Connections
Paper series on transatlantic trade and development policy issues
Analysis
May 6, 2011 Number 2
Summary: Despite the enormous
prospect for horticultural
production to contribute to
food security and income
generation in the developing
world, persistently high rates
of losses prevent horticulture
from reaching its full potential.
Even today, after decades of
donor support for agricultural
development, post-harvest
losses remain staggeringly high.
At a time when transatlantic
donors are faced with delivering
on high-profile food security
and development commitments
abroad and working within
austerity-constrained budgets at
home, preventing post-harvest
loss could have some of the
most significant impacts on the
food security of the poorest of
the poor, at very low cost.
The views expressed here are
the views of the authors alone
and do not necessarily reflect
the stance of the German
Marshall Fund of the United
States.
1744 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
T 1 202 683 2650
F 1 202 265 1662
E info@gmfus.org
Cutting Their Losses:
Using Scarce Food Security and Development
Resources to Combat Post-Harvest Loss
and Provide Support for Women
By Symantha Holben and Kathryn Ritterspach
Introduction
In July 2009, representatives of the G8
club of wealthy countries1 gathered in
L’Aquila, Italy, and pledged to take a
concerted stand against food insecu-
rity in the developing world. Their
message was powerful: “Food security,
nutrition, and sustainable agricul-
ture must remain a priority issue on
the political agenda, to be addressed
through a cross-cutting and inclu-
sive approach, involving all relevant
stakeholders, at global, regional, and
national levels.”2 Since that pledge was
made, policymakers on both sides of
the Atlantic have committed billions
of dollars to various funds and
programs dedicated to fighting food
insecurity.
One major component of both food
security and economic development
more broadly is the ability of the
millions of smallholder farmers — for
whom small or micro-scale farming
is the primary source of livelihoods
1
G8 members include Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.
2
L’Aquila Joint Statement on Global Food Security,
endorsed by the G8 et al, L’Aquila, Italy: 10 July 2009.
Available at http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Alle-
gato/LAquila_Joint_Statement_on_Global_Food_Security
percent5B1 percent5D,0.pdf
in sub-Saharan Africa and other
developing regions — to sell surplus
crops. Horticulture is a particularly
important sub-sector in this regard.
Horticulture refers to crops such as
root crops, tubers, fruits, vegetables,
herbs, and flowers — crops that can
be grown intensively on small plots of
land. Horticultural crops are culti-
vated by most of the world’s poorest
farmers. Importantly, these crops
include foods like tomatoes, okra,
and leafy greens, which are critical
to a diversified, nutritious diet. By
supporting the ability of smallholders,
the vast majority of whom are women
— to produce, transport, and sell
horticultural produce, policymakers
and development practitioners help
spur a virtuous circle of nutrition on
the farms themselves, increased access
to food through the marketplace,
and increased incomes for women,
which in turn further bolsters nutri-
tion through women’s investments
of increased earnings in the family.3
Commitments to provide support to
3
When women earn more money from the crops they
produce, they tend to invest in their families by providing
more food, preventative health care, and education for
their children. Haddad, L. and J. Hoddinot, 1995. “Does
female income share influence household expenditure
pattern?” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics
57(1):77- 96.
Analysis
Connections
smallholders, and especially women appear in both the U.S.
Feed the Future Guide and the European Commission’s
2010 communication on addressing food security chal-
lenges.4
While women play a crucial role in agriculture and food
security in developing countries by providing up to 80
percent of the labor inputs for the production, processing,
and marketing of food crops, their contribution to formal
agriculture and the overall economic development process
continues to be undervalued. In addition to providing
much of the agricultural labor, women also bear almost the
entire burden of household work, including water and fuel
wood collection and food processing and preparation.
While men typically have greater access to land, credit, and
networks, women can become the drivers of agricultural
productivity if special attention is placed on supporting
horticulture and programs are designed to accommo-
date and address the needs of both men and women. This
paper will outline concrete ways in which transatlantic
donors can better support trade in horticulture and make
an important contribution to attempts at improving aid
effectiveness, using trade as a tool for development and
bolstering food security.
Towards Comprehensive Food Security Policies:
The Importance of Post-harvest Loss Prevention
Despite the enormous prospect for horticultural produc-
tion to contribute to food security and income generation,
persistently high rates of losses prevent horticulture from
reaching its full potential to jump-start this virtuous circle.
