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