Annexes

Annex 1

1. Comments on the analytical framework

The framework is presented as a draft conceptual framework for the systematic analysis of the post-production system. It is intended as a guide to the selection and interpretation of information, the identification and prioritisation of interventions and the assessment of opportunities for improvements. The need for a systematic approach to the analysis of the post-production system was recognised and developed in the mid 1970’s but specifically in relation to post-harvest loss assessment and loss reduction. The framework further develops this approach and sets out the logical steps to be followed in the analysis. The approach is all the more important in the post-liberalisation era. In the liberalised economy off-farm post-production issues have become critical and the relationship between on-farm and off-farm operations requires careful examination.

Five steps are identified for the framework:

1. Country analysis and role of food production
2. Economic and institutional analysis of the marketing chain
3. Actor analysis and social context
4. Analysis of constraints and bottlenecks
5. Appropriateness of technical interventions by operation and agro-ecological zone.

Steps 1 and 2 and to some extent Step 3, can largely be addressed through desk study and examination of secondary information. The exercise in Zambia has highlighted the need for a period of background desk study in advance of field work for Step 4. The use of information from previously conducted surveys can improve the efficiency of studies in Step 4. Its use can avoid duplication of effort in collecting the same information; it can provide background information allowing the new survey to be placed in context; and it permits a better focus for field studies.

However, care is needed in interpreting or incorporating secondary data as circumstances may have changed, especially in a system as dynamic as the post-production system. Hence, there may be a need to reconfirm or cross-check information from previous studies. For example, in Zambia, the study addressed the hammer milling sector but the background study had highlighted a major, representative study of the sector in 1994. The mission could not hope to repeat such an analysis and so an attempt was made to verify data and main conclusions from the 1994 study, at least for the districts visited.

An important aspect of Step 3, Actor analysis, not stressed in the framework, is that this has value, not only for the identification of informants, but also for target groups for possible interventions. For example, should information be sought from, or interventions targeted at, men, women, or both?

In Step 4, which requires a high level of field work, five main areas of concern are identified:

• Interruptions or imperfections in the chain of operations before food reaches its destination.
• Access to resources.
• Acceptability of innovations.
• Affordability of innovations.
• Appropriateness of public policy, service delivery, collective institution and action.

This step presents some difficulties. Activities at this step will almost certainly highlight the need to re-visit steps 1-3.

The results of addressing the first two areas of concern (interruptions or imperfections in the chain of operations and access to resources) will provide insights into:
(a) possible interventions or innovations; and (b) whether the resources available will be sufficient to support these interventions or innovations. The assessment of the fifth area of concern (appropriateness of public policy etc.) will indicate the degree to which this might support or hinder the adoption of an innovation.

It is only after these three areas of concern have been addressed that one can realistically begin the assessment of acceptability and affordability of a proposed intervention or innovation - i.e. is it technically sound and socially and economically acceptable? This must come as a next step and must follow a participatory, client-oriented approach. This process, involving consultation between investigators and clients will be time consuming. The framework should not be regarded as a short-cut to introducing interventions or innovations.

When assessing the acceptability of interventions it is important to consider post-production constraints in the context of the whole crop system (production and post-production). If the farming community attaches higher priority to production constraints (for example, difficulties with input supplies for maize in this study) then it will be necessary to tackle these before, or in parallel with the post-production constraints.

It is recognised that during the course of analysis, a number of earlier interventions or innovations may be encountered. The framework will allow some preliminary conclusions to be drawn on acceptability and affordability, but further, more detailed, analysis may be needed.

Step 5 of the framework addresses appropriateness of technical interventions by operation and ecological zone. One can proceed with this assessment only in parallel with or after assessing the sociological and economic acceptability and appropriateness.

The framework stresses the need to examine linkages between stages of the system but this idea is not carried into the checklist for Step 5, given in Annex 5 to the framework - Possible Technological Interventions. This seems to attempt the impossible and is likely to give a false impression of what is technologically acceptable. It does not address all the options for the different stages of the system under each of the agro-ecological areas. As a single example: under storage, the impression is given that traditional storage systems are appropriate in only two of the agro-ecological zones and that ‘new’ or ‘improved’ storage structures are suitable only for the remaining three. Traditional systems are likely to cope with small quantities of grain, particularly where traditional varieties are concerned, across all agro-ecological zones. Similarly there may also be opportunities for introducing ‘new’ structures in all zones

The checklists proved useful in guiding the type of questions to be asked by the different disciplines. However, the framework suggests that the checklists should be transferred into questionnaires. This term suggests a rigid structure. Information gathering should be conducted using rapid informal survey methodology to allow investigators to pursue unforeseen issues that may arise during the course of the field work. Questionnaires into which specific pieces of information can be fitted may be useful. However it was more appropriate to use a checklist of points to be addressed as an aide memoire when conducting semi-structured interviews and group discussions.