Even today, after decades of donor support for agricultural
development, post-harvest losses of horticultural crops
have been documented by field studies in sub-Saharan
Africa and Asia to typically range from 30 to 80 percent,5
mainly due to high rates of bruising, water loss, and
subsequent decay during post-harvest handling.6 The losses
include not only the visible damage to fruits and vegetables
that end up sorted out and discarded before they arrive
at market, but also invisible quality losses such as loss of
4
“Feed the Future Guide May 2010,” a U.S. Government Initiative, available at http://
www.feedthefuture.gov/FTF_Guide.pdf, and “Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the
5
Post-harvest losses of fruits and vegetables have been documented by recent field
studies funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as part of the World Food Logis-
tics Organization’s Appropriate Post-Harvest Technology planning project, 2009-2010.
6
Ray, R.C. and V. Ravi, “Post-harvest spoilage of sweet potato in tropics and control
measures,” Critical Review of Food Science Nutrition, 2005, No. 45: 623-644
2
nutrients and threats to food safety such as bacterial toxins
and mycotoxins. Both physical and quality losses lead to
decreased market value for horticultural products, and
hence less income for farmers.
Past and current efforts to improve horticultural value
chains have overwhelmingly focused on productivity, based
on the belief that smallholders need to produce larger
surpluses to participate in markets. Donors and national
governments have invested millions of dollars to provide
fertilizer, seeds, machinery, and training to farmers, all
geared towards increasing yields. While improving the
productivity of smallholder farmers is an important part of
efforts to improve their lives, it is only part of the picture.
One culprit in the lack of salable surplus is that small-
holders produce too little; equally, if not more important, is
the fact that they lose too much.
Post-harvest losses for horticultural products in developed
countries usually range from 20 to 25 percent. Sometimes
referred to as “plate waste,” these losses tend to cluster in
the steps of the value chain closest to the consumer – those
involved in the storage, transport, and retailing of horti-
cultural products bear the brunt of sorting and quality
losses. In developing countries, by contrast, 30 percent to
50 percent or more of fruits and vegetables are lost at the
farm or in the early transport and processing phases, so the
smallholders or early intermediaries are bearing substan-
tive losses. These losses are related to temperature manage-
ment and physical damage as a result of poor handling,
high ambient temperatures, and unsuitable packaging and
transport practices. Recent assessments documented 40
percent losses of the tomato harvest in India; 40 percent of
eggplants in Ghana; 70 percent of mangoes in Benin; and
80 percent of bananas in Rwanda — all losses related to
poor post-harvest handling.
Transatlantic Aid in Times of Austerity:
The Implications for Donors
At a time when donors are faced with delivering on high-
profile food security and development commitments
abroad and working within austerity-constrained budgets
at home, preventing post-harvest loss could have some of
the most significant impacts on the food security of the
poorest of the poor, at very low cost. Reducing post-harvest
losses can increase food availability, relieve the need to
bring larger areas of land under cultivation, and conserve
natural resources.
Analysis

Connections
The prevention of post-harvest Table 1
loss is cost-effective because at the
smallholder level, it can require No cost/low cost post- Practical application in sub-Saharan Africa
little more than knowledge-sharing harvest technology
and awareness-building. In addi- Use of harvest indices Public information campaigns using posters or infor-
tion, many of the basic technolo- mation cards - pictorial format indices to illustrate
gies needed to better handle and when crops should be harvested
transport horticultural produce Improved field packing Simple sorting, trimming, grading and packing can
are readily available to smallholder methods during harvest take place in the field; mobile, raised field packing
farmers. The challenge for donors stations
and development practitioners Sanitation Use of disinfected water to wash produce; other sani-
is to shift the focus from simply tation practices to reduce microbial contamination
producing more to wasting less,
Curing Field curing for root, tuber, and bulb crops to extend
by promoting no-cost /low-cost
storage life
technologies and training in post-
harvest best practices for small- Shade Simple shade using locally available cloth, netting, or
holders. market umbrellas protect produce from the sun as it
moves from the farm to market
There are many well-known, simple Improved containers Smaller crates or bags; collapsible crates; cardboard
post-harvest technologies that liners for rough packages
could have an enormous impact
Air cooling to reduce Night air ventilation of simple insulated storage struc-
on smallholder earnings, nutrition,
temperatures tures
and health. Table 1 shows examples
of such technologies, which are all Low-energy cool storage Zero energy (bricks and sand model) cool chambers
relatively low-cost, easy transferred practices
to smallholders, and often show Low-tech, small-scale Evaporatively cooled insulated boxes made to fit into
immediate benefits and improved cool transport a pickup truck bed or to be carried on a bicycle or a
profits.7 wagon
Improved low-cost, Indirect solar drying methods; canning, bottling, and
