17.5 86.9 15.7
Kuwait 278.4 395 3.2 3.8 6.9 5.6
Lebanon 223.2 278.5 2 0.4 11.7 34.7
Libya 117.8 223.8 6 0 0.2
Mauritania 16.9 45.7 9.5 0.0 0.0
Morocco 117 141.7 1.8 3.4 99.8 35.8
O Palestine T 55 2.6
Oman 184.1 325.6 5.3 15.9 86.7 16.7
Qatar 87.9 238.8 9.5 6.4 4.3 -3.5
Saudi Arabia 978.1 1971 6.6 117 548.2 15.1
Syria 36.7 106.6 10.2 5.8 114.4 31.1
Tunisia 69.7 52.3 -2.6 8.7 7.3 -1.5
United Arab
Emirates
474.5 1037.4 7.4 56.1 107.8 6.1
Yemen 112.5 233 6.8 2.9 10.6 12.6
Total/aver. 4065.9 7364.4 5.7 246.7 1234 15.7
104
APPENDIX E: Morocco Traceability decrees
Traceability: ability to trace food, feed, and food producing livestock or substance that would be
used in consumption, through all stages of production, processing and distribution (FAO, May
2010).
Box E.1: TRACEABILITY Decrees -Morocco: Products of Animal Origin
(a.) Law 49-99. Stipulated the health measures required for better management of poultry farms and for
the control, production and marketing of poultry products. The law envisaged traceability by means of:
• Making prior authorization obligatory (by requiring an authorization number).
• Requiring mandatory registering of a range of materials used for keeping and/or treating poultry
including additives and other authorized chemical substances such as for medicines fed to birds.
• Mandatory registration of the origin of the birds – with the provision of an appropriate document
showing breed, source of purchase, etc. (and confirmed by an authorization number).
(b.) Decree 05 May 1999. Provided mandatory control for production of meat products. The decree
provided for traceability through:
• Principle of prior authorization (with provision of an approval number).
• Assurance that meat products only came from healthy livestock (that had been approved).
• Making the manufacturer better aware of quality of the products made; requiring registration of
producers, livestock health, control measures taken and similar.
(c.) Decree 07 December 2000. Related to the control, production and marketing of milk and dairy
products. It envisaged traceability through the:
• Obligations required by anyone keeping dairy cattle for commercial purposes to register their
livestock with the local veterinary services.
• System of labeling of milk and dairy products, which became obligatory.
Source: FAO, 2010
105
106