The checklists given in the framework must therefore be used as guide and the investigator must feel free to omit issues and/or add others as necessary so that the final checklist is matched to the specific situation in which the survey is to be conducted. If an attempt is made to include all points given in the framework checklist there is a danger that the survey may become too broad and unfocussed.

The approach to data gathering adopted in this exercise was mainly through discussions with individual key informants, group discussions and interviews with individuals.

Where the information sought was mainly descriptive, widely available or known and non-controversial, key individuals were contacted. (For example data concerning number of households, training centres or schools, roads, extension staff, and farm households).

Group discussions were used to collect information which was not expected to vary significantly, e.g. crops produced, major steps in the post-harvest system, types of storage structure, changes in pest population or changes in climate. Information was also gathered on, for example, the range of crop quantities produced, stored and marketed, income generated, level of labour utilisation and rates of pay. However, it was recognised that this information is more sensitive and a reliable picture cannot be expected from group discussions, particularly where one or two individuals dominate. Interviews were conducted with individuals or with small groups of 1 or 2 people to elicit the more sensitive information and to confirm points raised in the group discussions.

A possible disadvantage of focusing the survey in the districts in which the SPFS (or in the case of Mansa, where other assistance projects are operating), was that the very presence of these projects is likely to influence the way in which respondents react. It was evident that there is by now a degree of what might be termed ‘consultant fatigue’ amongst some groups of respondents and there is a risk that they will have anticipated the type of response that the consultants would want to hear, rather than describing the situation as it really exists.

Annex 2

2. Changes in the total area under cultivation and production levels for selected crops

Table A2.1 Area (Hectares) Planted Under Different Food Crops 1991/92 - 1996/97

Source: Economic Report 1996, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development;

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

* Estimates

** Final Crop Forecast

Table A2.2 Crop Production Trends For The Main Food Crops 1991/92 to 1996/97 (90Kg bags)

Source: Economic Report 1996, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development;

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

* Estimates

** Final Crop Forecast

Source: Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries

Source: Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries

Annex 3

3. Economic analysis of a sunflower enterprise compared to maize in Kalomo District

The following table shows the enterprise gross margin on a per hectare basis for sunflower and maize. Information was obtained from small farmers in Nantale Camp, Kalomo District. The table demonstrates the benefits of diversifying from maize into sunflower.

The total cost per hectare for sunflower production in 1997 is K50,274. The average yield per hectare of sunflower is 10 bags (of 50 kg) thus the total revenue per hectare is K65,000 given the prevailing farm-gate price of K6,500 per bag. The gross margin for sunflower per hectare for 1997 is estimated at K14,726.

During the same season and location, a farmer planting 1 hectare of maize would incur a total variable cost of K264,708. The average yield of maize per hectare is 30 bags (90kg). With a farm-gate price for maize of K7,000 per bag, the expected revenue per ha is K210,000 resulting in a negative gross margin per hectare of K54,708.

If the farmer was to replace one hectare of maize with sunflower he would cut the loss of K 54,708 and gain an extra K14,726. Thus a total gain per hectare from diversification would be K69,434.

The benefits of diversification from maize into sunflower increase considerably if the sunflower seed is processed into oil. The analysis below assumes that sunflower seed is processed using a hired Yenga press.

It takes two people one day to process a 50kg bag of sunflower seed; one to operate the press and one to feed the press and heat the oil after pressing. The average daily wage is K1,000.

Each 50 kg bag of sunflower produces 15 bottles (750 ml) of cooking oil and
30 kg of sunflower cake.

The farm-gate price of 50 kg of sunflower is K 6,500; each bottle of oil sells at K1,800; and a 50 kg bag of sunflower cake sells at K 8,000.

‘Hire charges’ for the press are: half the amount of oil and all the cake produced.

Sale of 15 bottles of Oil = K 25, 200

Cake = K 4,800

Cost of sunflower seed = K 6,500

Labour costs = K 2,000

Cost of hiring Press - oil = K 12,600

Cost of hiring Press - cake = K 4,800

Thus a farmer can realise an extra K 4,100 per 50 kg bag of sunflower if the seed is processed. If the total yield of sunflower is 10 bags per hectare, and all seed is processed the gross margin per hectare for sunflower increases from K14,726 to K55,726