The World Food Logistics Orga- low-technology food pickling based on local recipes and cultural prefer-
nization (WFLO), supported by a processing methods ences
grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, conducted field trials Filling the Gap: The Need to Improve upon Past Policies
on 19 post-harvest technologies in sub-Saharan Africa and Failure to address post-harvest loss can have a huge impact
India. The research identified eight categories of interven- early in the agricultural value chain. Efforts to increase
tions that were found to reduce losses, maintain quality, production can be rendered meaningless (and thus repre-
and/or increase market value of horticultural products, sent a significant waste of resources) if the increased yields
while at the same time are easy to use, low-cost, and are lost before they ever make it to market. Downstream
locally available in developing countries. The WFLO team interventions, such as providing better access to market
conducted cost/benefit analyses of these 19 post-harvest information or improving rural roads, will be of little use to
interventions, and found that 81 percent have the potential farmers who are unable to preserve their crops. Of course,
to raise incomes among the poorest of the poor by at least any comprehensive food security strategy will address all
30 percent. These are the potential gains if post-harvest these issues — but without a systematic, concerted focus on
losses are addressed, even at current levels of agricultural proper on-farm handling, packaging, and storage, the cycle
production. of post-harvest losses will continue to undermine efforts
and investments made at every other step along the value
7
Kitinoja, L. and A. A. Kader, Small-Scale Post-Harvest Handling Practices: A Manual for chain.
Horticultural Crops, 4th edition, University of California, Davis, 2003; Kitinoja, L. and J.R.
Gorny, Post-Harvest Technology for Small-Scale Produce Marketers: Economic Opportu-
nities, Quality and Food Safety, University of California, Davis, 1999.

3
Analysis
Connections
Reducing post-harvest losses for fresh produce has been
demonstrated to be an important part of sustainable
agricultural development efforts meant to increase food
availability.8 Despite this, during the past 30 years, less
than 5 percent of donor funding provided for horticultural
development efforts has gone toward promoting post-
harvest technologies and practices to reduce losses, while
more than 95 percent has gone toward trying to increase
production.9
During the past 30 years, less
than 5 percent of donor funding
provided for horticultural
development efforts has gone
toward promoting post-harvest
technologies and practices to
reduce losses, while more than
95 percent has gone toward trying
to increase production.
Furthermore, of the few agricultural development proj-
ects that made investments to address horticultural
post-harvest losses, the majority focused on large-scale
infrastructure (packhouses, transportation, storage
facilities), with these large investments and the attendant
training being made only in the final year or the final
months of the project – far too late to have a sustainable
impact on farmers’ lives. At the same time, when basic
post-harvest practices and technologies were promoted,
they remained in use. Interviews with the former staff,
local government counterparts, and farmer beneficiaries of
8
Kader, A. A. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh pro-
duce, Acta Horticulture, 2005.
9
Donors and national governments have offered fertilizer, improved seeds, machinery,
and training, all geared towards increasing yields. Kader, A. A. and R.S. Rolle “The Role
of Postharvest Management in Assuring the Quality and Safety of Horticultural Produce,”
Food and Agriculture Organization, 2004.
4
12 such donor-funded development projects revealed that
37 of the 44 basic technologies/practices promoted are still
in use (84 percent).
Analysis of the reasons for adoption and success of specific
post-harvest technologies shows that the simpler the post-
harvest technology, the more likely it is to be used over the
long term. Sustainability also depends upon profitability
for the smallholder in the local setting: if adopting a simple
technology or best practice offers farmers the potential to
make more money, the use of that technology or best prac-
tice will be maintained and passed on.10
Donor investments will continue to be wasted whenever a
crop is lost during post-harvest handling before it can be
eaten or sold. Smallholders bear the brunt of the losses, not
only of food, but also the land, water, fertilizers, and human
labor that went into producing it. At a time when trans-
atlantic donors are increasingly focused on ensuring aid
effectiveness, eradicating food insecurity, and promoting
trade as a sustainable path to development, these concerns
are of paramount importance.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Effective food security policies will require attention to
all parts of the value chain, allowing farmers of all sizes
to grow, harvest, package, transport and process both
food and cash crops for local, regional and international
markets.11 However, far too many development interven-
tions have failed to recognize the importance of preventing
post-harvest losses among smallholders as a key link in this
chain. By improving post-harvest handling in cost-effective
ways, transatlantic partners can assist smallholders to
better access and participate in their local and regional
markets and to gain more from their farming efforts, both
in terms of nutrition and incomes.
Moreover, the gender and equity focus of most agricultural
development projects remains weak. Women who receive
education in improved horticultural practices will have
the chance to make better decisions regarding their crop
10
Examples of the most enduring basic technologies include the use of maturity indices
to identify proper harvest timing; improved crates or sacks to protect produce from dam-
age during handling and transport; the use of shade; sorting and grading to enhance
market value; and the use of on-farm storage. Improved practices are adopted if they
can be easily integrated into an existing value chain; small steps to improve traditional
practices are more acceptable to risk-averse smallholders than large changes.
11
See “African Markets and Trade: Critical Links to Global Food Security,” by Katrin
A. Kuhlmann and a German Marshall Fund-led coalition of experts and practitioners,
Washington, DC: April 2010.
Analysis
Connections
production and harvesting practices, earn higher income,
move into supervisory roles if or when opportunities
present themselves in their communities, or become small-
scale horticultural entrepreneurs.
The following are specific recommendations for transat-
lantic policymakers and development practitioners as they
attempt to get the most out of their pledges to address food
insecurity.
At the transatlantic policy level:
• Break out of the deeply ingrained habit of focusing
targets overwhelmingly on increasing agricultural
production, and invest in preventing waste by miti-
gating post-harvest losses. Incorporate knowledge-
sharing on basic post-harvest techniques into country
and regional implementation plans for ongoing food
security initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic.
• Recognize when funds may be better spent on
promoting basic technologies, and avoid building
expensive, complex storage infrastructure that is diffi-
cult or expensive for smallholders to utilize, manage,
and maintain over the long term. This shift in focus to
basic, sustainable interventions could be an important
component of aid modernization efforts, such as the
newly launched USAID Forward initiative.
• Cooperate at the transatlantic and multilateral levels to
fund and disseminate common tools such as illustrated
instruction manuals on proper use of simple on-farm
technologies.
• Develop decision-making models based on cost/benefit
analyses of post-harvest technology options in each
local context. These will guide development practitio-
ners to promote technologies with the greatest poten-
tial to increase smallholder food security and incomes.
At the project level:
• Promote basic and tested post-harvest interventions
that are of appropriate scale, cost-effective for small-
holders, easy to use, and have proven capacity to
generate increased incomes.
• No single post-harvest technology can substitute for
the many integrated steps necessary to ensure the
success of horticultural value chains. Promote an
integrated post-harvest management system, where
smallholder farmers are trained by locally based post-
harvest specialists, provided with business skill devel-
opment, access to market information and credit, and
linkages with buyers.
• Extension and outreach innovations should target
smallholder farmer and women’s groups, providing
post-harvest education in local marketplaces where
women work and shop, forming new women’s
marketing groups, or using posters with colorful
illustrations rather than written materials to impart key
post-harvest information to illiterate target audiences.
• While promoting better post-harvest practices, assist
farmers to become active marketers, rather than being
passive price takers. Encourage farmers to take on
more responsibility for their crops and become direct
marketers by learning how to grade, pack, handle, and
sell their produce directly to the retailer.
About the Authors
Symantha Holben was the international programs manager for the
World Food Logistics Organization, and project manager at the Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation. She holds a Ph.D. in cultural anthro-
pology with a focus on agriculture and natural resource management
from the Catholic University of America.
Kathryn Ritterspach is a research assistant for the Economic Policy
Program at the German Marshall Fund. She holds a Master’s degree
in international political economy from the London School of
Economics.
About GMF
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a non-
partisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedi-
cated to promoting better understanding and cooperation between
North America and Europe on transatlantic and global issues. GMF
does this by supporting individuals and institutions working in the
transatlantic sphere, by convening leaders and members of the policy
and business communities, by contributing research and analysis
on transatlantic topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to
foster renewed commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addi-
tion, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democra-
cies. Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany as a permanent
memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong
presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters
in Washington, DC, GMF has six offices in Europe: Berlin, Paris,
Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest. GMF also has smaller
representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm.